Yes, but White avoids this after Bf4 because of Qa4+Qxc4 with tempo on c7

Yes, this looks convincing to me. I had faced a difficulty once when i tried to defend the 4...Ne4 5.Bf4 variation. I see now that Bogdanov in his book likes White's theoritical chances for a slight edge here. The main line goes 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Nf3 c5 8.e3 O-O 9.exd5 cxd4 10.cxd4 Qxd5 11.Be2 Nc6 (11...Qa5+ is considered inferior by Grivas)
12.O-O Bf5 13.Qa4 Qa5 when Bogdanov says that White has a very slight edge. Indeed i remember that a painfull game of mine went 14.Qxa5 Nxa5 15.Nd2!? N (i see now that Dembo doesn't mention this) when i reacted with the logical 15...Rfc8 but after 16.Rfc1 White plans g4!+Rab1, so i tried 16...Nc6 17.Bf3 e5?! (17...Nb4 is better but White keeps an edge) 18.Bxc6 exf4 19.Bxb7 fxe3 20.fxe3 Rac8 and i was squized after 21.Rc3! etc. I never analysed this seriously. I see now that maybe 15...Nc6! is more critical when 16.g4! Bd7!? 17.Rab1 b6 18.Bg3! may keep an edge because White can claim the c file after the move Ba6. I know it's cannot cause to much terror for Black but i got victim of this security-feeling myself. Maybe we can discuss this a bit?

My limited chess understanding prefers White here, but as i said, my limited understanding....Maybe now we can appreciate these positions better because openings like Trompowsky when the one side gives the bishop pair to gain something else are better understood nowdays. In this position White has pressure on the Qside, limits the Bg7 with his pawnstructure and after all it seems difficult to maintain the bishop pair after something like

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Ne4 5. cxd5 Nxg5 6. h4 Ne4 7. Nxe4 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qa5 9. Nf3 Bg7 10. Qa4+ Qxa4 11. Nxa4 Bg4 12. e3 Nd7 13. Be2 h6 (Ng5 was a threat) 14. Rc1 c6 15. Nd2 Be6 16. b3 and Bc4 may come (also something like h5 and then Nc5 Nxc5 Rxc5 etc...) If someone has an advantage here, i think it is White.

Another line that may interest you is 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Ne4 5.cxd5 Nxg5 6.h4 and now Dembo's 6...Ne4 7.Nxe4 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qa5 "with the advantage to Black" is a little questionable because after 9.Nf3 Bg7 10.Qa4+ GM Rogers calims a slight advantage for White in one of his SOS articles.

Another player to whom White's advantage in the Grünfeld case certainly appeared to be unclear is Jakob Aagaard.  For example, regarding Yusupov-Carlsen, he wrote that "two weeks later Black improved with 15...Rc8 16. f4 Ba6!.  Now White will either have to accept the exchange of light-squared bishops, or refrain from playing Ne5.  Probably the latter possibility is preferable.  Black was soon better after 17. Ne5 Bxe2 18. Nxe2 Nxe5 19. fe Ne4 20. Be1 Bh6 21. Ng3 Ng5 22. Rc3 Ne6 23. Bf2 c5, Jakobsen-McShane, Malmö 2003."     

As for general considerations, I would have thought that an extra pair of minors has an overall tendency to favor Black (i.e. the guy who has an inherent tendency to end up with hanging pawns or an IQP) in such a structure.

kylemeister wrote on 06/21/10 at 21:20:54:


It's not about an "improved Tartakower", it's about structures that are known from the Tartakower as being sub-optimal for black.

@Eric  That might be true to a point, but don't dig up something too old or too dubious... you will just get faceslapped. A master I beat about 2 months ago, he was told I played 8. Rb1 and knew the theory well. He decided to deviate with a dubious line from the 80s. He was lost right out of the opening and never got a chance to even play a game. 

@Stigma

Its probably about time I rework my repertoire to remove 2. Nf3 but i'm not seeing the bite to Bd2 in either line tbh - I just want to try it.

kylemeister wrote on 06/21/10 at 21:20:54:


Glad I'm not alone with the Tartakower thing.

I hadn't really considered Bb5+ before Black has played ...c5, but I do seem to remember this line being played back in the early 90s.  It's something to look into.  I'm looking for something sound, with a nice pedigree, that presents Black with some unique problems, etc.  No Black players are surprised by 8.Rb1 anymore, and it might be time to revive an older line.  Often the older lines are just as good (for all practical purposes at the under GM level) but are just out of fashion.  This is where you can really dig and come up with new ideas!

I remember someone said something along the lines of: "Everyone is obsessed with playing whatever Bent Larsen plays.  But the trick is to play what Bent Larsen was playing 10-20 years ago, because by now the best antidotes have been forgotten and the surprise factor is back in business!" Or something like that.  I think it's really true, and not just from a standpoint of surprising your opponent.  I don't want to memorize a ton cutting edge theory that will get overturned by the next Informator.  I want something interesting that was once a main line that I can inject my own ideas into without my opponent being able to get the best continuations for free by watching the latest games from Linares!