Hah - this thread brings back memories. Some time in about 1979 I played Julian Hodgson in a junior event. The game began 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 Bg2 Nc6, and now it occurred to me that by 4 d4 I could obtain a reversed Grunfeld, which must be fine for White, I thought. Julian played 4...Nf6 and now I remembered (from Hooper's QGA book) that there was this little-known Smyslov variation of the QGA. So I played 5 dxc5 e6 6 00 Bxc5, and now 7 Nd2?!

Julian, for all his geniality, had a bit of a presence at the board as a young man, and he gave this something of the Kasparov lip-curl treatment. Eventually though he managed to write it down and get on with the game, in which I was crushed.

Afterwards he suggested that as White I had managed to play the Grunfeld a tempo down even on where Black would have been, and it wasn't surprising I'd lost. I replied spiritedly that I had done nothing of the kind; on the contrary I had been playing the Smyslov variation a tempo up, and either the variation must be no good or else I had somehow unluckily gone wrong later on.

It wasn't Julian's practice to continue this sort of fruitless debate, but once I had had the chance to do a little counting on my fingers in private I saw he was right, and my interest in this variation - at any rate with colours reversed - rather disappeared.

John Bartholomew wrote on 07/07/11 at 19:54:42:


I think the Smyslov QGA is one of those systems where Black hopes for += but some degree of dynamism to give him a little something to fight for.  I noticed this system a year or two ago and played it in a few cc games, mostly with good results, but I always thought that with best play it would be objectively +=.  Objective evaluation and scoring points in this game are rather separate things, of course.

I don't think this compares to the Schlechter Slav at all, this being more dynamic.

Part of the appeal of the Smyslov QGA is that Black obtains a Gruenfeldy sort of game while avoiding reams of complicated theory and also the fianchetto system.  I probably wouldn't play it against a White loaded for bear, however.

My opinion. 

Odd variation to devote an entire book to.  The ...Nf6-d7-b6 maneuver and accompanying ...Nc6/...e5 is way more Grunfeld than QGA.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 g6 5. Bxc4 Bg7 6. O-O O-O 7. Nc3 Nfd7 8.Qe2 looks natural.  Several games have gone Nb6 9. Bb3 Nc6 10. Rd1 Bg4 11. h3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 +=

I dunno, I tend to think that when Black plays non-critical ...g6 systems (like this or the Schlecter Slav), the best he can hope for is +=.

Yeah! Good catch. I don't have a print source to verify it, but Nf6 makes far more sense in the context.

That link doesn't work. Here's another link to the Amazon.com page:

http://www.amazon.com/Queens-Gambit-Accepted-Smyslov-Variation/dp/4871878880/ref...

I had to look up to see which QGA line was the "Smyslov Variation". It's a rare line with g6. This is a rare line, but it makes sense that Smyslov's name is associated with it since he was one of the few GMs who played it more than once. He was also one of the first to analyse it. Here's one of Smyslov's earliest games with that line. 

I don't anything about this book in particular, but Schiller is widely considered the worst chess author out there, at least writing in English.  I doubt this book will cause his reputation to change.

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


This having come up in another thread recently, I'll respond (for a second time) at this late date and say the question overlooks a big part of Black's idea with the Gruenfeld and related setups, which is to bear down on the dark diagonal.  There is also that the b6 knight impedes White's use of the Italian diagonal, something that comes up in another Gruenfeld namesake, 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Nb6!?.

Apart from that, Smyslov played it.

I thought I would just post the one game I have played with this system.  It was played against inferior opposition in server-based CC.  However it does show something about the play of this line.  

After starting this game, daunted by the idea of giving up two tempi, I stopped playing this.  But recently I've had second thoughts, and I've started a game against a roughly equal opponent which I hope will be of better quality, and which I will show later.  White has already opted for the setup with h3.

The game given here is amusing (to me, anyway) because after 22...Nd6, Black has everything he could possibly have hoped for.  

[Event "m1233760616"]
[Site "net-chess.com"]
[White "sisterofmercy"]
[Black "gospodin"]
[Result "0-1"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 Ng8f6 4.Bf1xc4 g6 5.Ng1f3 Bf8g7 6.0-0
0-0 7.Nb1c3 Nf6d7 8.Qd1e2 Nd7b6 9.Bc4b3 Bc8g4 10.h3 Bg4xf3 11.Qe2xf3
Nb8c6 12.Rf1d1 e5 13.d5 Nc6a5 14.Bb3c2 Qd8e7 15.e4 Ra8d8 16.b3
c6 17.Bc1b2 cxd5 18.exd5 f5 19.Qf3e2 a6 20.Rd1d2 Nb6c8 21.Ra1d1
e4 22.a3 Nc8d6 23.Nc3a4 Bg7xb2 24.Na4xb2 b5 25.a4 Qe7f6 26.Rd2d4
Na5b7 27.b4 Rd8e8 28.Bc2b3 f4 29.f3 exf3 30.Qe2xf3 Re8e3 0-1