(1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5 3.f4 Ng6 4.e4 e6 5.dxe6 fxe6 6.h4) 6...Bb4+ 7.c3 Bc5 8.h5 N6e7. Instead of 9.b4 I'd prefer 9.h6 g6 10.Nf3 followed by Ng5.

Quote:

However, 5...Qb6! 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.a4 cxd5 8.Nxd5 Nxd5 9.Qxd5 e6 10.Qd4 (10.Qb5 Bc5; 10.Qd3 Qc7!) 10...Qxd4 11.Nxd4 Bc5 12.Nb3 Bb6, intending e5. White hasn't much.

OK, 1.d4 Nc6 2.Nf3 should be considered in this context. However, the reputation of the Chigorin QG 2...d5 isn't too bad. Further options: 2...d6 3.e4 Bg4 is one of the better lines of the Nimzowitsch Defence, while 3.c4 f5 may become a Krause Dutch; 2...e6 3.e4 d5 isn't exciting, but solid enough. So it may indeed depend from Black's repertoire whether 1.d4 Nc6 would be a wise practical choice, but from a theoretical perspective 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 would be widely regarded as critical. 

I think 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 gives White a slight edge, but indeed the same can probably be said for the French and Caro-Kann.  Black can also try 2.d4 e5, e.g. 3.dxe5 (3.Nf3 is a Scotch) 3...Nxe5 4.Nf3 (or 4.f4, more aggressive but potentially more weakening) when 4...Bb4+ is possible or 4...Qf6 5.Nc3 (5.Nxe5 Qxe5 6.Bd3 d5 =, see http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kaiss07.pdf page 5) 5...Bb4 6.Bd2 Ne7 with just a small edge for White.  I'm not familiar with the line 2.d4 d5 but that too may be okay for Black.

I might have a look at the 4...c6 line myself later as I've occasionally flirted with the idea of adding 1.d4 Nc6 to my repertoire.

So Markovich, you'd just transpose to the Nimzovich Defense rather than test the viability of the Bogo Defense?   

It certainly makes practical sense, but I don't think it answers the theoretical question of the soundness of the Bogo per se.

(5...fxe6) 6.h4 looks a bit dangerous for Black, e. g. 6...d5 7.h5 N6e7 8.Nf3, White plans 9.c4 & 10.Nc3. 
On the other side, 4...c6 5. Nf3 cxd5 6.Qxd5 e6 7.Qd3 Bc5 or 7.Qb3 Qc7 is a sound Sicilian structure. Probably 5.Nc3 is more critical.

[quote author=47444E48290 link=1271505369/4#4 date=1271600595]I haven't got Pickard's CD, but most sources on the position after 2 d5 Ne5 seem omissive to the point of uselessness: the usual regurgitation! A case in point perhaps is the repeated citing of Ballmann-Bus which went (5 ...fe) 6 Bd3 Bc5 7 g3 d6 8 h4!? Bd7 and Black's said to be OK -- no one mentions that with 8 Nf3 White can steer Black into the 7 Nf3 d6 line (which looks rather passive to me though as always I stand to be corrected). Instead after 7 g3 here, in view of the weakening of the diagonal from h1 I want to play 7 ...d5 immediately! ... Anyway hope we can keep up the discussion ...[/quote]
Michael, 
your 7.g3 d5! certainly is an improvement. My source is [i]1...Sc6! ...aus allen Lagen[/i] (1995) by Harald Keilhack and Rainer Schlenker, which also has 12 pages on 1.d4 Nc6. Here the theory of 7.g3 is just as described in your message. - Instead of the clumsy preparation 7.g3 and only then h4, White might try (5...fxe6) 6.h4, for example 6...Nxh4? 7.Qg4 Ng6 8.Rxh7etc. 

I don't know much about 1.d4 Nc6. Apparently 4...e6 is obligatory (~40 games in the database), since there is no 4...c6 (to exchange a center pawn), but what's the refutation? Too busy to insist that it is better, but: 5.Nc3 Qb6 6.Nf3 Nf6, here 7.a4!? could be an idea. 

[quote author=65666C6A0B0 link=1271505369/0#0 date=1271505369]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 [highlight]c6!? [/highlight]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!)?
[...] [/quote]
Or perhaps 10...e5!?

[fen]r1bq1rk1/ppp3pp/6nn/2bpp3/4PP2/2NB1NP1/PPP1Q2P/R1B1K2R[/fen] 
11.f5 (11.Nxd5 c6 or 11.h3 exf4 12.Bxf4 Rxf4!?) 11...Nxf5 12. exf5 (12.Bg5 Nfe7 followed by Bg4) 12. ... e4 "comp".