I don't want to turn this whole thread into a debate about 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d5 5. e3 O-O 6. Qb3, but I just don't see anything for White after 6...e6.  Statistically, this scores about 55%...for Black!  I don't think I'm alone in thinking that these are not "improved Tartakower" lines from White's POV.  Statistics all come with a grain of salt, I understand, but...

My latest idea, which is probably rubbish, is to use 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bc c5 7.Bb5+ as a transpositional tool.  7...Nc6 has been refuted with some really nice tactics (see Dvoretsky's Opening Preparation for one source), 7...Nd7 doesn't attack the d4-pawn, so that leaves 7...Bd7 8.Be2!?  I'm trying to figure out if White has any tricks here to force Black into lines of the Exchange he doesn't want to play.  Maybe 8...Bg7 9.Rb1!?, for instance.  But I think if Black is careful about his move orders he'll be fine.

Unfortunately White still has to deal with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bc Bg7 7.Nf3 c5! (7...0-0?! gives White an edge after 8.Be2!, as discussed in Yermo's The Road to Chess Improvement and some other thread here).  Now if 8.Bb5+ Black can get away with both 8...Nc6 and 8...Bd7.  I'm hoping to discover some interesting ideas to play these lines as White; we'll see how it goes.

Stigma wrote on 06/19/10 at 19:37:00:



so according to this line then the 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 move order can't be used?

Ametanoitos wrote on 06/20/10 at 20:47:44:


TN mentions Kaufman's proposal without further analysis in the thread, but after personal examination I agree with TN that white keeps a small, stable edge, and that 9...Bd6 is equivalent to 9...Nbd7 and 9...c5 (his words). Obviously TN didn't reveal all of his homework. If you think 9...Bd6 is sufficient for equality, then it's probably because of a disagreement on the assessment (which wouldn't be the first time we've disagreed), which is fine.

We should probably have the moderator split these posts off though.

Ametanoitos wrote on 06/20/10 at 19:43:36:


I specifically have in mind TN's analysis already posted on here, which you presumably have, in regards to black's prospects in this line.

And TN's analysis stems from GM Kaufman's, as he says.

I am thoroughly unconvinced 0-1 is one of the results black is playing for there. Can he eventually fully equalize and draw? Probably, but no more.

But yes, we're off-topic.

Ametanoitos wrote on 06/20/10 at 12:04:03:


Yes, it's 10. Rd1, hence why I told you good find in the other thread. At the time I thought 10. Nd2 also worked (I could've mentioned both, but didn't).

Also, Dautov gave it short coverage in the Tartakower-esque line, his database is old. Similarly, he dismissed 11. Be2 in the 10. Rd1 line, so it's not surprising he may have also underestimated white in the 6. a3 b6 7. e3 (by 6. e3 b6 7. a3 by transposition). Dautov's database is very good, but he doesn't mention 6. a3 at all, for example.

It's not a terrifying white edge, but it is an edge nonetheless, and black can only draw with best play. If I'm going to only be able to draw, then I want full equality. To each his own...

It will be interesting to see what IM Cox comes up with.

ErictheRed wrote on 06/20/10 at 05:39:38:


Blocking the b-pawn isn't novel in the Tartakower, nor is putting the white queen on b3 in systems where black plays ...c6. Example line: 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 0-0 6. e3 h6 7. Bh4 b6 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. 0-0 c6 12. Re1 Re8 13. Qb3 is a line Khalifman concluded as slightly better for white in "Opening for White According to Kramnik 5". There's a number of other lines where white uses the same Qb3 theme, whenever black plays ...c6, which means it's actually desirable.

The Bd2 is less active in this line, that is a true criticism, however black can't exploit it either (compared to the Tartakower where it ends up getting exchanged most of the time whether on f6, g3, or rarely on e7). So it's not all bad for white's cause, in principle he has more space, so more pieces on the board could be a good thing.

Quote:


Joint analysis project, it doesn't hurt to know more, and at worst it benefits my white repertoire. I have no intention of dropping the NID/QID.

I've seen Ametanoitos file on this line, and it immediately became clear it's underrated, even more so when I compared it to Dembo's "Play the Grunfeld" where I wasn't too convinced by her antidote.

A lot of the lines shape up, as Ametanoitos mentioned, as having characteristics of a Tartakower Defense, but not the type black wants, but rather the passive set-ups. This line would appeal to positional players with the white pieces, to be sure.

I've got some surveys from 2007 that add some analysis to the Yusupov line, haven't bothered to verify it yet though. If it's of interest to you Ametanoitos I'll try to get around to e-mailing it at some point.

Off-topic @ Ametanoitos:

I'm also still struggling to produce something I'm happy with as black in versus the 5. Bf4 QGD as we discussed in our last e-mail, hence why I haven't e-mailed.