(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › 1. d4 d5 2. c4 › Starting Out: 1 d4
(Moderators: Jupp53, proustiskeen)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Starting Out: 1 d4 (Read 27857 times)
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #8 - 05/18/06 at 15:41:12
Post Tools
yes grischuk-dreev is the game, quite a masterpiece actually..

i'm still curious about the recommendation of 5. e3 against the Slav Chebanenko when 5. Bg5 against the Semi-Slav is recommended. i mean, wouldn't 5. a4 and 5. c5 be a more logical fit?! I think i said in the other thread that 5. c5 isn't a panacea for White, but still my intuition tells me the refutation of the Chebanenko will be found here... (forgive my obsession with the Chebanenko, i play it with both colours.. and so does a certain Mr. Topa). Does Cox see no edge for for White in these trendy lines?

Also will the man care to tell us what's recommended against the Tango? Hopefully it's one of the h4 lines, which drove me away from playing the tango in the first place.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #7 - 05/18/06 at 14:45:56
Post Tools
Quote:
My Cambridge Springs game is Grischuk-Dreev, but I agree that Black has reasonable prospects to equalise there.

I think I say glibly that declining the semi-Slav with ...Be7 is rare and should lead to old-fashioned Orthodox lines, I'm afraid. Shouldn't it?






Yes, and I would say that Black is condemned to even more than the usual passivity by his having played ...c6 so early.  Especially when White's Queen goes early to c2, ...c7-c5 is the right reaction, so as White against this I would probably put my Queen fairly early on c2.  I think it then might well transpose into an inferior, for Black, version of the 7. Qc2 Orthodox (a line that I personally am happy to take the White side of even when Black's pawn isn't already on c6).
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JohnCox(Guest)
Guest


Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #6 - 05/18/06 at 10:00:45
Post Tools
My Cambridge Springs game is Grischuk-Dreev, but I agree that Black has reasonable prospects to equalise there.

I think I say glibly that declining the semi-Slav with ...Be7 is rare and should lead to old-fashioned Orthodox lines, I'm afraid. Shouldn't it?



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #5 - 05/18/06 at 02:08:09
Post Tools
I think the type of edge White gets in say the Lasker and Tartakower main lines are harder for beginners to convert to a win, than the exchange QGD (which I agree with Cox is rather straightforward to play). But there is much to be said for the education that one can get playing the QGD main lines. 

That said, my own choice is 5. Bf4 QGD which perhaps scores best, and is somewhere in between the 5. Bg5 QGD main lines and Exchange on the straightforward/subtle scale. The drawback is one has to learn the Ragozin/Vienna, but i don't think White should fear those, and one does get to learn about active piece play. 

What i'm wondering is, does Cox have new ideas against the Cambridge Springs? It looks close to equal according to my last theoretical information, and many players go for 6. cd5 nowadays to prevent it, which takes us outside of the proposed Nge2 Exchange repertoire. 

Another issue which i've always been curious about is how different authors treat the line 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 Be7 ("Semi-Slav Declined"?!), see new thread on this.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
X
God Member
*****
Offline


Education is a system
of imposed ignorance.Chomsky

Posts: 571
Joined: 10/04/03
Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #4 - 05/18/06 at 00:44:39
Post Tools
Yes, I agree with Markovich on the basis of personal experience and observation.  The moves are in the Orthodox are much more natural, and I think it is easier to handle lesser subvariations by using common sense.  Under 2000, I think there are too many strategic subtleties in the exchange variation and I think a lot of the introductory texts covering middlegame exchange QGD stuctures oversimplify things too much for practical use.  There is a tendency for weaker players to one-dimensionally follow a plan of minority attack or e4 push for certain situations.  It is just too easy for Black in the exchange variation to trick an inexperienced player with a lesser known continuation.  Practically, I think White has to know a lot more than Black to play the exchange QGD effectively.
  
Power to the People!&&http://www.gravel2008.us/           http://www.nationalinitiative.us/&&Mike Gravel for President 2008
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JohnCox(Guest)
Guest


Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #3 - 05/18/06 at 00:01:21
Post Tools
Well, I do make a point of going 3 Nc3, so that I can tout the f3/Nge2 00 lines. Those are fairly straightforward to play and score very well in the databases. I didn't do the main lines because I couldn't think what to give against the Tartakover, and I wanted to give different lines from Richard P's Play d4. I did think of the Bf4 stuff - but anyway in the end I went for the above.

I tend to agree it's a lot easier to get accidentally mated in the ordinary Nf3/00 Exchange than it looks when Karpov's White.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #2 - 05/17/06 at 16:26:12
Post Tools
If I may just continue the discussion of Cox's new book here where it belongs, instead of on that Noteboom thread, I would first like to say that I found his Alekhine book quite interesting and insightful, and I plan to get this one.

I wonder if anyone shares my view, however, that the classical lines of the QGD are easier for starters-out to play than the Exchange Variation?  In general I think that Black should be happy when White plays the Exchange, not because it increases Black's objective winning chances, but because it increases his practical ones.  The QB comes out, after all, and in many cases Black obtains a kingside attack with pieces.  If White castles queenside, Black at least will have his winning chances.  All in all, the positions arising from the Exchange seem more difficult, and critical, than those arising from the classical QGD.  Thus quoth Markovich.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alias
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1512
Location: East of the river Svartån
Joined: 11/19/04
Re: Starting Out: 1 d4
Reply #1 - 05/16/06 at 06:36:06
Post Tools
Have a look at this thread: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1147206648
  
Don't check me with no lightweight stuff.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1757
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Starting Out: 1 d4
05/16/06 at 02:53:09
Post Tools
Does anyone know about the new Everyman book: Starting Out: 1 d4! : A reliable repertoire for the improving player, John Cox 

I am curious as to what kind of repertoire it recommends and how similar it is to Richard Palliser's Play 1 d4!
  
"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge