Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 16
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox (Read 179290 times)
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2928
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #80 - 03/01/10 at 10:03:13
Post Tools
All very fine, but we're not talking about playing the Semi-Tarrasch, or the Nimzo for that matter! If you want to learn other openings to deal with move-order issues fine, but lets try and stick to the topic of the QGD  Shocked
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Göran
Senior Member
****
Offline


ChessPublishing is great!

Posts: 454
Location: Sweden
Joined: 02/13/08
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #79 - 02/28/10 at 19:44:01
Post Tools
Wikipedia, which I by the way think is a very good source for common definitions of chess openings, seems to agree with Kylemeister

"The variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 is called the Semi-Tarrasch Defense. Unlike the regular Tarrasch, Black does not suffer an isolated pawn, but he cedes a spatial advantage to White. The Semi-Tarrasch has ECO codes D40 through D42"
  

What kind of proof is that?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #78 - 02/28/10 at 19:40:55
Post Tools
Oh, right.  I thought ...c5 had already been played in Lee's line.  My mistake.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4989
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #77 - 02/28/10 at 19:28:59
Post Tools
As far as I know, the Semi-Tarrasch is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #76 - 02/28/10 at 19:17:11
Post Tools
I thought 4..Nxd5 was the definition of the Semi-Tarrasch, regardless of White's continuations.  What are these other variations called, if not the Semi-Tarrasch?

(I recognise that it's possible to transpose to other openings from the Semi-Tarrasch, including one instance of reaching the Scotch! But the moves you suggest should still be Semi-Tarrasch, no?)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #75 - 02/28/10 at 16:59:43
Post Tools
Note that after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 Nxd5 doesn't necessarily lead to the Semi-Tarrasch.  After 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 c5 White can choose 7.Rb1 or 7.a3 instead of 7.Nf3.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1429
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #74 - 02/28/10 at 08:23:54
Post Tools
A couple of thoughts of mine based on my experience on the exch variation that i have played and theached for both sides over the years. 

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 and now:

1)A Lasker fan find the situation akward after 3...Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3! O-O (or h6 Bh4 first, i doesn't matter much) 6.Rc1! (Korchnoi variation) and now the Ne4 move leesd to a really bad position. Also this line seems quite interesting against a Tartakower set-up because White will play Bd3 and Nge2 and the Nf4 suits fights well against the Tartakower-hanging pawns. So 3...Nf6 allows this option for White

If 3...Nf6 though 4.cxd5 Nxd5! is the semi-Tarrasch i always liked after reading Comas Fabregos' True lines in Chess and if 4.Bg5 Be7 5.cxd5 Nxd5 again i think was given by Sadler as good for Black. I liked the Semi-Tarrash because it gives more winning chances over the more standard ...exd5 lines

3...Be7 avoids the Korchnoi variation but allows the Alatortsev's and maybe this rare 4.Qc2 but the majority of my QGD games started with the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 and now after 3.Nc3 i played 3...Bb4 and only after 3.Nf3 d5! which avoids all these nuances of the exch var.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2928
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #73 - 02/26/10 at 09:07:41
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 02/25/10 at 21:16:11:
I'll tell you my gripe with 3...Be7, just in confidence, you understand. Suppose White plays 4 Qc2. What is Black meant to do then if he isn't going to allow the main lines of 3...Nf6?


Amazing. I've been playing 3...Be7 over the years and would you believe that question never entered my head. Looking at it you're quite right, the most sensible move seems to be 4...Nf6 when after 5.cxd5 we've been "tricked" back into those exchange lines we are trying to avoid  Sad  

However it seems to me that BPaulsen's suggestion of ...dxc4 is reasonable - the only thing is it will likely transpose to the 5.Qc2 line (e.g. 4. Qc2 dxc4 5.Nf3 Nf6). That is not any easy escape though as that 5.Qc2 move I rate extremely dangerous - the main-line is something like Aronian-Ivanchuk in a 2008 game: 
1. d4   Nf6
2. c4   e6
3. Nf3  d5
4. Nc3  Be7
5. Qc2  dxc4
6. e4   Nc6
7. e5   Nb4
8. Qb1  Nfd5
9. Bxc4 Nb6
10. Bb3 Bd7
11. a3  N4d5 

This one is something like those QGA e4 lines, White must be somewhat better.

Instead of the transposition there is BPaulsens 5...Nc6 or 5...a6 to consider also, heading into uncharted territory, although if we are going to go 5...dxc4 against the 5.Qc2 line then it makes sense to investigate this line a bit more deeply. Also I kind of feel happier with my Knight out on f6 instead of still on g8, I suppose I could wait one more move though but that would be my max!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #72 - 02/26/10 at 02:29:02
Post Tools
Well, I don't want to belabor a point I hadn't planned to discuss at any length anyway, but 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Be7 does have the small benefit of discouraging Bg5.  Of course, White usually continues 4.Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 anyway.  3...Be7 is much less effective as a move-order subtlety against 3.Nf3 than Nc3.

My main point, such as it was, was that 3...Nf6 against both Nc3 and Nf3, with the idea of meeting the Catalan with 4...dc4 and 5...Bb4, is a consistent and sound repertoire. 

Of course IM Cox will choose the variations he wants to cover.  My post was to lobby for a variation of the Catalan that I think gives Black good chances.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #71 - 02/26/10 at 01:45:31
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/25/10 at 23:06:52:
 
This was the source of my "confusion".  I play the Exchange Variation with Nc3 and without Nf3 as White.


Smyslov Fan, I'm not sure what you mean, but if you play 3.Nc3, I assume you know about both 3..Nf6 and 3..Be7.  If White wants the Exchange Variation he can play 4.cxd5 against either, but the resulting lines are different, and I personally find that White players are more likely to play 4.cxd5 against 3..Nf6 than they are against 3..Be7.  If your goal as Black is to get to a Tartakower and not have to play vs the Exchange an inordinate amount of time, I would definitely recommend 3..Be7 to 3..Nf6.    

Quote:
  Also, I disagree that "most" of Cox' target audience would already own Jangjava's book.  I haven't even seen a copy here in the US, though I know it exists.  I wonder if there are any sales figures on the book available.


This is silly. Jangjava's book is still sold by Gambit and available in the US through Amazon, B&N, Chess4Less, . . .  The fact that it is still printed and on the market indicates that it has been a good seller or, at minimum, that the publisher feels its worthwhile to keep printing it.

But really my point was that there have been few books that cover the Tartakower thoroughly, and so if you play the Tartakower as Black as your principal defense to 1.d4, you should have Janjgava's book in your library.  I would bet that most Tartakower   
players do.   

Whether IM Cox chooses to cover the same lines or different lines is, of course, totally up to him and maybe, I suppose, his publisher.  From his comment about 3..Be7, it sounds like he is, indeed, contemplating a different approach than the one Janjgava took.   


Quote:
Anyway, BPaulsen, you were correct. I thought 3...Be7 was recommended against both N-B3s for White. 

3.Nf3 Be7 4.Qc2!? is one of my blitz lines, but I've never researched it cos I usually play 3.Nc3 in serious games.


BP Paulsen is completely right, of course.  On 3.Nc3, Black plays 3..Be7.  The point is to induce White to play 4.Nf3 and therefore avoid the Exchange Variation with Nge2.  On 3.Nf3, Black doesn't have to worry about the Nge2 Exchange Variation, so he simply plays 3..Nf6.  I don't see why anyone would prefer 3..Be7 against 3.Nf3, but perhaps I am missing something?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #70 - 02/26/10 at 01:05:13
Post Tools
IMJohnCox wrote on 02/25/10 at 21:16:11:
I'll tell you my gripe with 3...Be7, just in confidence, you understand. Suppose White plays 4 Qc2. What is Black meant to do then if he isn't going to allow the main lines of 3...Nf6?


If you're suggesting something like 4.Qc2 Nf6 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5, it seems to me that Black should be able to take advantage of the fact that White has committed to Qc2 so early (before ..c6 is played).  For example, 6..0-0 7.e3 h6 8.Bh4 Re8! 9.Bd3 c5. This position is usually reached via the move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 0-0 8.Bd3 Re8!? when 9.Qc2 is known to be an inaccuracy due to 9..c5.  From here, the game Azmaiparashvili-Cvetkovic, Tatran Cup 31st 1983 continued 10.Nge2 Nc6 11.dxc5 d4 12.Rd1 g5 13.Bg3 dxc3 14.Bc4! (14.Bh7 Nxh7 15.Rxd8 Rxd8 leaves Black up material) 14..Qa5 15.Qg6 Kh8 16.Bxf7 (16.Qxh6 Nxh7 is fine for Black) 16..cxb2! 17.Kf1 and now Janjgava points out that 17..Rd8 wins.  One neat line goes 18.Bd6 Bf5! 19.Qxf5 Rxd6 20.Rxd6 Qxc5 -+.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #69 - 02/25/10 at 23:06:52
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 02/24/10 at 19:39:45:
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.

         

This was the source of my "confusion".  I play the Exchange Variation with Nc3 and without Nf3 as White.

Also, I disagree that "most" of Cox' target audience would already own Jangjava's book.  I haven't even seen a copy here in the US, though I know it exists.  I wonder if there are any sales figures on the book available.


Anyway, BPaulsen, you were correct. I thought 3...Be7 was recommended against both N-B3s for White.

3.Nf3 Be7 4.Qc2!? is one of my blitz lines, but I've never researched it cos I usually play 3.Nc3 in serious games.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #68 - 02/25/10 at 22:19:16
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/25/10 at 22:17:19:
I think we're talking across posts here.  4...dc4 and 5...Bb4+ does not fit with 3...Be7.  There have been other recommendations that also don't fit with 3...Nf6, which I would like to see covered.


3...Be7 goes against 3. Nc3.

3...Nf6 goes against 3. Nf3.

Catalan lines are entirely unimpacted, because there's no Nc3 in the Catalan.

I think you got confused somewhere on the move orders, because Alatortsev users specifically use it after 3. Nc3.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #67 - 02/25/10 at 22:17:19
Post Tools
I think we're talking across posts here.  4...dc4 and 5...Bb4+ does not fit with 3...Be7.  There have been other recommendations that also don't fit with 3...Nf6, which I would like to see covered.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Declining the Queen's Gambit by John Cox
Reply #66 - 02/25/10 at 22:15:10
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/25/10 at 22:06:15:
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!


Black has numerous "sound options", so it doesn't really say much to prove that black's position there is sound anymore than it would to choose 4...Bb4 or the main line with 4...Be7 and 6...dxc4, both of which have the stamp of approval from the highest levels of chess.

And it doesn't fit with the repertoire in a way that other moves don't - where'd you get that impression?! It's simply another quality option.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 16
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo