Does the website also tell, how White prevents ...e5 after 6...d6 (iso d5) 7.e4 fxe4 8.Nxe4 Nc6 9.Bd3 h6 ?

 MNb makes an excellent point, 1.d4 e6 2.a3 f5. How useful is the move 2.a3 against the Stonewall or Classical Dutch? In his book PLAY THE CLASSICAL DUTCH, Simon Williams says that if Black can get in e6-e5 without suffering some liability, Black has at least equality. And the move 2.a3 does nothing to secure the e5-square.
 

Hello everyone,
What about the Barry attack? Is it a viable option to the QG? Can it be played against 1. d4 d5? Or is only good against 1. d4 Nf6?

Yes, but if Black is willing to play an inferior Benoni (i.e. without c4), he might as well go for 1.d4 c5 immediately.

I've had my fair share of useless confrontations on this thread, and certainly don't want part of any more, but it's a bit odd to call 1. d4 e6 a passive move, no ? And no one has claimed 2. a3 to be unplayable, but the fact that White sometimes moves his a-pawn in the Tarrasch does not constitute sufficient justification (whether or not it comes from elsewhere. Please note this is not an attack on Eric or his creation).  Black can play ...c5 without ...d5 and vice-versa.  

lnn2 wrote on 06/20/06 at 13:03:44:


What makes 2. a3 a playable move is that 1...e6 is such a passive one.  We arrived at a similar conclusion concerning 1. d4 Nf6  2. c4 e6  3. a3, aiming for a Normal Tarrasch.  When the two players strive to excel each other in unambitiousness, what can you do?  I doubt if I'd buy a book devoted to the theory of this.

I suspect that the "perfect" reply to 1. d4 e6 is 2. e4, but I play d4 exclusively, and I can't afford to have reams of French variations in my repertoire.  By the same token, it can always be said of 1...e6 that Black must be willing to risk the French (or the, what is it called? Nimzo-Larsen?).  One of these days when faced with 1...e6, I declare I am just going to play 2. e4 and try to find good moves.

nyoke wrote on 02/26/07 at 10:54:39:


You mean 2. g3 don't you?  It's chess, but White's problem there is that the black QB just comes out.

1.d4 d5 2.a3 a6! =+

Quote:

Ah oui  

So I would say it is simpler and more complicated at the same time, basically a matter of taste :

-6...Qb6 7.Qb3 c4 8.Qxb6 axb6 9.a3 b5 10.Rc1 and White has managed to evacuate the a file thanks to the extra-tempo thus freezing a slightly favourable structure on the queenside. However there is 10...Nh5!? now, and both camps have to evaluate correctly the complications resulting from 11.Be5! f6 12.Bc7 e5! 13.h3!

-6...e6 7.Qb3 (7.Be2 Be7 8.0-0 is exactly a Prié reversed without the move a6; thanks por the thrown line Arkhein ) 7...Qd7!? ( 7...Qc8 is quieter though less ambitious) 8.Ne5 Nxe5 9.dxe5 c4 10.Nxc4! dxc4 11.Bxc4 0-0-0 12.exf6 Qd2+ 13.Kf1 gxf6 with compensations.

I have also checked 5.Qb3 and it is not a Novelty, since played in 2002 by London specialist Schlindwein who obtained a great position with it.

I am aware as well I have mentionned the name of GM rainer Knaak without giving the source.
It is because we have come to the same conclusion about the London, published in the last Chessbase Magazine 113 as for his.
Through a different move order though for he recommends 2...c5 ( and I 2...Nf6) and is not scared by 3.e4 on the basis of Winants-Adly Olm Turin 2006. However, I am persuaded the last word for White has not been said there...
His point is the gambit Novelty 3.e3 Nc6 4.c3 Qb6 5.Qb3 c4 6.Qc2 e5! ( instead of the messy 6...Bf5 7.Qxf5 Qxb2 8.Qxd5 Qxa1 9.Qb5) 7.dxe5 Bf5 8.Qc1 g5!