I’ve been getting interested in this, the subject of various old threads, again after winning with it in only eleven(!) moves in the Durham League a few days ago, so I thought I’d open a new thread! I’m especially interested in two positions after 1 d4 Nc6 2 d5 Ne5 3 f4 Ng6 4 e4 e6 5 de: [u](1) 5 …fe 6 Bd3[/u] (6 Nf3 may or may not permit an advantageous 6 …d5!?) [u]Bc5 7 Nf3 Nh6[/u] (I suppose 7 …d6 is inferior, if only because of 8 g3), and [u](2) 5 …de[/u]. Modern views on this opening have, it seems, been influenced quite a bit by the comments of Burgess in [i]Beating the Indian Defences[/i] (1997) and [i]NCO[/i] (1999). In the former of these he suggests 5 …de 6 Qd8 is very little for White (which results do seem to bear out!) and prefers 6 Bd3, while in [i]NCO[/i] he famously calls the 5 …fe line dubious! Anyway, here are my tentative thoughts thus far -- I’d really welcome yours!

[u](1) 5 …fe 6 Bd3 Bc5 7 Nf3 Nh6[/u]

Ionescu-Yevdokimov went 8 g3 Ng4 9 Rf1 d6 10 Qe2 0-0 11 Nc3. Here Black blundered with 11 …Ne7 allowing 12 Ng5, but, although Berdichevsky calls the position unclear, I’m suspicious about Black’s play (... Ng4 seems rarely to be a good idea). Maybe 11 …d5? -- but it looks good for White to me. Since Black needs to gain space and play, why not just 8 g3 0-0 9 Qe2 d5!? (or 8 Qe2 0-0 9 g3 d5)? Here Blagosevic-Karpatchev (the only game in this line?) went 10 Nc3 c6!? 11 Bd2 b5 12 e5 Nf5 13 Nd1 Bd7 14 Nf2 a5 15 0-0, draw agreed. I guess White could play more aggressively here, e.g. 12 0-0-0, but then maybe 12 …d4 13 Nb1 Qb6 is reasonable (14 e5 Nf5; 14 Ng5 Be7!)?

Of course White has alternatives, for instance 8 g3 0-0 9 Nc3. Without Qd1-e2 in, maybe Black can try here 9 …d5 10 Na4 de 11 Be4 Qd1 12 Kd1 Bd6? Meanwhile, I showed this position to Rybka and it came out with the ‘eternal combination’ 9 …a6!? 10 f5 ef 11 Bh6 gh 12 ef Qe8 13 Qe2 Qe2 14 Ke2 d5 15 fg Bg4 16 gh Kh8 17 Kd2 Rf3 18 Rae1 Bf2 19 Re2 Rf7 …

[u](2) 5 …de[/u]

In Klaric-Dlugy, following 6 Bd3 Bc5 7 Nf3 Black castled rather early, and after 7 …Nf6 8 Qe2 0-0 9 g3 played 9 …e5?! allowing 10 f5 with an attack. Maybe 9 …Bd7 is OK? -- but in any case it can be played on move 7. Dizdar-Mohr was a short draw: 7 …Bd7 8 Qe2 Nf6 9 g3 Qe7 10 Nc3 Bc6 11 Bd2 0-0-0 12 0-0-0 Rhe8 13 Kb1 e5 14 f5. Rather sterile stuff, but possibly enough to convince some Whites to follow a more ‘exciting’ path on move 2 …?

The same might be said of 6 Qd8 Kd8 7 Nf3 (best?). I’d be interested to know what people think Black’s best defence is here! Tisdall on ChessPub suggests it [i]might[/i] not be 7 …Bb4 8 c3 Bc5 as White wants to expand anyway, but a couple of games by Barle, against Crouch and Collyer (the first of which I saw at first hand), suggest that White too has to be careful! 7 …Nf6 (Cole-Wall) is maybe less sharp, while 7 …Bc5 and 7 …Bd7 have also been played successfully. Overall Black’s results here have been fine! -- though it must be said the sample is pretty small.


So -- is Burgess right, or is the truth more complicated? And how reliable or otherwise is the 2 d5 Ne5 line? As a final thought, enthusiasts of line (1) might need to prepare line (2) anyway, [i]if[/i] they meet 3 e4 with 3 ...e6. Berdichevsky suggests (p. 130) that here, after 4 de, 4 ...fe is dubious because of 5 Nc3! (5 ...Bb4? 6 Qd4; 5 ...Nf6?! 6 f4; 5 ...Ng6 6 Nf3 Bc5 7 h4!; best may be 5 ...b6). But even if this is true, Black can play 3 e4 [u]Ng6 4 f4 e6[/u] (which was in fact the move order of Collyer-Barle), or, if in the mood for something [i]really[/i] offbeat, Mestrovic's [u]3 ...d6!?[/u] ...