kylemeister wrote on 12/08/08 at 20:41:16:
(@Markovich)
I take "4. Qc2 is good for White" to mean that it apparently leads to advantage for him. In part of what you say, you seem to be considering it as a statement of personal preference (or of what you think you would find annoying as Black, or the like). Then you seem to shift to the idea that "ECO/NCO/etc. are not gospel" -- certainly true, but quite different from saying that they're irrelevant, i.e. that they have no bearing on such a claim.
If you are indeed referring to Palliser's "Play 1. d4!", I wonder if you would also say that e.g. the Slow Slav with 5. cd and the 4. Nf3/5. Bg5 Gruenfeld are "good for White." It seems to be in the very nature of that book to recommend (in many cases) lines that, while decent and solid and so forth, aren't likely to lead to an advantage against best play.
For the record, ECO and NCO are also tempted (so to speak) by 4...Bd6 5. Bg5, but they don't think it's better for White. I would wonder about 5. Nc3 with the idea of 5...f5 6. Bg5 followed by e3.
Well, since this isn't a place where we usually analyze deeply from move five to prove our points, one might safely assume that yes, I am expressing my opinion when I say that 4.Qc2 is good. It is in general safe in this life, I think, to assume that if someone opens his mouth and says that X is the case, he means that in his opinion, X is the case.
If you don't agree about 5.Qc2, that's fine with me. I would find it more interesting to discuss the chess, however, than the little signs at the end of the manual variations.
Particularly with regard to 4...Bd6 5.g3 Nf6 6.Bg2, 6...dxc4 isn't a move that I would be too eager play as Black. I would probably sooner play 4...Nbd7 and ...0-0. Do I think White has an advantage here? Well, it's a closed Catalan, which is reasonably solid for Black. As I recall, Raetsky and Chetverik maintain that Black is safe enough. But I nevertheless think White's side of a closed Catalan is worth playing for the win.