Thanks, everyone. Sorry about my ignorance with the semi. Despite being part of an openings forum, I have never really been into openings... probably why I play 1. Nf3 and the Alekhine.

Oh, I'll go with the slav. I'll just look at a couple games, particularly with the e4 gambit and Ne5.  


Thanks,

Jonathan

kylemeister wrote on 01/30/08 at 20:17:40:


Thanks. My view is that 8.Qc2 was suboptimal and that Hort should have answered it with 8...c5. Better was 8.Rc1, quoth I, the better to restrain ...c5.

kylemeister wrote on 01/30/08 at 17:54:44:


Maybe White actually has good chances with 7.Qc2 and the bishop-backup to h4; I had thought that theory favored meeting ...h6 with h4.  But I am confident that theory would say that it isn't good to play an Orthodox with ...c6 in early.  Theory is always being overturned of course, but this idea dates back a rather long way, and moreover it makes very good sense.

Actually if you have the text of the Werle-Hort game I'd like to see it, up to move 12 or so anyway.  Was it an Orthodox or actually a Lasker, for instance?  I was talking about the Orthodox, which means, with Black's QN early on d7.

Hello,

Thanks, JohnCox and Markovich I was a little confused on the positions were h6 was not a good move.
           By the looks of it Houska's games might be worth the orginal poster looking at. I was thinking, he might as well play the Lasker  by positions ending up in, but got things a bit messed up.

Bye John S

I thought the point about including ...h6 was that it gives White more chances in the lines where he replies to ....e5 with Bb3 and accepts an IQP, as in Karpov-Yusupov. The effect than is that he has a dominant knight on e5 which cannot be shifted by ...f6 because of the g6 weakness. In the Rubinstein line Jon H mentions it is better to have ...h6 in, just because it's luft and so on.

So if White wanted to take advantage of ...h6 he'd have to play 14 Bb3 ed 15 ed (which I think probably is Karpov-Yusupov?). But Black then has his chances, of course - White is giving something to get something (without going into it too much, Sadler's coverage of this line contains some serious holes in terms of actual moves, though the ideas are well presented as usual in his excellent book). So I don't think it's a question of ....h6 being a bad move; most Lasker defenders still include it. It makes 'standard' lines a little easier for Black; it makes White's double-edged option a little harder for Black.

Jovanka Houska has been playing this 5...Be7 a lot and following up later somehow with a Meran-type plan. She played it against me and I achieved a terrible position with White effortlessly, and she's done fine against some GMs also. At any level below 2500, it'll do fine unless White happens to know exactly what he's doing. I have heard this scheme met its Waterloo in Georgiev-Houska at Gibraltar, but I've not seen the game. Books tend to give the game Tal-Nei, but it wasn't half so clear in the notes as on the board.

Hello,

I think the position in line gave at end of post more often comes about via 
Lasker Defence these days. Then, with h6 included a classic game is Karpov v Yuspov final game of candiates match. Black more often tries to get full equality with b6, and c5 in that move order.
               Without h6, it is the Capablanca freeing line. Don,t think there is much wrong at all with black's position there.
               In the semi-slav lines proper, like the currently extremely trendy anti-moscow line with bg5,h6 Bh4 g5 etc, at least white has to show compensation for material, if going to try and wing it. For example, if neither side has preparation would tend to prefer black, in positon of recent Topalov game with Nxf7. Of course big gamble to make assumptions like that. Chessbase has some quite good analysis of recent games.

Bye John S

a) Casually picking up one of the most difficult openings is not a good idea. There are books on semi-slav repertoires. Kaufman has a brief repertoire. I imagine the Vigorito book is quite detailed.

b) 5...Be7 is a regular QGD. Not the best one either. (As Bonsai noted, c6 is played too early.) The semi-slav choices are 5...dxc4 or 5...h6. Another choice would be 5...Nbd7 (Cambridge Springs).

I am playing in a tournament for the first time in well over a year, and just decided to play a semi-slav repertoire. I have never played it before. I have been playing on the internet the QGD, but don't want to deal with that stuff in an actual tournament. Is there any website where I can learn a quick repertoire, I don't care if it's detailed, I am good enough that if I reach the middle-game, then I can take care of myself... particularly as I am drastically underrated, because I haven't played in so long.  (I just feel like getting some money, to be honest, and will be playing weaker players as a result) Anyhoo, Any suggestions would be appreciated.


Oh, I also have a question about this line:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 0-0 8. Bd3 h6 9. Bh4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Nd5 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. 0-0 Nxc3 13. Rxc3 e5 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Nxe5 Qxe5

Is it better to include that h6, or not. Pros: Luft, Cons: Potential weakness.

Thanks.