"I have a better win record vs. the dark square fianchetto's.   This may be because those types of players push harder, but it seems that Grivas' suggestions in these lines are just much more ambitious than Palliser's lines vs. the QG."

Yeah, that makes sense. i think this is really the problem with Palliser's book.

5. Bf4 is a really interesting way to play. The main lines are quite sharp, but Black can still play sidelines that avoid all of the messes. It's still a good choice though, and if you do decide to take it up, I'd buy Crouch's book on it, it's quite good!

Eclectico wrote on 11/29/08 at 22:01:14:


Not the right forum for this, but try 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 d6 5.c3 Nf6 as recommended by John Emms in Dangerous Weapons.  It's a nice way of putting a prospective White player off-balance...

Antillian wrote on 11/29/08 at 13:30:49:


Well, yes and no.  I'm not sure I would categorize the Catalan as hypermodern, but it certainly shares many themes with the Reti.  Yes: White plants two pawns firmly in the centre, but the main characteristics of the system have less to do with clinging to that pawn centre (both pawns tend to fall), but rather it emphasizes the long term advantages of White's pieces, and their pressure on the queenside, which is very similar to the Reti (and English) in a number of instances.

In addition, if Eclectico has been playing the Queen's Gambit for some time, I would hazard that the Reti might serve as the opposite pole, with the Catalan somewhere in between (sharing themes with both).  I have been playing the Catalan for some time now in correspondence chess, and I have enjoyed good results with it.  I also play the Reti and find myself getting good positions with which I am familiar.

For whatever it's worth, though, I don't think the Reti or the Catalan escapes the other problem in the original post, which MNb identified, which is that a weakness in tactics cannot be addressed only with a change of openings...

I agree MNb. When you're 1750, your loses and draw have almost nothing to do with your opening repertoire, and a lot more with the fact that you might be missing a lot of opportunities. Work through as many tactics problems as you can from CT-ART, books, CTS, and anything else you can think of. Maybe sharpen up your repertoire a little bit to work on playing more tactical, tight rope style positions. Play 4. f3 against the Nimzo, 4 pawns against the KID, Exchange against the Grunfeld, Exchange QDG with f3, or even 0-0-0, and see what happens. Even if it's only in blitz games. A lot of times players around your rating with a good understanding of chess simply can't win games because, when your positionally better, at some point you need to do something about it. And if you don't, then you'll let Black equalize. Combinations flow from better positions. So indeed, if you are reaching better positions, and not winning, you're missing something. Good luck. That said, the Catalan is more interesting thatn the QGD anyway. Switch just for fun!

HgMan wrote on 11/29/08 at 13:12:32:


This is an interesting statement. But are the Reti and the Catalan really that much in common?

Yes, both are subtle and both rely on the power of the White squared bishiop. But  I would really not consider the Catalan to be a hypermodern opening. 

In the Catalan, White plants two pawn firmly in the centre and more often than not, has a space advantage. Quite often in the Reti, White allows Black to plant his pawns in the centre and sometimes it is White who concedes space.

My white repertoire is built around 1.d4, 2.Nf3 and 3. c4.  Against the Kingside fianchetto defenses I follow Grivas' book "Beating the Fianchetto Defenses" - Bg5 Grunfeld, classical Benoni and KID with an early h3, Benko Gambit declined, etc.  I currently play the classical Queen's Gambit (4. Bg5) as recommended in Palliser's "Play 1.d4".   I use his classical lines vs. the Queen's Indian (4.e3), quiet lines vs. the slav (4.e3) and the fianchetto Dutch lines (4.g3) from the Kramnik series.  

I find I am getting too many draws in tournaments.  It seems I don't yet posess enough skills to convert space advantages into winning end games.  I thought perhaps the Catalan would allow easier transpositions into my Dutch system and help avoid some semi-slav type systerms.  It would also possibly be a better fit with the general theme of the repertoire - solid with a space advantage and moderate dynamics.  But, I'm worried about the general comments I read about the Catalan being "strategically subtle", "a theoretical labrynth", etc.

I'm 34 years old and have been playing chess about 8 years or so (2 competetively).  I am tactically weaker than many players of my skill level (1750ish USCF), but I seem to be positionally more aware than my average opponent and capable of better long-term planning.  I decided to start playing the Queen's Gambit a little over a year ago. My memory is already starting to wane, suggesting I shouldn't start taking up heavilly theoretical lines.  I want to make master before I reach senility.    

Is the Catalan a better fit form me than the classical QG?  If so, should I also add the g3 lines vs. Queen's Indian?