Markovich wrote on 10/02/10 at 14:51:57:


I'm very much open to my opinions changing when something significant comes along. I just speak based on what I know as of right now.

That shouldn't discourage people from finding improvements. Hell, I'd love for someone to find white edges in the QGD (5. Bf4 or 5. Bg5) for self-serving purposes.

Quote:


Yeah, no Leningrad for black, but...

1. Nf3 f5 2. d3 Nc6 is problematic for white due to 3. e4 e5 with equality. The only noteworthy thing is the positions are similar to 1. e4 e5 with colors reversed since white often plays d3-d4 later on, producing reversed Vienna Games.

3. d4!? (Nimzowitsch would be proud since he had a fondness for 1. Nf3 d5 2. d3 Nc6 3. d4!?) is likely best, when the position 1. f4 Nf6 2. Nc3!? d5 is reached with colors reversed. It's fertile ground for investigation. I've seen some investigations in analysis done by a GM that think it should lead to some Bogo-Indian related positions with an extra tempo for black, but those lines ignored an early d5 harrassing the Nc6 and gaining space, and preventing the aforementioned plan.

It's interesting at any rate. Too early to tell anything.

I am quite impressed by BPaulsen's knowledge of theory, and I don't mean to denigrate it.  There is a cut-and-driedness to his claims that sometimes puts me off, and I like to think that Chess Truth is more obscure than he seems to think it is, but I do take his opinions very seriously.  They appear to be the product of much study.

Back to the topic, it seems to me that one of the better reasons to start out 1.Nf3 is that 1...f5 can be met by 2.d3.  This makes it difficult for Black to play the Leningrad, doesn't it?

Markovich wrote on 10/02/10 at 02:47:01:


1. d4 has tries after 1...d5 that 1. Nf3 doesn't have access to - ie: Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange Variation. In comparison it's ridiculously hard to find anything worth mentioning in some Catalan lines (ie: 4...Bb4+), Queen's Gambit Declined with 5. Bf4 (6...Nbd7), and 5. Bg5 (Lasker, Tartakower), as examples. With all due respect, the notion that 1. d4 is an inaccuracy if 1. Nf3 is best met by 1...d5 is flatly ridiculous, given it ignores all associated move order nuances that favor 1. d4. 

If what you're striving for by playing 1...c5 is some sort of imbalance different from the often drab equality resulting from, for example, the Lasker QGD, that's all well and fine. However, that's markedly different from reaching theoretical equality, which as you've noticed is my primary concern.

I make my statements based on the theory I've built up to this point over the last decade. If something significant comes along it is subject to change.

Quote:


Understood.

BPaulsen wrote on 09/30/10 at 23:30:06:


Well, I can only say that your knowledge of this game vastly exceeds mine if you can claim with any certainty that the QGD, or the Slav for that matter, is better for Black than the Symmetrical English.  Personally I hold the opposite view, but I have no claim to Chess Truth.  I think that some of our disagreement on this point arises from our different approaches as Black; you're looking to flat-out equalize, I'm looking for un certain je ne sais quoi.

But it does seem to me that if 1...d5 is the best that Black can do against 1.Nf3, then 1.d4 is clearly imprecise, which strikes me as an absurdity.

And yes, I was using "Khalifman's repertoire" in the sense of "1.Nf3 intending 1...Nf6 2.c4 and 1...d5 2.d4," not in the sense of the particular moves that he put down in his books.

BPaulsen wrote on 09/23/10 at 17:50:33:

When did the bayonet attack die? Whats the 'solution' to it?

I've also considered adding 1. Nf3 to my repertoire as I play 1. d4 1. c4 and 1.e4 I can try transpose to whatever I want to play. I think the Soltis book on transpositions is pretty helpful.

I'm almost inclined to just go 1.e4 when I want a change from my repertoire; after looking into it, I don't think there's really enough to warrant me learning all the English lines when I really only have problems with the Grunfeld and am tired of my lines in the KID.  I don't mind playing against the Benoni, for instance.

I'd personally try 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cd Nxd5 5.e4 if I were going to switch, but that's probably just personaly preference.  Black has to play fairly accurately to equalize (for instance, the King's Bishop should often avoid going to g7 in this line), but then again even when White has an edge it's often not that much.   

Maybe I'm a bit of a psychologist when I play, though; I often look for the lines that make my opponents uncomfortable instead of the popular lines.  For instance, I put the Bishop on g5 in the Saemisch KID and you'd be surprised how much that annoys some players, even rather strong (2200+) ones.  When I started playing the Catalan about 12 years ago it was basically to annoy Nimzo/QID players, but now it's more popular at all levels so I don't know how much "annoyance factor" it still has.   

On the other hand, 1.Nf3 probably has maximum "annoyance factor"; maybe I should tackle those English lines after all...

BPaulsen wrote on 09/30/10 at 10:54:35:


I have always thought that 1...c5 was the main theoretical challenge to Khalifman's repertoire.  However, the stock of the Pseudo-Gruenfeld (or whatever anyone wants to call it), 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 seems to be rising a little bit lately.  Before embarking on 1.Nf3 I would study the Pseudo-Gruenfeld carefully and decide whether White's play there appealed more to me than that in any of the main Gruenfeld lines.   

If not, or if the analogous does not apply to the Symmetrical English, the motivation for 1.Nf3 is substantially reduced.

I'm currently doing the same switch from 1.d4 to 1.Nf3 because I like the Symmetrical better than the Gruenfeld and the Benoni. I just don't know which Anti-Gruenfeld line to decide on after 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5:

- 4.Qa4+ Bd7 5.Qb3 is given by Khalifman and I've never really looked into it, is this still relevant? 
- 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Qa4+ is the most frequently played line, but I'm not sure what to do about 5...Nc6 6.Ne5 Qd6!? which has become fashionable and looks like a very comfortable equalizer; see for example L'Ami-Sutovsky, 8th round Olympiad. 
- 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.g3 is just not my taste.
- 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Qb3!? - are there any good independent lines here?
- 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.dxc3 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 looks objectively equal, but still a bit annoying for Black. This is probably the "easiest" option that still gives winning chances. 

Anything I've missed?