kylemeister wrote on 09/06/06 at 18:00:04:


One thing I do remember is that not too long ago, Sosonko opined that after 1. d4 Nf6  2. c4 e6  3. g3 c5  4. Nf3 cxd5  5. Nxd5 a6  6. Bg2 Qc7, the move 7. Nd2 was a better way to play for the advantage than to sac the c-pawn.  But most books already say that 7. Nd2 is +=.  In a practical setting, I might well sac the c-pawn, however.

kylemeister wrote on 09/06/06 at 18:00:04:


Not off the top of my head, but since I have all of these back to YB 7, I'll check and come back -- most likely on another thread.

Yes Markovich, 7.Nc2 looks odd, but it has the idea of playing f2-f4 to hit the e5 pawn.  I don't really trust this idea for White, though.

I agree with everything else you've said (more or less); I too play the Catalan in an active, gambiteering style (like with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Na3).  So perhaps we have similar "styles."  

Of course those exclamation marks in my previous post are my own annotations, reflecting the fact that I don't think White has anything in this line.  But hopefully you can prove me wrong!  I'd love to see a couple of model games or ideas for White that would make me change my mind.  The move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 is a big hole in my repertoire, because I don't particularly like the Fianchetto lines against the Modern Benoni.

P.s.  I apologize for having taken over the thread; perhaps Markovich would be so kind as to start a new thread to share some ideas in this line?

As Markovich thinks 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d5 good for White, I take the liberty to answer this last question - or, more precisely, let Eric Schiller do it. In his 1983 book on the Catalan, which is quite good, Schiller treats 4.dxc5 Bxc5 5.Nf3, as proposed by Taimanov. There is not much experience and certainly not on top level. Critical are two gambit lines:

a) 5...Nc6 6.Bg2 Qa5+ 7.Bd2 (7.Nbd2 Donner-Szabo, Hastings 1954/55) Qb6 8.e3 Qxb2 9.Nc3 and
b) 5...Qa5+ 6.Bd2 Qb6 7.e3 Qxb2 8.Nc3 Qb6 9.Rb1 (why not 9.Na4!?) Qd8 10.Bg2 o-o 11.Ne5 Schiller-Banks, London 1982.

The precise move order might depend on 5...Qb6. 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.e3 o-o 7.Nc3 d5 8.Qb3 Nc6 9.Qxb6 axb6 10.Be2 +=Schiller-Plaskett, Manchester 1981.

Of course you may let depend your choice (4.d5 or 4.Nf3) on mood etcetera.

Willempie wrote on 09/04/06 at 09:51:19:


As pointed out by others, there are all sorts of move-order nuances in the 1. d4 systems.  I like to play the Catalan, so I play 1. d4 d5  2. c4 e6  3. Nf3 expecting 3...Nf6  4. g3.  After 3...c6 I have 4. Qc2 but more often, in Catalan spirit, I play 4. g3.  If 2...c6 is played, I play 3. cxd5 cxd5  4. Nf3.  Although I've been an "attacking" player most of my life, I've discovered that it is quite amusing, and often conducive of the full point, to play the supposedly dull and drawish Exchange Slav.  This way also, I never have to face the Meran or indeed any version of the Semi-Slav (of course, there is a Semi-Slav-like system of the Closed Catalan, but I am happy there).  Against 2...c6, the Catalan-like 3. Nf3 Nf6  4. g3 is not much good, because the Black bishop just comes out.

When I do play 3. Nc3 versus 2...c6, I welcome both 3...e5 and 3...dxc5.  But playing that way does require you to play against the Noteboom and/or Meran.

(Off-topic.  A nice thing about the Catalan is that you can also play it instead of the Nimzo IF you are willing after 1. d4 Nf6  2. c4 e6  3. g3 c5 either (1) to play a symmetrical English with 4. Nf3 or (2) to play a Modern Benoni, fianchetto variation, with 4. d5 (though you have to be prepared for 4...b5 as well).  Personally I do (1), and since I'm playing that way, I also play 1. d4 Nf6  2. c4 c5  3. Nf3 and avoid the Benko and the entire Benoni complex.)

Paddy wrote on 09/05/06 at 15:00:06:


I think that's a very nice description.  The main exception/caveat I can think of is ...c6 in the Capablanca (Orthodox) variation, which is played basically in preparation for the freeing maneouvre ...dc and ...Nd5 (in line with the old/classical approach).

This reminds me of one of the things that struck me as suspicious about Black's (a Swedish teenager whose performance rating in this event was reportedly 2575) opening play when I glanced at the game below.  That is, when Black is using the Meran-type approach (i.e. Paddy's "a" above), he should generally get on with it before completing K-side development.   


[Event "Pardubice"]

[Site ""]

[Date "2006.??.??"]

[Round "8"]

[White "Lindberg, Bengt"]

[Black "Blomqvist, Erik"]

[Result "0-1"]

[WhiteElo "2385"]

[BlackElo "2133"]

[NIC "SL 1.4.11"]

[ECO "D11"]

[PlyCount "84"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qb3 e6 5. g3 Be7 6. Bg2 O-O 7. Nc3 dxc4 8. Qxc4 b5 

9. Qb3 Bb7 10. O-O a6 11. Rd1 Nbd7 12. Be3 Qc7 13. Rac1 Rac8 14. Bf4 Qb6 15. e4 Rfd8 

16. h3 c5 17. d5 c4 18. Qc2 exd5 19. e5 Nh5 20. Ng5 g6 21. Be3 Bc5 22. Bxc5 Rxc5 

23. Nxd5 Bxd5 24. Bxd5 Nxe5 25. Qe4 Nf6 26. Qe3 Rdxd5 27. Rxd5 Nxd5 28. Qxe5 Nf6 

29. Qd4 Qc6 30. h4 Rd5 31. Qa7 Rd7 32. Qb8 Kg7 33. Re1 h6 34. Nh3 Qf3 35. Qe5 Rd2 

36. a3 Qb3 37. Nf4 Qxb2 38. Qe7 Rxf2 39. Ne6 Kh8 40. Nf4 Qd4 41. Kh1 Kg8 42. Qb7 

Qd2 0-1

The trouble with 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c6 4 Nc3 Be7 for Black is 5 Bf4. In the usual QGD Black would meet Bf4 not with a …c6 set-up but with ….c5. If instead he plays 4…Nf6 5 Bg5 (offering a Botvinnik) Be7 then we have a QGD in which Black has committed to the old Orthodox line with …c6 and moreover done it rather early (he can’t now play a pure Lasker, for example). If you take a standard QGD move order like 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 Nf3 h6 6 Bh4 00 7 e3 Ne4 would be the Lasker. In your move order Black would have …c6 in instead of …00. I don’t suppose that means he has to resign immediately, but it does narrow Black’s options – he wouldn’t always play …c6 in the Lasker. He certainly can’t get a Tartakover (ie a QGD with …b6) and I think also White may be able to gain a shade of tempo in an Orthodox by playing Qc2 before Rc1 now and perhaps even then 000 (I am not an expert but White normally plays Rc1 and I think Black’s some of Black’s more highly-regarded defences against this entail …c5 and/or ….Nc6). Black might also be allowing plans with Bxf6 in reply to ….h6 to gain in strength by having …c6 in so early.

The choice of 3 Nc3/3Nf3 against the Slav is very complex; as people say it partly encompasses what you think of 3 Nc3 e5/dxc4, but also perhaps more significantly what you want to do against the …a6 Slav and the Semi-Slav. 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 Bf5 is supposed to be very equal. 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 is supposed to stop this somehow (presumably 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 Qb3?) and also of course prevents the main line Slav, since White doesn’t need to bother with a4 before recovering his pawn on c4. On the other hand it restricts your options a bit against the …a6 Slav – you can’t play c5/Bf4 like Topalov any more. It may I suppose give you options based on c5/f4, but I don’t know about this.

If you want to play the repertoire I recommend though, that is 5 e3 against the …a6 Slav and Botvinnik against the semi-Slav, though, it doesn’t really matter, since whichever move you play on move 3 you have to play the other after 3…Nf6.

It also matters what you intend to play if Black’s next is 3…e6. If you want to play the main line Abrahams, it doesn’t matter because you develop the other knight now anyway. But if you want to avoid that you have a choice between 3 Nf3 e6 4 Qc2, or 3 Nc3 e6 4 e4. The repertoire I prevent involves playing both of these depending on whether Black goes 2…e6, 3…c6 or 2…c6, 3….e6. I claim somewhere though that Abrahams players normally start with 2….e6, when you go 3 Nc3 and if they go 3…c6 you can go 4 e4. That’s why I give a game on that and glibly say somewhere that 3 Nf3 c6 4 Qc2 is quite easy to play (actually this is true; it’s basically like a QGD).

I hope that helps, although I doubt it does – these things are difficult and typing that has made me realise how difficult.