Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/29/07 at 06:03:57:


By "TMB", you mean Tartakower? And if that's the case, why doesn't Black just play the Lasker Defense?

Geof_Strayer wrote on 03/31/07 at 01:41:51:


As I mentioned in another thread, I'm a subscriber and very interested in the Tartakower. It's odd that Black plays it so little since the last I heard, the Tartakower is consldered very sound for Black with some winning chances.
BTW, Geof, to which Tartakower book were you referring? Would you recommend it as a starting point?

Count me in as well. I am starting to get a grip on understanding the QGD and the Tartakower is quite important.

poGGa wrote on 03/31/07 at 09:49:18:


You can also avoid the Tartakover (and the Lasker) by playing 1. d4 d5  2. c4 e6  3. Nc3 Nf6  4. Nf3 Be7  5. Qc2, although that gives Black some other opportunities.  Or at least, you can avoid them in their ...h6 versions.  I've played this somewhat regularly and had good results.

After 5...0-0  6. Bg5 h6, promising is 7. Bxf6 followed by e2-e4 and 0-0-0, in some order.

Black can try ...Na6 and/or and early ...c5, but White has some tricks.  If I recall, this line is associated with Eingorn.

I would also think that the Tartakower deserves more coverage - I remember contributing to a thread previously -  http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1143302491 - which dealt with it, and at that time I was playing it myself and was interested to see that 14.Ne5 was posing some problems for Black.... perhaps there should be some discussion of this in an update, as some strong players appear to have been struggling to deal with this move, as others have pointed out here.

Geoff

Good idea to advocate that the Tartakower gets some scrutiny.

What is interesting to me is that Kazhimjanov has adopted it as one of his main defences and that he is playing dc in response to 8 Be2 which used to be Vaganian's favourite.

Hello Inn2:

The Tartakower is my main defense with Black, but I don't think I am sufficiently up-to-date on the theory to tell what games are theoretically significant or not. So I will just list a few of the games that I find interesting in the last year:

Anand-Nielsen, Amber Rapid 2006
Tomashevsky-Rychagov, Russia Ch 2006
Van Wely-Asrian, Olympiad 2006
Elyanov-Asrian, Olympiad 2006
Harikrishna-Ponomariov, Aerosvit 2006
Ivanchuk-Beliavsky, Geller Memorial 2006
Bu Ziangzhi-Asrian, Scheveningen 2006
Gofshtein-Kovacs, Austrian Op 2006
Lastin-Chebotarev, Russia 1st League 2006
Nyback-Boriss, Bundesliga 2006
Siegbrecht-Stohl, Bundesliga 2006
Rodshtein-Kim, World Jr Ch 2006
Chatalbashev-Georgiev, Bulgarian Ch 2006
Bacrot-Kazimdzhanov, Corsican Masters 2006 (both games)
Sundararajan-Short, Commonwealth Ch 2006
Bacrot-Ivanchuk, ACP Rapid Ch 2007
Shen Yang-Azarov, Aeroflot 2007

There are many more games in the same period between strong players that might contain interesting theoretical points, but as my most recent book on this opening was published in 2000, I cannot be certain about the present state of theory.

I note that, according to my search on the ChessPublishing, the last games analyzed in the Tartakower were two games from the 2004 World Champs in Libya.  Before that, you have to back to 2002 for three more games.  Five analyzed games in the last five years does not seem like a lot for a major defensive system that is still employed occasionally at the top level, and not without success.

That having been said, I do think that GM Scherbakov's 1.d4 d5 is generally of very high quality and understand that he has to focus on the most popular lines.  I am just hoping that there is enough interest to perhaps justify a little more coverage of this classic opening.

          - Geof

Hello Geof,

i guess the problem is not lack of interest by subscribers, but a lack of any important games. can't remember any game of theoretical significance in the past 12 months. Maybe you can direct us to any important games to look at?