Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Exchange variation QGD (Read 12684 times)
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 787
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #33 - 08/26/08 at 10:58:58
Post Tools
Are there any good books dealing with Ne2 and 0-0-0 lines? I play this regularly against practically any Black setup, but don't know of any good treatment in the literature.
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 787
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #32 - 08/26/08 at 10:56:43
Post Tools
Whatever this line's merits at GM level, this line is generally inadvisable for club players, as White's play is both pretty easy and pretty dangerous. This is obviously not well captured by +=, +- etc type of thinking.

IOW, I completely agree with Markovich. Black is relying on nuances and a very good feel to hold the balance, while White just plays obvious moves.
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #31 - 08/25/08 at 22:24:49
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 08/25/08 at 20:24:51:
I agree.  Byrne played passively (Bd2?!) in that game and was lucky to draw, so its not really a test.  I've always thought White shouldn't take on a6, and that its slightly more accurate to play 11.f3 instead of 11.Ng3.  Most of the time you reach the same position, i.e., 11.f3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Re8 13.Ng3, but if, in this line, Black tries to refrain from 12..Re8 and play something like 12..Nc6 instead, then White has the immediate 13.e4!.  If 11.Ng3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Nc6 13.f3 then 13..Qd7 is possible, since the pressure on the d-pawn prevents e4.  This gives Black more options, although whether they are any better than ..Re8, is not clear.

A big question in these lines is what happens if Black refrains from taking on d3.  For example, 11.f3 Re8 12.Ng3 and now, instead of 12..Bxd3, Black can try 12..Qd7.  So we have this position:

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
 

The point is that 13.e4 isn't on and if 13.Ra2, Black has 13..Qb7! 14.Re2 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Qa6.  The other obvious try 13.Bxa6 Nxa6 14.Qd3 Qb7 transposes into a Beliavsky-Short game that seemed OK for Black.  What is White to do?  Zvjaginsev played 13.a4 here (running Black out of moves?)  Maybe that is best?         



For whatever it is worth, Yakovich gives 13.Bf5 Qb5 14.Re1 Qc4 15.Bb2 Nc6 (and quotes Zviagintsev to this point).  He then continues 16.e4! g6 17.Qd2! and claims advantage for White.  I agree with the evaluation and think it applies after 16.e4, but I'm not sure about the other moves leading up.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #30 - 08/25/08 at 22:12:22
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 08/25/08 at 20:28:14:
Ach, Markovich, 3...Bb4 in the QGD has been played (in the last decade or so) by GMs including Aronian, I. Sokolov, Onischuk, Moskalenko, Serper, Kacheishvili, P.-H. Nielsen, Nogueiras, Luther, Aleksandrov, the late Karen Asrian, Mchedlishvili, Barsov, Jonkman, Dizdar, Godena, Peralta, P. Horvath, Kovacevic, Del Rio de Angelis, Khenkin, Stripunsky, Landa, Mitkov, Teske, Lalic, Greenfeld etc.  The GM list for the 4. e3 d5 Nimzo includes Kortchnoi, Ljubojevic, Rozentalis, Berg, V. Akobian, Pavlovic, Kurajica, "our own" J. Aagaard, Blatny, Nybäck, I. Sokolov, Gulko, Landa, Kogan , Gausel, Rabiega, Mitkov etc.   Some of those guys played the line in question several times in that period.  I would say that seems to be in line with both lines being no worse (for Black) than "+=", certainly not "±".  (Your second proposed definition of "+=" sounds very much like the definition of "±".)


Well, all I can say is that for the time being, I maintain my view that White's play is very good, better than indeed than in the main lines of the Slav, Catalan or Orthodox QGD.  If any of these people you mention is playing Black's side of this not occasionally but habitually, perhaps he has something to teach me about chess.  In the mean time I'll be extremely happy whenever my opponents enter this line.

Like I said, to me and I think to many, "±" means that Black's draw is very doubtful.  Here I think it is merely uncertain.  That is somewhat more than what I understand by +=, but these are perhaps rather artificial distinctions.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4646
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #29 - 08/25/08 at 20:28:14
Post Tools
Ach, Markovich, 3...Bb4 in the QGD has been played (in the last decade or so) by GMs including Aronian, I. Sokolov, Onischuk, Moskalenko, Serper, Kacheishvili, P.-H. Nielsen, Nogueiras, Luther, Aleksandrov, the late Karen Asrian, Mchedlishvili, Barsov, Jonkman, Dizdar, Godena, Peralta, P. Horvath, Kovacevic, Del Rio de Angelis, Khenkin, Stripunsky, Landa, Mitkov, Teske, Lalic, Greenfeld etc.  The GM list for the 4. e3 d5 Nimzo includes Kortchnoi, Ljubojevic, Rozentalis, Berg, V. Akobian, Pavlovic, Kurajica, "our own" J. Aagaard, Blatny, Nybäck, I. Sokolov, Gulko, Landa, Kogan , Gausel, Rabiega, Mitkov etc.   Some of those guys played the line in question several times in that period.  I would say that seems to be in line with both lines being no worse (for Black) than "+=", certainly not "±".  (Your second proposed definition of "+=" sounds very much like the definition of "±".)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Online


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #28 - 08/25/08 at 20:24:51
Post Tools
I agree.  Byrne played passively (Bd2?!) in that game and was lucky to draw, so its not really a test.  I've always thought White shouldn't take on a6, and that its slightly more accurate to play 11.f3 instead of 11.Ng3.  Most of the time you reach the same position, i.e., 11.f3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Re8 13.Ng3, but if, in this line, Black tries to refrain from 12..Re8 and play something like 12..Nc6 instead, then White has the immediate 13.e4!.  If 11.Ng3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 Nc6 13.f3 then 13..Qd7 is possible, since the pressure on the d-pawn prevents e4.  This gives Black more options, although whether they are any better than ..Re8, is not clear.

A big question in these lines is what happens if Black refrains from taking on d3.  For example, 11.f3 Re8 12.Ng3 and now, instead of 12..Bxd3, Black can try 12..Qd7.  So we have this position:

* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
 

The point is that 13.e4 isn't on and if 13.Ra2, Black has 13..Qb7! 14.Re2 Bxd3 15.Qxd3 Qa6.  The other obvious try 13.Bxa6 Nxa6 14.Qd3 Qb7 transposes into a Beliavsky-Short game that seemed OK for Black.  What is White to do?  Zvjaginsev played 13.a4 here (running Black out of moves?)  Maybe that is best?          

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #27 - 08/25/08 at 19:23:22
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 08/25/08 at 16:59:58:
Well, if you're talking about the Botvinnik, then you're both right. Smiley  Its one of those positions where White has the play and, therefore, the easier game.  But ECO and Hansen in his Nimzo 4.e3 book claim that Black can equalize.  Whether you call this sort of game +/= or =, I don't think matters much.  I, for one, would rather have White.   

As for specific positions, there's an open question of what is White's best play.  I too prefer 11.f3 to the more accommodating 11.Bxa6, when I believe the latest thinking is that the 14.Ra2-Re2 maneuver is a bit slow, and it's better to play 14.Bb2, with the idea of getting in e4 as soon as possible. 

After 14.Bb2, critical might be 14..c4 (since other moves leave White with an edge) 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rae1 a5 17.e4 b4 18.e5 Nd7 when White can continue f4 or Nf5, but has to keep an eye on the Black b-pawn after b4-b3.   

I don't want to comment further on 14.Ra2-e2 if Markovich's game is still in progress, but the "final" position he gives is an interesting one that is worthy of further discussion.



I have many chess books, but the one upon which I most rely when I play this system is Yakovich.  He seems to regard 14.Rae2 and 14.Bb2 as about the same, both leading to White's advantage.  Perhaps I will learn otherwise.

I played the rook maneuver because I have played it before many times and done well.  I'm not sure what "slow" means in this context, where the sources of Black's counterplay are not obvious and White is not exactly doing nothing.  I also don't want to discuss where this game might go, and since we touch upon that now, we should not say much more about this position until my game is several moves farther down the road.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #26 - 08/25/08 at 19:16:45
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 08/25/08 at 16:55:17:
Well, "slightly better for White" seems to be the general view of the independent lines with ...Ne7, but some sources seem to consider ...Nf6 better.  For example it's my impression that, in your correspondence game, theory considers 7...Qxd5 preferable (e.g. "!" and leading to "unclear" in ECO; one recent GM-vs.-GM example of Black playing like that is Werle-Tischbierek from the Bundesliga.  We've had some discussion of this before, of course.).  But even if I assume that the position after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 is slightly better for White, I'm left with a bit of a conundrum:  a line which leaves White with his (according to you) "+= birthright" is "a mistake."  I suppose you could be using "mistake" here to mean something like, "probably not one of Black's very best defenses," whereas I would think it means roughly that it enables White to reach (at least) "±".



I think that White has more than his birthright advantage in these lines, but I don't claim quite "±", which to me connotes that Black's draw is very doubtful.  Here it is only somewhat doubtful. Nobody agrees what += means, but if it means "White has the somewhat easier game but Black can draw," I disagree with its being applied here.  If it means, "White has a clear advantage but Black may be able to draw," then I will agree.

Leaving the theory books aside, you will notice that essentially nobody plays 3...Bb4 in the QGD, and essentially nobody plays 4...d5 in reaction to 4.e3 in the Nimzo.  I think that more than anything else proves my point.  One way or the other, these are not positions into which Black should try to steer the game.

Thanks for the Marovich reference, by the way; that's one book I don't have.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4646
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #25 - 08/25/08 at 18:33:29
Post Tools
It might be mentioned that there is some, I suspect, good discussion of the "Markovich" line (with ...exd5) in Drazen Marovic's "Dynamic Pawn Play in Chess," annotating Gulko-Ljubojevic and referring to some other games (including of course Botvinnik-Capablanca).  He and ECO both think White should have some advantage with accurate play, e.g. not taking on a6.  (ECO gives the position after 11. Ng3 in Markovich's game as leading to equality based on a game between Robert Byrne and Michael Stean, but that looks nonsensical.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Online


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1490
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #24 - 08/25/08 at 16:59:58
Post Tools
Well, if you're talking about the Botvinnik, then you're both right. Smiley  Its one of those positions where White has the play and, therefore, the easier game.  But ECO and Hansen in his Nimzo 4.e3 book claim that Black can equalize.  Whether you call this sort of game +/= or =, I don't think matters much.  I, for one, would rather have White.  

As for specific positions, there's an open question of what is White's best play.  I too prefer 11.f3 to the more accommodating 11.Bxa6, when I believe the latest thinking is that the 14.Ra2-Re2 maneuver is a bit slow, and it's better to play 14.Bb2, with the idea of getting in e4 as soon as possible.  

After 14.Bb2, critical might be 14..c4 (since other moves leave White with an edge) 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rae1 a5 17.e4 b4 18.e5 Nd7 when White can continue f4 or Nf5, but has to keep an eye on the Black b-pawn after b4-b3.  

I don't want to comment further on 14.Ra2-e2 if Markovich's game is still in progress, but the "final" position he gives is an interesting one that is worthy of further discussion.

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



Posts: 4646
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #23 - 08/25/08 at 16:55:17
Post Tools
Well, "slightly better for White" seems to be the general view of the independent lines with ...Ne7, but some sources seem to consider ...Nf6 better.  For example it's my impression that, in your correspondence game, theory considers 7...Qxd5 preferable (e.g. "!" and leading to "unclear" in ECO; one recent GM-vs.-GM example of Black playing like that is Werle-Tischbierek from the Bundesliga.  We've had some discussion of this before, of course.).  But even if I assume that the position after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 is slightly better for White, I'm left with a bit of a conundrum:  a line which leaves White with his (according to you) "+= birthright" is "a mistake."  I suppose you could be using "mistake" here to mean something like, "probably not one of Black's very best defenses," whereas I would think it means roughly that it enables White to reach (at least) "±".

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #22 - 08/25/08 at 15:06:57
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 08/25/08 at 14:58:41:
Markovich, I think you woke up on the dogmatic side of the bed, or something.

It seems unlikely to me that the various GMs who are willing to play these positions, and the various books which think the Botvinnik thing is okay for Black, are just making a mistake.


I don't think that many GMs play these positions, not regularly anyway.  I don't see why it's dogmatic to respond to a request for an opinion with an opinion.  If anyone wants to discuss actual theory, let him put up some variations and I'll be happy to do so.  My personal belief is that this is significantly better for White; I think that most people familiar with it would agree with me, though I know that you don't; so I see no reason to say otherwise.  If 3...Bb4 4.e3 actually gave Black prospects of equality, I am sure we would see 3...Bb4 more often.  There is a reason why it's almost never seen, and that reason is 4.e3. This is also the very reason we don't see 4.e3 d5 in the Nimzo any more.

Also I am not aware that "various books" argue Black's side of this.  But I would rather get into positions than books, if you would care to debate this.  For instance, I have an ongoing CC game with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3 5.bxc3 0-0 6.e3 d5 7.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 c5 9.Ne2 b6 10.0-0 Ba6 11.Ng3 Re8 12.f3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Nc6 14.Ra2 Qd7 15.Re2.  Do you like Black here?  I don't, and I know precisely what I am going to do to him.  I am not sure if I'll win, but I have good chances of it.  In my view, only flat-out ignorance can excuse Black's play so far.

By the way, I once won a nice game with the Black pieces that began 1.a3?! d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 Nc6 4.Bb5? a6! 5.Bxc6 bxc6 ("White's" game is awful now, because his pawn on a3 obstructs his thematic counterplay) 6.d4 e6 7.0-0 cxd4 8.exd4 Bd6 and so forth.  It was truly weird to look down and see a Botvinnik System reversed, and White's extra tempo spent on the horrible a3. I won.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4646
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #21 - 08/25/08 at 14:58:41
Post Tools
Markovich, I think you woke up on the dogmatic side of the bed, or something.

It seems unlikely to me that the various GMs who are willing to play these positions, and the various books which think the Botvinnik thing is okay for Black, are just making a mistake.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #20 - 08/25/08 at 13:18:27
Post Tools
drkodos wrote on 08/24/08 at 21:48:40:
MNb wrote on 08/19/08 at 12:56:40:
HgMan wrote on 08/19/08 at 01:46:03:
Re. Nge2/Nf3, for what it's worth: in the lines that interest me, Nf3 leads to the Ragozin, and White has been doing reasonably well.  Nge2 can be dangerous, too, though...


Only an early Nf3 may lead to the Ragozin - 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 and no Ragozin in sight. At the other hand 5.Nf3 allows Black to develop the Queen's Bishop to f5. So it looks like the Ragozin is irrelevant for the Exchange Variation.



What if black essays 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4  ?  Then is White best advised to Play Nf3 and go into Ragozing lines or play immediate a3 or e3 and go into more Nimzo lines?    Undecided  .... don't know.

I know I get caught out in these transpositions otb as white often, but not so much a prob in cc, I guess.



3...Bb4 is a mistake because it allows 4.e3, which is quite good for White.  The Botvinnik System is at least +=.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10512
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Exchange variation QGD
Reply #19 - 08/25/08 at 03:05:35
Post Tools
drkodos wrote on 08/24/08 at 21:48:40:
What if black essays 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4  ?


Then White has a nice choice: 4.Nf3 Nf6 will become a Ragosin, 4.Qc2 Nf6 a Classical NID and 4.e3 Nf6 5.a3 the Botvinnik Variation of the NID.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo