I don't really see the benefit of updating Jangjava's book by covering 3...Be7 again, especially if there are unresolved problems with 4.Qc2.  Qc2 is indeed unusual, but as a White, whenever I see 3...Be7 I'm looking for unusual ways to challenge Black's move order.  I have played 4.Qc2 in blitz, with unremarkable results except on the clock.

I'd be more interested in buying a book that has 3...Nf6 and covers "the main lines" (as a certain other series advertises) than 3...Be7 lines and try to learn a Catalan variation that is less exacting than those with Bb4+.

I'm going to make another plea for the line that Topalov tried against Kramnik.  

That is, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dc4 5.Bg2 Bb4+
This line could transpose to main lines, but has independent significance.

Avrukh writes,


There is no question that Black's position is very solid....

In summary, I can state that Black's most challenging continuation is 6...a5. ... There have not, as yet, been enough games with 7.0-0 to draw any definite conclusions, but the fact that it has been employed recently by Kramnik and Ivanchuk says a lot.  ... I recognise that Black's position is quite sound.  I expect to see many games in the near future with 7.0-0.

Grandmaster Repertoire 1.d4 volume 1, p.50

What better way to make your book especially interesting than if you can come up with some analysis that proves Avrukh correct that Black's position is sound after 7.0-0?  

It should be relatively easy to learn and has the benefit of being close enough to the main line to possibly confuse White.

Also, it fits comfortably with the repertoire in a way that other moves don't.  Again, it is sound, interesting, and practiced at the very highest levels of chess!

4. Qc2 dxc4 make a lot of sense - is white's Q well placed in a QGA? Black could make the argument that he should be able to equalize since white no longer influences the d4 square so critical to all QGA lines, and my personal impression is that white is headed for some really poor version of the e3 QGA where the Qc2 is just misplaced.

Sure, it's not thematic for a QGD book, but how often would 4. Qc2 occur anyway?

Antillian wrote on 02/24/10 at 22:09:15:


From the blurb, I don't think you can tell one way or the other.  Could be either . . . or both    

I second the nomination of the main line.   

I note that if IM Cox goes with the main line of the Catalan and also chooses the 3..Be7 move order and ..c5 vs the Bf4 lines, that his book may be viewed as a new and improved version of Jangjava's old book on these very same lines.   

I personally think that would be a good thing because (i) Jangjava's book, while excellent, was light on the verbal explanations, which is something that I imagine IM Cox will redress, and (ii) the readers who have the Jangjaja book -- and I imagine that most Tartakower and Lasker players would have it -- would want to stick with their existing lines as much as possible.   

I realize that I'm making a pretty big assumption on point (ii).  But it seems to me that if you've been playing 3..Be7 vs the Exchange for the last ten years, you're probably not that interested in switching to 3..Nf6.  (Unless of course your old line is under pressure, in which case a new approach may not only be welcome, but necessary.) 

BTW, one line to cover, which was not mentioned in Jangjava's book but is seen more often than you might think at club level is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.e3.

Vandros wrote on 02/22/10 at 06:31:01:


The "many transpositions" are mainly in whether white approaches via a flank opening, or not.

Once actually in the body of Catalan theory there's hardly any (and none I can think of if white/black is playing accurately).

Vandros wrote on 02/21/10 at 21:56:36:


Doesn't happen if white's playing accurately in any line I can think of.

The book is supposed to have a Catalan line, although I haven't yet decided which one it will be - any ideas welcome, in fact.