Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Queen Gambit Accepted (Read 13752 times)
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #24 - 07/17/06 at 11:13:21
Post Tools
@ 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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MarinFan
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 428
Location: Leeds
Joined: 04/04/06
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #23 - 06/26/06 at 16:07:45
Post Tools
Hello,
    Defintely not very keen on defending black's position after 7... Nxc3 in an OTB game, but Miles's 7 ...Nb6 seems to be holding up in recent GM games. (Think   Sakaev/Semkov  liked this line better too, was my interpretation anyway). Somehow missed Ptero's post, it is a bit strange that Rizzitano looks at 19.Bh4, instead of more natural 19Bg5. Will take a look at that sometime soon, maybe not that soon with World Cup going on.
                      S&S recommend the line in Rublevsky game quoted above, but have not yet got into it because of the lack of well annotated games. (In contrast to the more trendy 5...Nc6 lines).

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #22 - 06/26/06 at 14:57:24
Post Tools
lnn2 wrote on 02/21/06 at 14:21:57:
Hello,
perhaps because of Sakaev/Semkov book, and long semi-slav experience, feel Black is in theoretically better shape after 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 (looks safer than Botvinnik/Moscow?!), than going into Main Slav. Found Semkov's comment interesting, as i don't remember him expressing too highly of 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 in his book.


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.
  

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


There is no spoon.

Posts: 1491
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Joined: 10/16/04
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #21 - 06/26/06 at 14:53:34
Post Tools
[Event "Vidmar mem 16th"]
[Site "Portoroz"]
[Date "2005.07.09"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Beliavsky, Alexander G"]
[Black "Sermek, Drazen"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D20"]
[WhiteElo "2599"]
[BlackElo "2532"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "2005.07.09"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "SLO"]
[EventCategory "12"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2005.09.26"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 5. Bxc4 Nc6 6. O-O Be6 7. Bxe6 fxe6 8.
Qb3 Qd7 9. Qxb7 Rb8 10. Qa6 Nf6 11. Nbd2 Bd6 12. a3 O-O 13. b4 e5 14. Ne1 Rb6
15. Qe2 Qe6 16. Nc4 Rbb8 17. Bd2 Nd7 18. Rc1 Ne7 19. Nd3 Nb6 20. Na5 h6 21. Rc2
Nd7 22. Rfc1 Kh7 23. h3 Rf7 24. Qg4 Qxg4 25. hxg4 Kg8 26. f3 Rff8 27. Kf2 Kf7
28. Ke2 Ke6 29. g5 hxg5 30. Bxg5 Ng8 31. Nc6 Ra8 32. f4 exf4 33. Nxd4+ Kf7 34.
Bxf4 Rae8 35. e5 Nxe5 36. Rxc7+ Kg6 37. Bxe5 Bxe5 38. Nxe5+ Rxe5+ 39. Kd3 Nf6
40. R1c5 Re1 41. Nf3 Rd8+ 42. Kc4 Re4+ 43. Kb5 Kh6 44. Ne5 Kh7 45. Rxa7 Rb8+
46. Ka4 1-0
  

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates."  -Jay Leno
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #20 - 06/26/06 at 14:33:35
Post Tools
slates wrote on 02/21/06 at 14:57:33:
Right - I see your point.  As someone who's struggled to feel comfortable in mainline Slav I prefer to stick with 4...a6 (although I've not spent much time with this variation yet, and only have Rizzitano and Ward as my printed QGA sources), but I would reckon that it might be psychologically in Black's favour to show that he's willing to go into the Slav?  I don't know really, but as White if you're prepared to play the Two Knights I guess you're looking for action, something the Slav isn't exactly renowned for?

Anyway, I think Black has to be safer in the Two Knights than in the Botvinnik!

Not sure about the Semkov comment - I haven't yet invested in his book (if I stick with this QGA thing I'm a cert to buy it) - but he (also?) seemed to think, as you do, that the 3 e4 variation was better for White after that 7.Bxe6 move - I was a little confused when reading that thread that John Simmons said he was grateful to Semkov for pointing out the way that Black could best play against the queenside expansion seen in, for example, Beliavsky-Sermek - I mean, didn't that simply serve to illustrate White's dominance in the position?  I probably misunderstood it, but is the general consensus of opinion that Black does better with 13...e5 than 13...Ng4, then?  13...e5 seems safer to me, but I'm not at all sure. 

This may be better placed in another thread, but the title of this thread is pretty forgiving.


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?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MarinFan
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 428
Location: Leeds
Joined: 04/04/06
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #19 - 06/23/06 at 13:04:38
Post Tools
Hello,

(5) Bologan,V (2666) - Rublevsky,S (2687) [D20]
Aerosvit GM Foros UKR (6), 22.06.2006


1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Bxc4 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Nc6 7.0-0 Nf6 8.e5 Nd5 9.Nb3 Nb6 10.Bb5 Qd5 11.Nbxd4 0-0 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Qc2 c5 14.Nf5 Qe6 15.Ng3 Qg6 16.Qxg6 hxg6 17.a3 Ba5 18.Bd2 Bxd2 19.Nxd2 c4 20.Rac1 Be6 21.f4 Rfd8 22.Rf2 Rd4 23.Nb1 Na4 24.Nc3 Nc5 25.Rcc2 Nd3 26.Nge2 Rdd8 27.Rf1 Rab8 28.Rd1 Bf5 29.Rcd2 Re8 30.b4 g5 31.fxg5 Rbd8 32.Ng3 Bg4 33.Rf1 Rxe5 34.h3 Be6 35.h4 Rd4 36.g6 fxg6 37.Re2 Rxe2 38.Ngxe2 Rxh4 39.Nb5 c5 40.Nc7 Bg4 41.Nc3 cxb4 42.axb4 Nxb4 43.Rf4 g5 44.Rxc4 Bd7 45.Rc5 Rg4 46.N7d5 Nxd5 47.Nxd5 Rd4 48.Ne7+ Kf7 49.Nc6 Bxc6 50.Rxc6 a5 51.Rc5 a4 52.Rxg5 a3 53.Ra5 Rd3 54.Kh2 Ke6 55.g3 Rd2+ 56.Kh3 a2 57.Kh4 Kd6 58.g4 Kc6 59.Ra8 Kb6 60.Ra3 Kb5 61.Ra7 Kb4 0-1

This looks like quite a significant game. Acccording to light analysis at chessbase, 14Nf5 is a new move, but black quickly got the advantage in the endgame.
                      Something for black to consider, if line in  Rizzitano's book gets into trouble.

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


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10715
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #18 - 03/01/06 at 03:16:44
Post Tools
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.
  

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
 
Viking
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 673
Location: Norway
Joined: 10/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #17 - 02/28/06 at 11:39:12
Post Tools
Hmmm.  I guess that after white's standard pawn break up moves b3 / a4 will both be met with Bb7 when it is a bit "awkward" to defend the target pawn at e4... I will have to look at the suggested games with a board later.... Thanks for putting me in the right direction Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #16 - 02/28/06 at 11:09:44
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Simmons(Guest)
Guest


Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #15 - 02/28/06 at 10:29:51
Post Tools
Hello,

1d4 d5 2. c4 p*p 3. Nf3 e6 4. e4 b5 is an independent line. Thought it looked good for white after looking at a well known Anand v Karpov game, which is analysed in several places, including Anand'd best game book. Later, there was a Vallajo Pons v Kasparov game, which black won, so not so clear now. Not aware of any opening book, which deals with this line.

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



Posts: 673
Location: Norway
Joined: 10/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #14 - 02/28/06 at 09:26:21
Post Tools
slates wrote on 02/28/06 at 09:05:25:
I would think it unlikely that at club level many players who intended a QGA would pass up the chance to play 2...dxc4, as White's third move options beyond 3.Nf3 might then limit/change Black's choices further (i.e. 3.g3, 3.Nc3 etc ?). However, I guess you are talking about players who want to surprise their White opponent and go for the c-pawn unexpectedly

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)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #13 - 02/28/06 at 09:05:25
Post Tools
Well, I'm very much a QGA newbie and so I'm not sure that I can answer that one very well.  It does seem like a simple question, but move orders are often far from simple, as we all know - I would think it unlikely that at club level many players who intended a QGA would pass up the chance to play 2...dxc4, as White's third move options beyond 3.Nf3 might then limit/change Black's choices further (i.e. 3.g3, 3.Nc3 etc ?). However, I guess you are talking about players who want to surprise their White opponent and go for the c-pawn unexpectedly - I can't immediately think of any benefits for Black there over the normal lines in the 3.e4 variation.  I'll have a look at some games later when I get home and check the move orders used in these lines to see if anything obvious jumps out at me, unless a stronger player could leap in and give an opinion?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Viking
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 673
Location: Norway
Joined: 10/12/04
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #12 - 02/28/06 at 07:07:19
Post Tools
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?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #11 - 02/27/06 at 14:04:10
Post Tools
No, I noticed 4.d5 was missing, but there are a couple of posts in other threads in this section that deal with that move, one from Ruslan if I recall correctly.  I think it's a great book nontheless, in terms of he appears to have spent a lot of time and effort on the mainlines, even if it is to the detriment of lesser lines such as the one you mention, although I think a lot of books make similar or worse omissions and also have less quality in what they do choose to include.  I'm trying to get to grips with the QGA and finding Rizz' book very useful.  John Watson gives it a good review, but notes that it is sparse on commentary and 'facile handholding' - I'm having no problems at all with it in this regard, as I'm finding sufficient guidance within the analysis.  Supplemeted with Ward's QGA book, it seems a good way to acquire an opening.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
piefr1(Guest)
Guest


Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #10 - 02/27/06 at 10:49:32
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RotGut
Junior Member
**
Offline


HUH!?!

Posts: 98
Location: Suburb North of Boston
Joined: 01/26/06
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #9 - 02/23/06 at 15:43:46
Post Tools
After recieving Rizzitano's book I amazed at all of his independent research. Clearly this was a labour of love....lets hope other authors follow Rizzitano's example.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #8 - 02/23/06 at 13:54:01
Post Tools
Thanks John.  I prefer 13...e5 too, but will also take a look at the 5...Bb4+ line.  As I don't have Semkov/Sakaev book I can't make that comparison, but it's an interesting point about plagiarism.  I think Rizzitano is very clear in his introduction about the way in which he wrote the book, and he says he looked at every position and was very careful not to accept evaluations as given in other works without much scrutiny.  I would guess that his is a pretty genuine effort in this regard, whereas perhaps the problem is more prevalent elsewhere - I've not noticed it too much personally, but can well believe it exists.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Simmons(Guest)
Guest


Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #7 - 02/22/06 at 10:58:46
Post Tools
Hello,

In that Beliavsky game, I was trying to make 13... Ng4 work, because I thought in principal black should be trying to use e5 for knights etc. However, in concrete lines could not make it work, so 13...e5 was best after all leading to usual slight advantage for white. Semko does not think the trendy line recommended in Rizzitano book, is the best defence in 3... e5 lines. Recommends instead a line with 5...Bb4+, played in many games by Rublevsky. (This is slightly unusual because in general there is a strong link between what Rizzitano recommends, and Semko book, might have noticed a tendancy to plagarism in chess culture, although Rizzitano better than most in also doing some orginal research too.)
          In the two knights line, the recommeded line in both books with 8...Nb6 and 9... a*b5, held up well in last GM game Eljanov v Karjakin 2005, but the sort of positions that arise, mean that a new idea could change evaluation completely.
      Thats why as a backup, I know something with transposing to Slav 4... c6.

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



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #6 - 02/21/06 at 14:57:33
Post Tools
Right - I see your point.  As someone who's struggled to feel comfortable in mainline Slav I prefer to stick with 4...a6 (although I've not spent much time with this variation yet, and only have Rizzitano and Ward as my printed QGA sources), but I would reckon that it might be psychologically in Black's favour to show that he's willing to go into the Slav?  I don't know really, but as White if you're prepared to play the Two Knights I guess you're looking for action, something the Slav isn't exactly renowned for?

Anyway, I think Black has to be safer in the Two Knights than in the Botvinnik!

Not sure about the Semkov comment - I haven't yet invested in his book (if I stick with this QGA thing I'm a cert to buy it) - but he (also?) seemed to think, as you do, that the 3 e4 variation was better for White after that 7.Bxe6 move - I was a little confused when reading that thread that John Simmons said he was grateful to Semkov for pointing out the way that Black could best play against the queenside expansion seen in, for example, Beliavsky-Sermek - I mean, didn't that simply serve to illustrate White's dominance in the position?  I probably misunderstood it, but is the general consensus of opinion that Black does better with 13...e5 than 13...Ng4, then?  13...e5 seems safer to me, but I'm not at all sure.  

This may be better placed in another thread, but the title of this thread is pretty forgiving.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #5 - 02/21/06 at 14:21:57
Post Tools
Hello,
perhaps because of Sakaev/Semkov book, and long semi-slav experience, feel Black is in theoretically better shape after 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 (looks safer than Botvinnik/Moscow?!), than going into Main Slav. Found Semkov's comment interesting, as i don't remember him expressing too highly of 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 in his book.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #4 - 02/19/06 at 20:08:05
Post Tools
Well, I don't have the Semkov/Sakaev book(s) but here's a comment Semkov made here on this;

Quote:
3. For those that are looking for a killer system against the QGA, 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 is a good field to investigate. It is far from comfortable for Black and still unclear.
Semkov


This may not fully answer you, but it's a start.  Wink

I'm surprised more players don't go 4...c6 and head into the Slav, but according to Rizzitano the Two Knights is perhaps the most tactically rich variation in the entire QGA and requires thorough preparation by both players. In his book he offers a less complicated way for Black to play, should he not be intent on hanging onto the pawn.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bonsai
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 622
Joined: 03/13/04
Gender: Male
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #3 - 02/19/06 at 15:33:49
Post Tools
By the way, do you people think that 4...a6 is an important argument against playing 1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 as white? As I am not so convinced about 7.Ng5 either, there remains the 5.e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.a4 line.

4...a6 certainly seems to be the one move for black that scores 50% after 4.Nc3, while everything else is less successful (and in fact according to my database it's the most played move). So what is the current "official" (probably = Sakaev/Semkov) opinion on this mvoe?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
piefr1(Guest)
Guest


Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #2 - 02/13/06 at 13:37:05
Post Tools
thanks a lot !
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Geof_Strayer
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline



Posts: 39
Location: Los_Angeles
Joined: 04/08/05
Re: Queen Gambit Accepted
Reply #1 - 02/12/06 at 19:48:08
Post Tools
The theoretical line (given by Sakaev/Semkov in their excellent 1st book on the QGA) after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.e4 b5 6.e5 Nd5 7.Ng5 is 7...e6 8.Qh5 Qd7 9.Be2 Bb7 with good play for Black, e.g., 10.Bf3 g6 11.Qg4 b4 12.Nce4 Nc6 13.Be3 h6 14.Nh3 0-0-0 15.0-0 with an unclear position in Petursson-Zaltsman, Reykjavik 1984.

Black has an even score in this line in the games I found by searching in the online ChessBase database.  The most recent game, I.Rogers v. D'Costa, Amsterdam 2005, was won by White, but Black played the opening quite well and had a very reasonable position before he lost the thread.

7...f6 also appears to be playable but when you play moves like this it is wise to be very prepared.  I think 7..e6 is safe, solid, and Black can get a good position by playing thematic moves while exercising a little care.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
piefr1
Guest


Queen Gambit Accepted
11/12/05 at 09:19:02
Post Tools
1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5.e4 b5 6. e5 Nd5 7.Ng5!? is supose to be a rare move but ...it scores very well in my database ....is there an antidote i didn't know anything about or this move is very very very good!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo