Holbox wrote on 02/12/09 at 07:59:36:


My interpretation of this idea is that it restrains e3-e4, which is difficult to play with the bishop bearing down on d4.  Black's idea is rather coy, taking advantage of the inactive state of White's QB.

Very, very interesting this question of extra tempi -- and seriously underresearched I think. We've all had the experience of looking some position up on ChessBase and realising that some/several/many of the examples of it have been reached via White losing a tempo. I suppose it's easy to think that in a blocked position that might be fine but that in a more open one such as these Gruenfeldish positions one extra tempo ought to count, and losing two, even in an otherwise innocuous line, is a no-no, but I'm not sure that even this is always necessarily true, though presumably it usually is. Maybe the Smyslov QGA could be seen as a kind of litmus test, around which a chapter, or even a whole book, could be written by the right author!

@ Markovich. I haven't looked yet at 15 dc or at 15 Bc4 Nc4 16 Qb3 cd, but my tentative thinking so far was that 16 ...Nb6 here is probably OK but 16 ...Na5 possibly dubious? ...

kylemeister wrote on 02/11/09 at 03:32:34:


Thanks for that info.  Not to say that Black is equal in the Smyslov, or even in that queen sac, but this would seem to cast some doubt on anti-Gruenfeld methods with e3, cxd5.  It surprises me that White is considered slightly better in the lines you point to.

@Papageno:  Yes, the plan with h3 is treated in Neistadt, and he thinks that White winds up with a slight advantage.  I've looked at it but I don't have my notes with me right now, so I'll post later.

@Michael: After 14.Bf4 etc. Black also has 16...Na5, but I'm not certain how good it is.

kylemeister wrote on 02/11/09 at 01:01:09:


Two!!  But ha ha, what are tempi?  Seriously though, point out the line, would you, and save me having to puzzle it out?  Oddly enough I have this line in an ongoing game with (only!) one tempo up as Black, after 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 dxc4.

But Black has an interesting queen sac in one line that came up during my investigations: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 5.Bxc4 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Nfd7 8.e4 Nb6 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Be3 Nc6 11.d5 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Ne5 13.Be2 Nec4 14.Bf4 ("!" Neistadt) 14...c6 15.dxc6 bxc6 16. Qb3 (as opposed to 16.Qc2 Nxb2!? as given in Neistadt) 16...Nxb2 17.Rab1 Nd3 18.Rfd1 (18.Rbd1 is quite similar) 18...Nxf4 19.Rxd8 Raxd8 and now for example, 20.Ba6 Rd2.

@Michael:  I looked at 14.Bf4 c6 15.Bxc4 Nxc4 16.Qb3 cxd5 17.Nxd5 e5 18.Qxc4 (18.Bc1 Nb6) 18...exf4 19.Nxf4 (19.Qb3 Qh4) 19...Qd2  20.Nd5 Rae8 and though Black probably can't win very easily, I thought he had moderately good compensation for his pawn.

I wonder what you think of this game by Mikhail Tal.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 g6 5. Bxc4 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Nfd7 8. h3 Nb6 9. Bb3 Nc6 10. a3 e5 11. d5 Na5 12. Ba2 c6 13. e4 cxd5 14. Nxd5 Nxd5 15. Bxd5 Bd7 16. Bg5 Bf6 17. Bxb7 Nxb7 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19. Qxd7 {(...) 1/2-1/2 Tal,M (2620)-Georgiev,K (2430)/Lvov 1984 (66)} *

8.h3 is a key move by Tal restricting the black bishop on c8. Note that the pawn stays on e3 to keep the center stable (especially the squary d4 safe). Next, 10. a3 secures the nice diagonal a2-f7 for the light-squared bishop. After 10...e5, the black bishop on g7 is getting nicely buried.

Essentially, white is better here after 15 moves in this game, and after 19 moves white has an extra pawn for nothing. I'm curious where you can find a clear path to equality here.

I spent some time on alternatives like 10.... a5 11. Ba2 a4 12. Qc2 and e.g. 12... Ra5 13. Rd1, but white seems just fine here intending pressure down the central lines (Bc1-d2-e1, Rac1 etc.). - Regards!

[quote author=nmga link=1233689621/0#3 date=1234173601]Yes, thanks! I'd often thought about this myself but given its unpopularity and assessments of a White edge had carelessly just thought it must have been found rather inferior. But looking at these lines I can't really see why. Gruenfeldish positions without all the theory could be just the thing down at the Club![/quote]

One new idea that recently came up in my studies is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 5.Bxc4 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Nfd7 8.e4 Nb6 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Be3 Nc6 and now, instead of 11.d5 (as given in my first post) 11.Ng5!? (suggested by Hiarcs) 11...Bxe2 12.Nxe2.  White goes out of his way to preserve his nice pawn center.  Now I'm not sure, but it would seem that Black should play 12...e6 followed by ...Qd7 and ...some rook d8.  Or is it a mistake to allow f4?

Further in case of 11.d5 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Ne5 13.Be2 Nc5, Black has to reckon with 14.Bf4 and perhaps even 14.Bg5, which appear to be stronger moves than 14.Bc1 as played by Evans against Smyslov.  Actually 14.Bf4"!" is given in Neistadt as leading to some advantage for White; he doesn't mention 14.Bg5.

Still Black's system seems worth investigating.  I'm testing it in some CC games and we'll see.

I just had to respond, considering my handle.

This variation seems a bit slow, but might be an interesting attempt to take White out of the reams of theory surrounding 4.e3. 

This could be a nice surprise weapon for Black.  Thanks for sharing it, Markovich!

I wonder if this variation of the QGA has ever attracted anyone's attention here besides my own.  1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 5.Bxc4 Bg7 with the idea ...Nfd7, ...Nb6.  It's rather Gruenfeld-like and I would say Alekhine-like in some respects as well.  It's basically missing from the theory books (nary a word in Chess Stars, for instance), except that Neistat's old QGA reference has a pretty good chapter on it.  It's doesn't seem to be played very much any more, either, but in looking at the lines I haven't been able to find anything that I would call a refutation.

One quite dangerous line is 6.Nc3 0-0 (6...Nfd7? 7.Bxf7+!) 7.e4 Nfd7 8.e5.  Neistat cites a White win that arose from 8...c5 9.e6 fxe6, but Black instead has 9...cxd4!? 10.exf7+ (10.exd7 is quite good for Black) 10...Kh8.  Black is in danger, particularly from White's running his h-pawn.  However I analyzed both 11.Ne4 and 11.Nd5 and concluded that Black is OK (actually I also looked at Ne2, Nb5 and even h4).  For example 11.Ne4 Nc6 12.h4 h5 and although Black has a fouled-up kingside, he has a nice pawn on d4 and good piece activity, with a knight coming to e5.  White's f7 pawn will fall pretty soon, I think.  Further instead of 8...c5 Black may be OK with 8...Nb6.

White more usually castles early, e.g. 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Nfd7 8.e4 Nb6 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Be3 Nc6 11.d5 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Ne5 13.Be2 Nec4 (but not 13...c6 14.Qb3) as played by Smyslov against Evans back in 1952, I forget where. 

The one(!) line quoted in ECO (and NCO) is 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Nfd7 8.Qe2 Nb6 9.Bb3 Nc6 10.Rd1 Bg4 11.h3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3.  Now instead of 11...e6 as quoted in both works, Black has 11...e5 (I find this in Chess Assistant with a couple of games, and it is mentioned with "!?" and nothing more in NCO) 12.dxe5 Qe7.  Black seems to be a little bit worse but nothing serious.  16.d5 also looks viable for Black.

White also has early h3 ideas, either with or without early castling.

Oh, I forgot to mention that Khalifman gives, of all things, 6.b4 0-0 7.Nbd2.  He continues 7...Nfd7 but he overlooks 7...Nd5, which I think is almost certainly Black's best move.  I looked at it and White is White, but I couldn't find much to fear for Black.  For example 8.b5 a6.  I can only speculate that Khalifman wanted to dispose of the Smyslov Variation without spending the time and space necessary to delve into its historical practice.

All in all, I think the line merits attention, particularly since it appears to be sound, reflects a modern approach to the center, and requires very little preparation.