@ Markovich  - 

Been a while since I checked this thread - apologies for lack of game score re Beliavsky-Sermek, I think I confused two different threads with the same 'Queens Gambit Accepted' title, one of which had the score and had featured discussion of the game, and one of which didn't.  Still, someone kindly provided it here after your post.  Have you, or anyone else, looked at the game at all?  In particular Black's play in response to White's queenside expansion and 13...e5 seems still to be shaky.  Chris Ward's latest book, Play the Queens Gambit, looks at this game briefly - Ward comments that 13...e5 would likely be the natural move of choice amongst club players (with his apologies to GM Sermek), but he notes that it reduces the scope of Black's remaining bishop whilst also removing a useful knight outpost.  He doesn't really give any alternative moves other than the line 13...Bf4 14 Qd3 Rbd8 15 Nc4, which he doesn't think is much for Black either.  It's a White repertoire book, so I know he won't spend too long looking for good Black moves here, but does anyone else have any thoughts? I'm trying to learn the QGA as Black and although I haven't come across this position in a game yet (unlikely to follow theory that far at my level) I do think it looks better for White, and it's tough to find a good plan for Black.

lnn2 wrote on 02/21/06 at 14:21:57:


Recently I've been playing the QGA on a experimental basis, as part of an attempt to broaden my chess horizons.  Also I play 1. d4 exclusively, and for a long time my usual weapon against the QGA was 4. Nc3.   

I think it really is very uncertain whether Black is O.K. after 4...a6.  White's gambit is extremely dangerous.  From reading Sakaev and Semkov, I don't think that their chirrupy confidence in Black's chances in this line is backed up by anything concrete in their presentation.  Several of the lines lead to positions where the soundness of Black's game is open to question. 

Definitely the analysis of 4. Nc3 a6  5. e4 b5  6. e5 Nd5  7. a4 Nxc3  8. bxc3 Qd5  9. g3 Bb7  10. Bg2 Qd7  11. e6!? both in Rizitano and S&S is inadequate.  See Ptero's post here http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1144033557 ;
and my own post that currently ends that thread.   

I would happily play 4. Nc3 if I could be sure of getting 4...a6 in reply, but I no longer play it, because I would prefer to avoid the Dutch Slav (I don't think the Tolush-Geller Gamibit is completely sound).  4...c6 may not be as ambitious as 4...a6, but it hardly surrenders any winning chances if Black is the better player.  From a Black point of view, I would think that a QGA repertoire with transposition to the Dutch Slav in case of 4. Nc3 would make a great deal of sense.   

Rizitano's book, by the way, is a must-have for QGA practioners.

slates wrote on 02/21/06 at 14:57:33:


It really would be useful, for the sake of us not intimately familiar with Beliavsky-Sermek, to quote the moves of the game up to 13...Ng4, you know?

There is a transposition to a sideline of the Noteboom: 6.Nc3 Bb4 (b4 might be better). The normal order is 1.d4 d4 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 b5 6.a4 Bb4 or 5.a4 Bb4 6.e4 b5.
Anand played 6.axb5 cxb5 7.b3 though.

Thanks John.  4..b5 looks tempting, but I was loathe to mention it in view of Black's general tendency in the QGA not to rush to try to hold onto the c-pawn.  As a beginner in the QGA I'm aware that this is often a bad plan for Black, although obviously not here if it's been played at those levels.

slates wrote on 02/28/06 at 09:05:25:

Actually I reach this possibility as white after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 dxc4
I guess this would be a quite logical way to handle 2.Nf3 for a black player who actually was looking for a QGA game... (2-,Nf6 is another very likely black move of course)

A (perhaps) simple question: If U want to play the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3. e4!? line against the QGA, what if black delays dxc4?; 2-,e6 3.Nf3 dxc4 Does black have any additional possibilities after 4.e4!? or does it simply transpose?

Rizzitano's book is fine but there is a major problem. It doesn't study annoying lines.
like this one for example

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4.d5!? i meet this move very often in blitz and it is not that bad for white
But rizzitano doesn't mention the move at all!

Actually in the queen gambit accepted white can play lot of out of theory moves that are not bad at all but rizzitano considers only main lines. And i 'm a bit dissapointed by the book for this reason.