MNb wrote on 11/23/08 at 19:58:57:

Thanks MNb for those lines (I'm guessing it should be 8...Bh5 in the first one). I was surprised that Glenn Flear's "starting out: slav and semi-slav" didn't give any independent lines.

I'd be slightly cautious about playing 5.Qc2 g6 as Black (intending ...Bf5), as White could gain time kicking the bishop with f3 & g4 (or e4). Andrew Martin gives 5.Qc2 g6 6.Bf4 Bf5 7.Qd2 Nf6 8.f3 as promising for White. It's similar to the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 c6 6.Qc2 g6 7.e3 Bf5 8.Qd2 (& 9.f3) which turned out well in Karpov-Kasparov (1986), Kasparov-Short (1988), and Topalov-Karpov (1998). Maybe Black can improve though!

The QGD Exchange against the Triangle setup seems like a popular way for White to avoid the Noteboom and the Semi-Slav etc. But can Black take advantage of this particular move order, or is it best to allow transposition into normal QGD Exchange lines?

After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.cxd5 exd5, an Andrew Martin video recommends 5.Qc2 for White, claiming that Black can't avoid the usual stuff (that would typically arise via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6/Be7 4.cxd5 exd5). However, can't Black make use of the fact that he hasn't yet played ...Nf6 or ...Be7, and try something a bit more ambitious like 5...Bd6!?, say? This could be followed up with ...Ne7 and ...Bf5 (possibly ...f6 if White plays Bg5). The downside from Black's point of view is that both pairs of bishops might easily get exchanged, leaving a drawish position perhaps. Anyone know anything about this idea for Black and/or other ways of thwarting White's attempt at forcing a standard QGD Exchange?

Very similar are 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 (or 5.Nf3 Bd6 6.Bg5 Ne7) 5..Bd6, or 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bf4 (5.Bg5 Be7; 5.Qc2 Bd6 6.Bg5 Ne7) 5...Bd6.