Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Queens Gambit Reversed (Read 11792 times)
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #30 - 11/19/05 at 03:10:57
Post Tools
Quote:
My view (which I take to be the traditional one) is that saying that (for instance) the Tarrasch "doesn't offer equality" doesn't equate to saying that it is "bad."  I think that to describe a defence as "bad" implies that it enables White (with best play) to reach a clear (or indeed decisive) advantage, not just a slight one.  (Naturally these categories are somewhat arbitrary, evaluations are made in the light of imperfect knowledge, and presumably a "+=" will become "=" if the analysis [with best play on both sides] goes deep enough.)  It seems a possible state of affairs that the Tarrasch (in its most critical line[s]) is (at least more like) "+=" while some other defences are (more like) "=".  This state of affairs would (on this view) be consistent with the following statements, the first two of which I would say are equivalent:  1.  The Tarrasch is playable; 2.  The Tarrasch is not bad; 3.  There are better defences than the Tarrasch.  



 



Better ??  Why?  And do you know of a line which stops Black from being equal in this opening?  The Tarrasch is a fighting approach, an ambitious defense to 1.d4.  Why is it worse than other defenses?   IF you don't know the cold hard facts (or moves ir you prefer) of the  issue, if you dont know the truth of this line, you can not say it  is worse or better than....

  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #29 - 11/17/05 at 21:24:28
Post Tools
Now, I definitely see Horizon Effect.  Wink
  

CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #28 - 11/17/05 at 16:18:16
Post Tools
My view (which I take to be the traditional one) is that saying that (for instance) the Tarrasch "doesn't offer equality" doesn't equate to saying that it is "bad."  I think that to describe a defence as "bad" implies that it enables White (with best play) to reach a clear (or indeed decisive) advantage, not just a slight one.  (Naturally these categories are somewhat arbitrary, evaluations are made in the light of imperfect knowledge, and presumably a "+=" will become "=" if the analysis [with best play on both sides] goes deep enough.)  It seems a possible state of affairs that the Tarrasch (in its most critical line[s]) is (at least more like) "+=" while some other defences are (more like) "=".  This state of affairs would (on this view) be consistent with the following statements, the first two of which I would say are equivalent:  1.  The Tarrasch is playable; 2.  The Tarrasch is not bad; 3.  There are better defences than the Tarrasch.  



 

 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #27 - 11/17/05 at 15:29:12
Post Tools
MNB,

What about my issue with this ?

--You ask, and I will tell you when and where you said the Tarrasch is bad.  I quote you:  " As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian..."

MNB, when you say the Tarrasch does not offer equality think really hard on what that implies.  Why would anyone play this or that if it does not offer equality might be a question of style but objectively, it is a good question.  If it does not offer equality, it is bad in my opinion.

There is no truth in the idea that with perfect play, White is better.   You can not say you have evidence of that.  That is just a theory, a hypothesis, an idea... NOT A FACT.   
--------------------------

Should we leave it at that ?  It's fine with me.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
castlerock
God Member
*****
Offline


Erro Ergo Sum

Posts: 842
Location: Chennai
Joined: 02/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #26 - 11/16/05 at 23:07:22
Post Tools
Do I see Horizon Effect here?

Thank you, X and where are you? Wink
  

CastleRock
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #25 - 11/16/05 at 22:50:51
Post Tools
Quote:
This last post gives me (again) another good reason not to debate with you, Bladez.

Where did I write that the Tarrasch is bad? I wrote that Black has better defences available than the Tarrasch.
And I also could go on and on answering your irrelevant rhetorical questions.
In stead I will paraphraze your words:
before this thread gets nasty, I am out.
Bye.  Wink Tongue Lips Sealed


You ask, and I will tell you when and where you said the Tarrasch is bad.  I quote you:  " As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian..."

MNB, when you say the Tarrasch does not offer equality think really hard on what that implies.  Why would anyone play this or that if it does not offer equality might be a question of style but objectively, it is a good question.  If it does not offer equality, it is bad in my opinion.

There is no truth in the idea that with perfect play, White is better.   You can not say you have evidence of that.  That is just a theory, a hypothesis, an idea... NOT A FACT. 

There is no perfect play since humans are not perfect.  It looks like in every major opening White one day is better and tomorrow Black is equal or better and then the cycle repeats.  Sometimes some lines for white or Black are found no good until... if  an impovement comes, I should add.

I can say that with perfect play Black will always show white that the game is equal.  Who has the evidence to tell me I am wrong.  No one does.  That is food for thought.

The better prepared or the better player wins.  However, the truth must be sought and only when the truth is known are we able to make statements that this is bad and this is good. And I mean all the possibilities must be known and the outcome of those possibilities known as well.

When you dont know the truth, making statements like this opening is good or the opening does offer anything, thos statements hold no water, they are just fluff, regardless of who makes them.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #24 - 11/16/05 at 20:54:03
Post Tools
"So I maintain that "+=" is indeed White's birthright and that Black's choice is merely what sort of += he wants."

While this is a very legitimate point of view, shared by Fischer and Karpov, there is also another one: that after a couple of moves the position is so complicated, that this birthright is meaningless. I only want to point out this other option, once expressed by Tal. I don't want to convince you.

"There is, altogether among strong players, too much aping of what GMs play."
Yes, very true, but you hardly can accuse me of this, with my repertoire ... So just like Bladez you should keep on playing the Tarrasch, if you feel comfortable with it. Variety keeps chess alive.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #23 - 11/16/05 at 10:15:08
Post Tools
Quote:
Here I disagree. I think the initial position is about equal. As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian; against 1.e4 the Sicilian Najdorf.
I also remember the time, that Kasparov had success with the Tarrasch. Everybody was curious, what Karpov would play. The answer was convincingly given in their first match.

But of course, all this is no reason to avoid the Tarrasch Defence at lower levels. There the handling of the resulting middle game positions is the deciding factor.


Well, it appears that we disagree.  I think you misunderstand what "+=" means.  I doubt that many would maintain that the initial position is won for White, or that it is necessarily won in any subsequent positions customarily evaluated "+=."  It merely means that with highly skillful but not necessarily perfect play by both players, White is more likely to achieve the win than Black.

An evaluation like "+=" would make no sense as a prediction of what would happen with perfect play by both players: the only evaluations that would make sense in that context would be +-, =, and -+.  That is why we don't see "+=" in discussions of the theoretical endings, since that subject is entirely concerned with what consitutes perfect play.

In this customarily sense of "+=," it does most definitely apply to the initial position.  It is almost universally conceded  that with good play from that position, Black's task is significantly more difficult than White's.  I personally believe -- and I think many share this view -- that with good play, White can continue to impose upon Black the burden of defending a somewhat worse position, until a theoretical ending is reached and "+=", assuming good play by Black all along the way, resolves into "=".

So I maintain that "+=" is indeed White's birthright and that Black's choice is merely what sort of += he wants.

On the subject of the Tarrasch, I think that Black is not lost, nor is his position terribly difficult to defend if he understands how to play IQP position down to the bitter end.  There is a good section in Aagard's Tarrasch book, by the way, on how to defend these uncomfortably simple IQP endings.  I do concede that against good play, it is fairly easy in the Tarrasch for Black to fall into a position where all the winning chances are White's.  That, more than any belief that it is unsound, is why it isn't played very much at the highest levels.

Since Black is lost neither in the Tarrasch nor in the Nimzo, the choice between them should depend on which sort of positions a player considers himself to be more skillful in.  I know that I personally do not have the skill at structural, blockading chess that I have at simple, classical chess in which the pawns take central space, the pieces flow easily forward, and dilatory play by my opponent is met by my siezing the initiative.  I further submit that for most people reading this, the same is true.  It seems obvious to me that for these people, the Tarrasch is definitely not a worse choice than the Nimzo. 

There is, altogether among strong players, too much aping of what GMs play.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #22 - 11/16/05 at 05:47:17
Post Tools
This last post gives me (again) another good reason not to debate with you, Bladez.

Where did I write that the Tarrasch is bad? I wrote that Black has better defences available than the Tarrasch.
And I also could go on and on answering your irrelevant rhetorical questions.
In stead I will paraphraze your words:
before this thread gets nasty, I am out.
Bye.  Wink Tongue Lips Sealed
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #21 - 11/15/05 at 23:31:07
Post Tools
" Why do we see it hardly on 2700+ level then?"

You dont know the answer ?  If you are implying it is because the Tarrasch is bad...  I refer you again to my comments on opening fashions.

Why do we see it hardly on 2700+ level then?
Is not a correct answer that sheds the true light.  You can not conclude it is bad because " we hardly see it at the 2700+ level."

 That is not solid and concrete basis.  

Grischuk has played many openings and has stopped playing some, are they bad ??  Kramnik stopped playing 1.d4 in general , is it bad ?  Kasparov stopped playing Grunfeld, is it bad ?  Shirov stopped playing French regularly, is it bad ?  Should I go on about this ??

Theory on the Tarrasch has changed (as you should expect) since Karpov -- Kasparov.  Until you know that the Tarrasch has no lines for Black to equalize YOU can not say White will always be better.  If you dont know the truth, you can't claim this.

Last, I was not challenging you to a game.  I was challenging to put forth the evidence, the moves, the line in which White absolutely stops Black from equalizing.  IF you dont know it, you should do the true thing and withdraw your input that Black can not equalize.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #20 - 11/15/05 at 22:04:22
Post Tools
"Even at the GM level the Tarrasch is good."

Why do we see it hardly on 2700+ level then? While I agree with your comments on opening fashion in general, your beloved KID is much more popular.
Since 1984 Kasparov has never played the Tarrasch anymore. Grisjuk has played it several times, but it seems he has given it up too. To me it looks like the Tarrasch Defense is in about the same position as the KG.
By no means I want to convert you, Bladez. If you think the Tarrasch is good, then play it. As I have played 1.e4 all my life and my available time is not unlimited, I must decline your challenge. But I might turn it around: I challenge you to improve on Kasparov's play in 1984. Who knows, when I grow tired of the Dutch, I might consider the Tarrasch myself ....
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #19 - 11/15/05 at 20:16:47
Post Tools
Quote:
Here I disagree. I think the initial position is about equal. As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian; against 1.e4 the Sicilian Najdorf.
I also remember the time, that Kasparov had success with the Tarrasch. Everybody was curious, what Karpov would play. The answer was convincingly given in their first match.

But of course, all this is no reason to avoid the Tarrasch Defence at lower levels. There the handling of the resulting middle game positions is the deciding factor.



Even at the GM level the Tarrasch is good.  Dont misinterpret the fad.  The popularity of openings come and go.   I wrote about this in the thread about : " A suitable defense to 1.d4 " . 

I mean, what "proof"  or better yet, what line in the Tarrasch takes away the possibility to be equal ?  Do you know it?  Do you know the moves?  If you do know, please publish it, there are lots of people who would pay for this info or they would really want to know it, me being one of them.

I found out that the popularity of an opening is affected many times by perceptions and many perceptions are not based on concrete and solid evidence, only ideas.

I remember when the KID was huge then it was not, then it looks  like it is on the rise again.  It was the same thing with the QGA.  It was the same thing with the Tarrasch.  I dont want to say too much about this issue of popularity and about preaching to play only what is popular and avoid what is not popular because I have said a lot about this on the other thread I mentioned.

To those who prepare well, the Tarrasch will give them a good game.  I am of the opinion that the Tarrasch suits those who want to fight for the initiative and are ambitious and want to play with energy.

I challenge the statement that the Tarrasch is += for White.  I challenge you and whoever says it to show the line.   I also play the King's Indian defence, the Tarrasch and the KID are both ambitious defenses and I challenge those who think that White can stop Black from ever finding equality i these two openings.

Remember theory comes and goes, it changes with time and practice.  But it all happens when one is searching, finding, and discovering the truth of chess, the truth about a position or a line (s).
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #18 - 11/15/05 at 19:56:23
Post Tools
Quote:
2...c5 is a perfectly respectable move, and probably his best move if he is willing to play a Tarrasch.   Best play then is 3. c4 e6.  



In case you did not know, Black is not forced to play a Tarrasch.  Where is the statement " ...if he is willing to play a Tarrasch"  coming from ?

For example,  3. c4 dxc4 4. d5 e6   as in the Anand -  Ivanchuk game is also good.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #17 - 11/15/05 at 01:05:13
Post Tools
I certainly agree that most players shouldn't worry about whether the Tarrasch is ultimately "=" or "+=".  I was thinking of the theoretical aspect.

It seems that the development of opening theory in recent years/decades hasn't been kind to White's "birthright" (or as the late American GM Edmar Mednis called it, White's "normal opening advantage").

[Parenthetically I would like to say I believe that Mednis was a fine writer and, having worked with him at several chess camps, a gentleman.]

I suppose we can take the evaluations given in ECO as a decent index.  My recollection is that, in the early editions of ECO, White was considered to be able to reach (at least) "+=" in most openings, but that has no longer been the case in the recent editions.  Major defences such as the Petroff, the QGA and the Slav which used to be given (in the "best play" lines) as += are now considered = (or, perhaps equivalently for purposes of this discusssion, "unclear" or "with compensation").  I think the first couple of editions of "the blue ECO" showed a path to += for White in every line of the Ruy/Spanish with the exception of the Marshall (where "unclear" and "with compensation" were ubiquitous).  In a recent edition, I believe I counted five systems in which Black could avoid +=.  (I believe they were the Marshall, the "Neo-Archangel" [with ...Bc5 instead of ...Bb7], the Flohr-Zaitsev, Romanishin's 11...Nc6 and 11...Bb7 in the 9...Na5 Closed lines.)

I guess this can be seen in light of the fact that a "correctly" played game is (almost certainly) a draw, and as opening analysis becomes deeper/more sophisticated it is pushing the evaluations in that direction, thus many "+="s are becoming "="s. 
     
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10506
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #16 - 11/14/05 at 22:00:52
Post Tools
Here I disagree. I think the initial position is about equal. As the Tarrasch does not offer equality, there are better defences - against 1.d4 the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian; against 1.e4 the Sicilian Najdorf.
I also remember the time, that Kasparov had success with the Tarrasch. Everybody was curious, what Karpov would play. The answer was convincingly given in their first match.

But of course, all this is no reason to avoid the Tarrasch Defence at lower levels. There the handling of the resulting middle game positions is the deciding factor.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #15 - 11/14/05 at 21:40:22
Post Tools
The important thing to remember is, with best play after 1. d4 or 1. e4, White's birthright is +=.  Black's entire choice is what kind of += he wants.  The main reason that the Tarrasch is avoided at the top, I think, is that with very good play by White, it tends to produce the particular sort of += where Black has essentially no winning chances and prospects of a dreary ending.  I don't think that that is a reason against playing it below the top levels, particular since it leads to nice, fluid development with chances of taking over the initiative. 

It's funny; people couldn't say enough good things about it when Kasparov was playing it.  Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, so they say.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #14 - 11/14/05 at 17:17:51
Post Tools
Quote:
2...c5 is a perfectly respectable move, and probably his best move if he is willing to play a Tarrasch.   Best play then is 3. c4 e6.  


Your statement seems to entail that the Tarrasch is better (for Black) than 3...dc with the idea of playing as in the aforementioned Anand-Ivanchuk game.  Perhaps you could expand on that.  I wonder what the Sakaev/Semkov(?) book has to say about the latter line.

Speaking of the Tarrasch, I've noticed a rather interesting difference of opinion in (fairly) recent books.  Some relegate it to a sort of second-tier status; for example NCO evaluates the critical lines as slightly better for White, and Watson in "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" says that it is considered rather marginal at top level.  On the other hand, recent editions of ECO and Small ECO think that Black always has a way to reach equality (or "unclear," or "with compensation"), and so could be taken as representing that the Tarrasch is as good as any other defence to 1. d4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #13 - 11/14/05 at 15:48:55
Post Tools
Quote:
Hmm ...yeah.  Have to agree with you there.  I paid insufficient attention to 9...Qb6 in my earlier thinking. 
Actually I thought that I would probably want to meet ...Qb6 in such positions with Qb3.  But here after 10. Qb3 a line like 10...Ne4 11. Bh4 Be6 looks plenty active for Black.  White needs to go back to the drawing board.

By the way, I just looked this up in an old ECO.  It gives 7...Nf6 as dubious, citing a Lasker-Tarrasch game which went 8. Bg5 0-0 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Qxd5 Bxc3 (since 11...Qxd5 12. Nxd5 Bxb2 is tactically faulty) 12. Qxd8 Rxd8 13. bc with a slight advantage to White.  But in my earlier theorizing I suggested 9...Be6 as satisfactory for Black, and I still don't see anything wrong with it.

So that seems to shift the focus back to 3. c4 as White's main try.  The question there seems to be whether Black can do better than a transposition to the Tarrasch (since White seems to have "normal" chances for an edge there).  I would have thought that 3. c4 dc 4. d5 e6 5. Nc3 would usually transpose to a line of the QGA which is rated "plus over equals."  But a quick ECO check shows no mention of 5...a6, and I would think that the continuation of Anand-Ivanchuk should be rated as equal.  So it appears to me that the ball is in White's court as far as showing any advantage against 2...c5.

(addendum)
More accurately, the issue seems to be:  what if White plays 3. c4 dc 4. d5 e6 5. Nc3 a6 6. a4 Nf6 7. e4 ed 8. e5 (instead of Anand's 8. ed).  That is, does the inclusion of ...a6/a4 represent a change in Black's favour (the equivalent position without the a-pawn moves is considered slightly better for White).  I don't have any thoughts to offer on that right now.



   



2...c5 is a perfectly respectable move, and probably his best move if he is willing to play a Tarrasch.   Best play then is 3. c4 e6.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Simmons
Guest


Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #12 - 11/09/05 at 09:06:18
Post Tools
Hello,

7...Ne7 in the line discussing earlier was played in  famous Capablanca v Rubinstein, the only one where Capa managed to win. It is analysed in several books. I agree black has good IQP position here, in this particular line a temp up on standard French Tarrasch positions.
     I don't really trust the Anand v Ivanchuk continuation. There was another thread on this opening, but can't seem to find it at the moment.

Bye John S
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #11 - 11/08/05 at 03:13:22
Post Tools
Hmm ...yeah.  Have to agree with you there.  I paid insufficient attention to 9...Qb6 in my earlier thinking.  
Actually I thought that I would probably want to meet ...Qb6 in such positions with Qb3.  But here after 10. Qb3 a line like 10...Ne4 11. Bh4 Be6 looks plenty active for Black.  White needs to go back to the drawing board.

By the way, I just looked this up in an old ECO.  It gives 7...Nf6 as dubious, citing a Lasker-Tarrasch game which went 8. Bg5 0-0 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Qxd5 Bxc3 (since 11...Qxd5 12. Nxd5 Bxb2 is tactically faulty) 12. Qxd8 Rxd8 13. bc with a slight advantage to White.  But in my earlier theorizing I suggested 9...Be6 as satisfactory for Black, and I still don't see anything wrong with it.

So that seems to shift the focus back to 3. c4 as White's main try.  The question there seems to be whether Black can do better than a transposition to the Tarrasch (since White seems to have "normal" chances for an edge there).  I would have thought that 3. c4 dc 4. d5 e6 5. Nc3 would usually transpose to a line of the QGA which is rated "plus over equals."  But a quick ECO check shows no mention of 5...a6, and I would think that the continuation of Anand-Ivanchuk should be rated as equal.  So it appears to me that the ball is in White's court as far as showing any advantage against 2...c5.

(addendum)
More accurately, the issue seems to be:  what if White plays 3. c4 dc 4. d5 e6 5. Nc3 a6 6. a4 Nf6 7. e4 ed 8. e5 (instead of Anand's 8. ed).  That is, does the inclusion of ...a6/a4 represent a change in Black's favour (the equivalent position without the a-pawn moves is considered slightly better for White).  I don't have any thoughts to offer on that right now.



   
« Last Edit: 11/08/05 at 12:37:09 by kylemeister »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #10 - 11/07/05 at 21:54:50
Post Tools

1. d4 d5
2. Nf3  c5
3. dxc5

(3. c4 dxc4 4. d5 e6 5. Nc3 a6 6. a4 Nf6
7. e4 exd5 8. exd5 Bd6 9. Bxc4 O-O 10. O-O Bg4 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Nbd7 13.Qd1 Qc7 14. Qb3 Rae8 15. Be3 Re7 16. Rad1 Rfe8 17. Bd2 h6 18. Rfe1 Nb6 19. Rxe7
{1/2-1/2 Anand,V-Ivanchuk,V Amber Blind 2000})

3...   e6
4. e4 Bxc5
5. exd5 exd5
6. Bb5+ Nc6
7. O-O Nf6
8. Bg5  O-O  

Kly's new suggestion.  And I think the matter on 8.Re1, to put it very mildly, Black should not be worried at all.


9. c3 Qb6
10. a4

[10. Be2 Ng4 11. Bh4 Qxb2 12. Nbd2 Qxc3  13. h3 Nf6 14. Rc1 Qa3

{White is not lost (and can I insert the word "yet" here)  but black is better.}]

10...  Ne4
11. Bh4 Be6
12. Nbd2 a6
13. Bd3 Bf5
14. Qc2 Rae8
15. Rae1 Nxd2
16. Qxd2 Bxd3
17. Qxd3 Rxe1
18. Rxe1 Qxb2
19. h3 Qa3
20. Ng5 g6
21. Qxd5 Qxc3

{If you are the kind of player that likes to end up like this as White, and knows it beforehand... yeah, I think the message is  clear.}

22. Rd1 Bd4
23. Ne4 Qb2

White's compensation is still not clear since after Black consolidates, he will be playing to win.

My point, in this line, Black's position is so strong and solid that it shows in the fact that White just can't play as free as he wants to try.  Why?  Well, I think it is that his IQP position is a very desirable one, great movement and activity without the arduos defense of his IQP;  he is the one who has the initiative even if he is not better.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #9 - 11/06/05 at 14:43:30
Post Tools
Hmm.  Let me think about this a bit.  8. Re1+ (8. Bg5 is another thought, though after 8...0-0 it appears 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Qxd5 Qxb2 is okay for Black) Be6.  Now on 9. Nd4 (9. Ng5 doesn't look good due to 9...Bxf2+) Black can play 9...0-0 due to various tactics against f2.  So maybe 9. Bg5.  Then after 9...0-0 I can play 10. Nc3 (which meets the threat of 10...Bxf2+).  I don't think I have an immediate threat, though, e.g. 10...h6 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Nxd5 Qxb2 again looks okay for Black.  Moreover there is 10...a6, with the idea of 11...Qb6 if the bishop moves.  At a glance it seems that the tactics are favourable for Black there (e.g. some lines where Black's queen can hit a loose knight on a4).  Hmm, I don't seem to be refuting Black's play here.  What about 8. Bg5 0-0 9. Nc3, without Re1 (which takes away some Black counterplay against f2)?  Then 9...d4 looks bad, but after 9...Be6, 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Nxd5 Qxb2 once again looks all right.  Of course in such a position (after 9...Be6) I can play a quieter move (though presumably not 10. Re1, transposing to the above), trying to maintain a bit of pressure with the pin (since ...Be7 isn't exactly a move Black wants to play).  There don't appear to be any particularly attractive such moves here, though.  

Well, maybe I should scale back my activity a bit and play more "positionally."  But after 8. Re1+ Be6, 9. Nbd2 runs into ...Bxf2+, and 8. Nbd2 can't trouble Black; it looks like he just has a favourable Tarrasch French.  And on the other permutation  8. Bg5 0-0 9. Nbd2 Black looks comfortable (for one thing, in contrast to the positions where Black has played ...Be6, 9...Qd6 looks like a strong possibility; I expect 10. Nb3 Bb6 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Qxd5 is not good for White.)

OK, maybe I can borrow an idea from the line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. ed ed 5. Ngf3 Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. dc Bxc5 8. 0-0 Nge7 9. Nb3 Bb6 10. Re1 0-0 11. Be3 (considered slightly better for White), and play 8. Re1+ Be6 9. Be3.  Black can consider a ...Qb6-based line there; for instance 9...Qb6 10. Bxc5 Qxc5 11. Nd4 0-0 12. Bxc6 bc 13. Rxe6 fe 14. Nxe6 Qb6 15. Nxf8 Rxf8 is good for Black.  Apparently White should play 10. Nc3.  Then if 10...0-0 11. Bxc6 Qxc6 (forced) 12. Bxc5 looks a little better for White; I'd say 10...Bxe3 11. Rxe3 0-0 looks equal.

Overall it seems to me that Black is fine, but in terms of being equal, not better.  Bladez, you must be a real Tarrasch disciple    Grin

(later)  On second thought, that last position seems a bit awkward for White.  Lines such as 12. Bxc6 bc 13. Qd4 c5 (better than 13...Qxb2 14. Nxd5 Qxd4 15. Ne7+) and in this line 13. Na4 Qa5 14. Qd4 Rab8 15. b3 or c3 Ne4 make me want to "turn up my nose" at White's position.  Maybe I should have thrown in Bxc5 earlier, with probably lukewarm equality.  In general, I don't like my knight on c3 in these positions.

I am getting the surprising (to me) impression that 8. Re1+ is not a very good move.  My next thought would be 8. c3, then if 8...0-0 9. Bg5.  I'm probably actually threatening to take on f6 and d5 there, and 9...Be6 (or 9...Be7) 10. Nbd2 is the kind of position I would expect to be slightly better for White.  So I think Black should play (after 8. c3) 8...h6 (and if 9. Re1+ Be6), which I think should be equal.

In terms of the bigger picture, it appears to me that if White wants to play for a theoretical edge he should play 3. c4.  

(second edit/correction)

A line I described above as "okay for Black" (8. Bg5 0-0 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Qxd5 Qxb2) looks winning for him actually.  More significantly, I failed to notice that White can get the line I preferred by the move order 8. Bg5 0-0 (8...h6 9. Re1+ Be6 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Qxd5 would be a nice way for Black to commit suicide) 9. c3, avoiding 8. c3 h6.  So it seems to me that 8. Bg5 0-0 9. c3 Be6 10. Nbd2 is a critical line as far as White's attempt to prove an edge here.  The most interesting try for Black then looks like 10...h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Bg3 Ne4.  Of course even if White has an edge here, Black could still turn to 7...Nge7 (which I suspect should equalize) instead of 7...Nf6.

Congratulations if you actually read all this    Grin   

 
« Last Edit: 11/07/05 at 02:40:36 by kylemeister »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #8 - 11/04/05 at 02:01:28
Post Tools
As a matter of fact, after
8.Re1 +  Be6

Black still obtains his ideal piece activity in IQP positions and piece set up since Black seems to be in control  of d4 and e4 and d5.  White is behind in  development and in lack of any active plans.  These factors give us a product.  That product.... Black is better.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #7 - 11/04/05 at 01:18:36
Post Tools
@Kyle,

Relax.  There is nothing to fear from 8.Re1+

Black plays 8... Be6 and what??

Come on, I dont think you are afraid of a check.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4641
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #6 - 11/01/05 at 16:57:32
Post Tools
After 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. dc e6 4. e4 Bxc5 5. ed ed 6. Bb5+ Nc6 7. 0-0, I would have doubts about 7...Nf6 due to 8. Re1+.  I would assume that Black would play 7...Nge7.  Then it is similar to a position from the Tarrasch French; White could e.g. put his knight on c3 instead of d2, but Black has saved a tempo by playing ...Bxc5 in one go (no ...Bd6 first).  I seem to recall some ECO-type reference book giving this as equal, and quoting an old game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #5 - 11/01/05 at 01:46:28
Post Tools


1. d4 d5
2. Nf3

{The variation that will occur in this game more or less
exists with reversed colours as one of the major continuations of the Queen's
Gambit Accepted (QGA):}

2.....  c5

3. dxc5 {Is the other alternative bound to
transpose into a QGA with reversed colours, but this is possibly not to the  taste of a d-Pawn Special player... !}

(3. c4 dxc4 4. d5 e6 5. Nc3 a6 6. a4 Nf6
7. e4 exd5 8. exd5 Bd6 9. Bxc4 O-O 10. O-O Bg4 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Nbd7 13. Qd1 Qc7 14. Qb3 Rae8 15. Be3 Re7 16. Rad1 Rfe8 17. Bd2 h6 18. Rfe1 Nb6 19. Rxe7
{1/2-1/2 Anand,V-Ivanchuk,V Amber Blind 2000})

3...  e6
4. c4

(4. e4 Bxc5 5.exd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Nc6 7. O-O Nf6)

4...  Bxc5
5. cxd5 exd5
6. e3 Nf6
7. a3

And this (.... Nc6) is what I like here.  Of course this position is more like the Tarrasch proper but in my opinion White is using a more tamed approach.

7...   Nc6
8. b4 Bb6
9. b5 Na5
10. Bb2 O-O
11. Nbd2

Variation A  (11. Nc3 Re8  )

Variation B [[If White really wants to Block the d pawn and not risk Black's powerful idea of ....d4, he can
try this---

11. Nd4

{But Black just exploits the time wasted by White.}

11....    Bg4
12. Be2 Nc4
13. Bc3 Bxe2

({Or Black can go for the gusto and set White between
a rock and a hard place with  13... Re8 14. Bxg4 Nxe3 !!15. fxe3 Rxe3+ 16. Be2 Ne4 17. O-O Rxc3 18. Kh1 Rc7 19. Bf3 Rac8 20. Nb3 Nf2+ 21. Rxf2 Bxf2})

14. Qxe2 Re8
15. O-O Rc8
{ Black has everything he could want from an isolated queen's pawn position.]]

11...   Bg4
12. h3

[[12. Be2 Re8 13. O-O Rc8 14. h3 Bxf3 15. Nxf3

(15. Bxf3 d4 16.exd4 Bxd4 17. Qb1 Bc5 18. Ne4 Nxe4 19. Bxe4 g6  With idea of ...Nc4 or ...Nb3 and Black is in good shape and White must be careful here.)

15... Ne4

followed by ...Nc4 and Black again reaches his ideal set up in this type of position with a great game.]]

12... Bxf3
13. Qxf3 d4
14. e4  Rc8   {Threatening Rc2}
15. Bd3  Nd7
16. O-O  Ne5
17. Qg3  Rc3 ! kapow !
18. Bxc3

(18. Qxe5 Rxd3 19. Rfd1 Re8  20. Qf4 Nb3)

18... dxc3
19. Qxe5 Qxd3
20. Nf3 Nb3
21. Rad1 Qc4
22. Qd5  Qxd5
23. exd5 c2
24. Rc1 Rc8
25. d6 Rc3

Black is playing for the win here.

  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knut S.
Guest


Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #4 - 10/31/05 at 17:20:28
Post Tools
Ooops, was a bit quick with that game reference, as it starts 1. d4 Nf6 (not d5) 2. Nf3. Nice game though (The threat of Re4 deciding towards the end), but not what you asked about. Summerscale gives a few examples that generally end up favouring white (which might be expected in a repertoire book for white), and I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives for black. Anyway, here goes...

a) 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. dxc5 e6 4. c4 Bxc5 (4. - dxc4 5. Qxd8 Kxd8 6. e4 and a small endgame advantage for white) 5. cxd5 exd5 6. e3 Nf6 7. a3 0-0 (7. - a5 8. b3) 8. b4 Bd6 9. Bb2 Re8 10. Be2 a6 11. 0-0 Nc6 12. Nbd2 Bc7 13. Qb3 Qd6 14. Rfd1 Bg4 15. Nf1 Rad8 16. Rac1 Ne4 17. a4 Bb6 18. b5 Na5 19. Qa2 axb5 20. axb5 and white plans to blockade d4 and exchange pieces (Burmakin-Meszaros 1993 takes another turn as black blunders)

b) 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. dxc5 Qa5+ 5. Nbd2 Qxc5 (5. - Nc6 6.a3 Bg4 7. Be2 Qxc5 8.b4 Qb6 9.0-0 Rd8 10. Bb2 e6...) 6. a3 g6 7. b4 Qc3 8. Rb1 Bg7 9. Bb2 Qc7 10. c4 dxc4 11. Bxc4 0-0...

c) 1.d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. dxc5 e6 5. b4 a5 6. c3 axb4 7. cxb4 b6 8. Bb5+ Bd7 (8....Nbd7 9. c6) 9. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 10. a4 bxc5 11. b5 Bd6 12. Bb2 0-0 13. Nbd2 Bc7 14. 0-0 e5 15. e4 (essential to avoid e5-e4)...Vitor-Fancsy, 1994, 1-0, 28, after black's k-side initiative faded and white's q-side pawns advanced

d) 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. dxc5 Nc6 5. c3 e6 6. b4 a5 7. Bb5 Bd7 8. Bb2 axb4 9. cxb4 b6 10. Bxc6 Bxc6 11. a4 bxc5 12. b5 Bb7 13. Nbd2 Bd6 14. 0-0 0-0 15. Qc2 Re8 16 Rfe1 e5 17. e4 dxe4 18. Ng5

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knut S.
Guest


Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #3 - 10/31/05 at 16:39:22
Post Tools
dxc5 is briefly discussed in Summerscale: A killer chess opening repertoire, chapter 4...Beating the Anti-Colle Systems. He looks at 3 - e6, Nf6 and Qa5+

Things gets quite complicated, so as white I would prefer 3. e3. Admittedly not very challenging, but white gets a structure he is probably more familiar with. Here's one example with two good players (also discussed in Lane's Ultimate Colle)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1098421

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BladezII
Senior Member
****
Offline


Member of chesspublishing
.com and STC Club

Posts: 402
Joined: 11/01/04
Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #2 - 10/30/05 at 19:30:35
Post Tools
1.d4 d5
2.Nf3 c5 !?

Are you a subscriber to chesspublishing.com?
If you are, you will enjoy the coverage of this line by GM Prie.  Super GM Ivanchuk likes this a lot as Black and he has played it very successfully even against the world's #2 (or 3) GM Anand.

After studying this, I already included it in my own repertoire.  Black does not have to transpose into the Tarrasch.  I don't think 3.dxc5 is harmless at all and this is exactly what Anand played vs Ivanchuk.  GM Ivanchuk is a champion of fighting Queen's pawn games.  It looks like he is out to show that anything but 2.c4 is not good  for fighting for an advantage.

I will suggest you subscribe to GM Prie's section.  It's great.
  

I am a participating member of chesspublishing.com since 1998.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Strapatzer
Guest


Re: The Queens Gambit Reversed
Reply #1 - 09/30/05 at 14:49:18
Post Tools
You might be in for some surprises.
The Symmetrical Tarrasch is not so harmless as you think, especially as a tempo plays a tremendous role in these lines.
You will also find some flabbergasting assesments.
For instance there are lines in the the Chigorin/Albin reversed which have a dubious reputation for white but are in fact no different to the Marshall variations of the French and Sicilian, which are equally considered dubious, for black...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CheckMate
Guest


The Queens Gambit Reversed
09/29/05 at 14:26:21
Post Tools
Can someone give the most critical line after 1. d4 d5 3. Nf3 c5 ?
My own feelings is that everything except 3. c4 or possibly 3. dxc5 are pretty harmless (at least if you believe that the Colle, symmetrical Tarrasch and Slav Exchange are harmless openings).

I have also noticed that some 3. c4 lines transposes into regular QGA mainlines (after 3. -dxc4).

So it may be that 2. -c5 is a playable defense after all!

CheckMate


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo