That's my general experience too on this ie after 1. Nf3 d6 White usually plays d4 or (less often) c4

I have played 1 d4 d6 for some time, entering into the pirc after 2 e4 or the dutch after 2 c4 or 2 Nf3.

One practical observation that I would make is if you are a French/Dutch (whether Stonewall or Classical) player, in my experience, 1 d4 players tend to play 2. e4  less against 1..e6 than 1..d6. In other words, if you are a Leningrad player looking to avoid anti-dutch lines, you are more at risk of transposition to a pirc than a Stonewall/Classical player to a french.

Psychologically this can be significant as in an evening club game if after a hard slog at work you end up with a classical pirc, during the game you may rue (as I have done) that if you had played 1 ..f5, you could now be terrifying (?!) your opponent with a king side attack

The moral? I tend to mix and match my move orders these days.

MNb wrote on 11/06/08 at 10:45:09:


Thanks.
It seems Tiger would agree with you. he says 3 c3 d6 4 f4 looks impressive but should not be scary. And 3 Nf3 d6 4 c3 Nf6 5 Nbd2 is "the least dangerous of W's options, unless you are easily bored."

Thanks Stigma for the references. Much appreciated. Looking at Tiger's more closely, he also discussed diff bet Nc3 and Nf3 in Ch 7 — Bc4 Mad Dog at p 141ff. He says after obligatory 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7, 3 Nf3 is "more positional and is favoured by players who like to avoid deep theoretical lines. 3 Nc3 is popular among players who prefer a theoretical duel with high stakes. I recommend that you meet both these lines with d6, Nf6 and 0-0." Just wondering whether his remarks here are only applicable to the lines where W intends Bc4?

Stigma, earlier, you said: "Tiger says in his book that the sneaky White move orders 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be2!? and 4.h3!? more or less force Black to go into the Pirc with 4...Nf6 (4...a6 is met by 5.c4! and ...a6 supposedly doesn't fit in a King's Indian, though Nigel Davies has a different opinion on this)." Can you give me page refs? Thanks in advance.

Queries: (1) is there any significance in the different move order if as B, I wish to play the Modern against 1 d4?
eg, earlier, Stigma suggested: 1.d4 d6 2.e4 g6 3.c4! whilst looking at Speelman&McDonald: 1 d4 g6 2 c4 Bg7 3 e4 d6 4 Nc3 and they recommend ...Nc6 to continue along Modern lines and ...Nf6 to transpose to KID.

(2) If responding with Modern to 1 d4, does it mean that the majority of games will be W steering the play to Averbakh lines? Or is it the case that at club level, W will try something else? (is it possible for W to play the Trompowski?)

BTW, going back to Leningrad Dutch/Modern combo, just thought I will point out in case someone missed it: Grivas did say at p 86 that the line 1 d4 g6 2 c4 Bg7 3 Nf3 will allow B to transpose to teh Leningrad Dutch and at p 89 he discusses briefly the response 3...f5 and says W should continue with std development with Nc3, g3 etc and not try "active" idea 4 e4?! fxe4 5 Ng5 Nf6 6 Nc3 0-0 7 Ngxe4 Nxe4 8 Nxe4 d5 9 Nc3 and suggested that B is more active with 9...e5! or 9...Nc6!? (cites Pinto-Gonzalez Costas, Mondariz 2000, Lakat-A Zoltan, Budapest 2002, Krivoshei-Malaniuk, Minsk 1999 and Fichte-Haub, Baunatal 2001 as variations).

The obvious difference is 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 (or 3.c3 at once, which allows 4.f4) d6 4.c3. According to Nunn/McNab Black has no special problems here.

tipau wrote on 11/05/08 at 00:10:01:

This is exactly how I have reached the Leningrad with Black many times. I am happy to play the Pirc with White committed to Nf3, so after 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 g6 3.e4 I just go 3...Nf6, forcing 4.Nc3 or 4.Bd3. Tiger says in his book that the sneaky White move orders 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be2!? and 4.h3!? more or less force Black to go into the Pirc with 4...Nf6 (4...a6 is met by 5.c4! and ...a6 supposedly doesn't fit in a King's Indian, though Nigel Davies has a different opinion on this). If Tiger is right, even Modern players should consider 3...Nf6. 

Besides, after 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 g6 3.e4 Bg7 4.c4 you are still in an Averbakh line. True, White is committed to Nf3, but this was recommended by both Khalifman and Grivas in repertoire books, and is considered just as critical as Nc3 by Tiger.

Those who have either a d6 Sicilian or the Philidor in their repertoire can avoid the Averbakh lines after 1.Nf3 by combining 1.Nf3 d6 2.e4 c5/e5 with 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 f5 (and 2.c4 f5). But be sure to have something ready against 1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 f5 3.Nc3! intending Bg5. I've had some truly awful games on the black side of this...

Maybe they just prefer playing the Leningrad to the Averbakh I know I would.

But you make a good point, if you play the recommeded lines in Tiger's Modern against 1.e4 (including 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4) then you hardly need to know anything more to use it against 1.d4 (and 1.Nf3 and 1.c4), so there's no need to learn the Leningrad.

I think a Leningrad/Modern combo is still reasonable if you have a different opening against 1.e4 (French, Sicilian or whatever) and you use 1.Nf3 d6 to avoid 1.Nf3 f5 2.d3!? (although I'm no longer convinced that Black should go out of his way to avoid that line). That way you can avoid the Averbakh variation by transposing to a dutch (1.Nf3 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 f5), while if White plays for a Modern (1.Nf3 d6 2.e4 g6 3.d4 or 2.d4 g6 3.e4) he is committed to a Nf3 set-up and the super critical 4.f4 lines have been avoided.

In fact that repetoire (although it sounds more complicated) could be easier to assemble than the original Leningrad/Modern idea, because I think learning a line of the Scandinavian or Alekhine's defence against 1.e4 would be easier than the critical Modern lines involving f4 or f3.