Interesting lines, TN, but you seem to contradict yourself:
TN wrote on 09/07/09 at 10:09:31:
Schaakhamster wrote on 09/07/09 at 09:55:51:
Dean wrote on 09/06/09 at 22:07:37:
A problem with 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6?! is that white can get a very durable += by 3. Bf4!
Without both c5 and e5 black will suffer a bit.
I'm experimenting with 3. g3 which was recommended to me by a 2200 player. My initial experience is that white has a minimal but persistent edge. As with 3. Bf4 it takes advantage of the fact that the knight on c6 blocks the c-pawn.
I agree with Schaakhamster and
disagree with Dean.
a) 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bf4 does not offer White any edge whatsoever as shown by Wisnewski and Morozevich: 3...Bg4 4.e3 (other moves also fail to achieve anything) 4...e6 (preparing ...Bd6) 5.Nbd2 (5.Be2 Bd6 is fine for Black, as shown by Morozevich's blitz games on ICC, and the same applies for 5.Bb5 Bd6) 5...Bd6 6.Bd6 (6.Bg3 is less testing) 6...cd6 and Black has full equality with good counterplay. See Adorjan-Morozevich, Alushta 1994.
b) 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.g3 - I agree that this seems a bit better for White. Morozevich gives as his main line 3...Bf5 4.Bg2 (4.c3 is overcautious) 4...e6 5.0-0 Nb4! (my exclamation) 6.Na3 Be7 (Black has several alternatives but all of them fail to fully equalise) 7.c3 Na6 8.Qb3 Qc8 and now following Chuchelov-Godena, Mondariz 2000 with 9.Bg5!? seems to be the most promising route for White.
Personally I don't trust 3...Bg4 as advocated by Wisnewski since if White defends accurately he will be a good position to seize the initiative on the queenside and in the centre. If you don't trust Bg4 although giving an equalizing main line, what's your alternative? I like this variation.
Also, regarding your 3.g3 line with 5..Nb4!?, Rybka doesn't like this move or any move you give after that for black (except Qc8). It says about 0.16 for 5..Nf6 as the best move, giving 5..Nb4 about 0.33 +/=. In your line it arrives at about 0.66 after 8..Qc8. It likes the knight retreating to c6 instead of a4 and playing Nf6 anyways instead of Le7.
Of course, i've only let it run middle-deep (depth 15) and it's difficult to trust in openings, but i don't get the point of 5..Nb4 anyways.
I wonder if the Black Swan Variation is really playable with Nxe5 instead of the Albin transposition (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 e5 4.Nxe5), as the transposition makes the Albin a lot more likely to occur. Rybka (v3, 1cpu)gives 4 ..Nxe5, 5.dxe5, d4 and then 6.e3!? for white, with a seemingly forced ..Lc5 (Lb4+ seems bad) and a really strange computer line, better see the attached pgn instead of this mess:
Quote: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c4 e5 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.dxe5 d4 6. e3 Bc5
( 6... Bb4+ 7. Nd2 Ne7 8. a3 Bxd2+ 9. Bxd2 Nc6 {0.89/13})
7. Na3 {"computer line"!?}
(7. exd4 Qxd4 8. Qxd4 Bxd4 9. f4 {0.39/14})
7... Bf5 8. Nb5 d3 9. Qf3 Ne7 10. Bd2 O-O 11. g4 Bc8 12. Qe4 Ng6 13. O-O-O a6 14. Nd4 Re8 15.
Bxd3)
6... Bb4+ 7. Bd2 Bc5 8. Qf3 Nh6 9. exd4 Bxd4
10. Bxh6 (10. Nc3 Ng4) 10... gxh6 11. Nc3 Qg5 12. Be2 (12. Qe4 Bxe5 13. Be2 Be6
$11))
I'd also like to discuss the main lines of the Albin. I'll use it at least as a secondary opening and i've already won an exciting 27-move game with it, but you really have to know a lot of variations and some of them i'm not yet convinced of.
For example, there is this short and effective line with 5.Nbd2, 6.Nb3 and 7. e4, where black is forced to take the pawn en passant, the queens are traded and i don't see black's compensation:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5.Nbd2 Nge7 6. Nb3 Nf5!? (current theory move according to kasimdzhanov) 7. e4!? dxe3 8. Dxd8 Nxd8 9. fxe3 Nc6 10.Ld3 Le6 11.Nbd4 Nfxd4 which seems forced, restoring white's pawn structure.
a similiar line was pointed out by Michael Goeller in his Albin article:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/summer05/albin-nge7.htmhe gives 10. ..Nfe7 which seems passive but keeps white's doubled pawns.
what do you think about the albin in general? do you play it in tournament games? let me know