MNb wrote on 06/28/10 at 21:32:35:
I'd prefer positions (reached by move orders).

I think openings should be defined by moves, not by definitions, which in my experience are always flawed. This Slav/Semi-Slav debate is a fine example.

Slav: play an early c6 without e6 with the intention of developing your Bc8 outside the pawn chain.
Orthodox: play an early e6 without c6, so its possible to create counterplay with c5 at once.
Semi-Slav: play an early e6 and c6. Off course a lot of transpositions possible from Slav and Orthodox to Semi-Slav and shares characteristics from both. 

It doesnt make sense to say that after Bf5 and e6 its a Semi-Slav. One of the characteristics of the Semi-Slav is the lock down of Bc8. A lot of times developed by b5-a6-Bc8-c5. So it doesnt make sense to share the names of positions where Bc8 is developed to f5 with the positions where it is stuck behind the pawn chain. 

Moreover, why would black respond with e6 after d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 g3? One of the good things about the Slav is that it sidesteps the Catalan and he can gain easy equality after a move as Bf5.

I think the only one who voted for trw is trw himself 

fluffy wrote on 06/28/10 at 02:06:16:



yep you're right   

I have always wondered why ECO label the Schlecter as a Grunfeld. 

Just goes to show simple definitions don't define the opening. Makes me all the more in favor of Shirov's point of view. In the end, its all semantics.

At any rate nothing you've said, breaks my argument only his. His argument was it can only be considered a slav with Bf5 or Bg4 (outside the chain) and my argument was purely thats not a necessary distinction. 

btw nice works on the slav and semi slav both

In case you haven't figured it out yet I have no interest in digging through my sources to help answer your question. I would do that for people that actually help others not start fights where they are wrong then try to use silly polls to prove their wrong point.

Your own post above indicates i'm right. You acknowledged on move 4 after dxc4 that its a slav therefore you admitted you are wrong.


I think almost any player that knows what the slav and semi slav are would laugh at you if you tried to tell him the position wasn't a slav after dxc4.

I would also point out since you wrongly summed up my argument most people probably voted without knowing what they were voting on. If you wanted a real poll would you ask the question if 1. d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 was considered a Slav. If people said yes then i'm right. If they say no, you are right.

A well known pollster trick if you want the poll to favor you, just phrase the question your way.

Paddy wrote on 06/27/10 at 23:26:00:



i'm afraid you're wrong on this. Strong players such as Shirov disagree with you. At any rate, I posted a line above which would be misclassified by the poor definition anon gives. But as you say, believe what you like. 


Actually the more I think about Anon3's definition the more laughable it is.  1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 this is a position that all would agree is a slav yet we can not call it a Slav yet by Anon3's definition. We have to wait for a4 so we can play Bf5 or Bg4 according to his definition. so in fact the Geller gambit (as i've already shown) is a semi slav (which its not) but in fact if black for some reason played e6 on his next move trapping in the bishop it would incorrectly be labeled a semi slav!

I'm sorry I missed this thread til now. Probably will be only response on it because I leave town tomorrow. In  any case, I know i'm right, and i'll quote directly from ECO and Shirov, "It is tricky to make the distinction between Slav and Semi-slav since they are in base the same ideas. The defining characteristic though is early on. Black decides to immediately take on dxc4 rather than wait for this tempo. This is the definition." I find it most interesting that Shirov wants to do away with the Slav/SemiSlav distinction all together and just call it all the Slav because the a6 Slav defies the rule that differentiates the two in the first place.

So yes if you pass on taking on c4 on move 4 then its a semi slav, its true the bishop tends to end up outside the pawn chain but this is not what names the opening and as I repeat is an irrelevant distinction. You didn't even sum up my argument in the poll you just put what you wanted there.

Yea alot of these openings can be hard to identify both because they tranpose alot and because the names are a bit arbitrary... for example ECO codes.

Anyways the case and point to my argument is as follows: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nc6. 4. Nc3 dxc4 (it is now classified as a Slav regardless of the bishop's placement in the example that follows the bishop does not even leave c8 to get outside the pawn chain!). 5. e4 b5 (Geller Gambit) 6. e5 Nd5 7. a4 e6 8. axb5 anyways theory goes on... but according to Mr. Anonymous3's definition this is a semislav... but its not! Its a slav geller gambit.