You can try to reach a Leningrad Dutch with 1.d4 d6 2.c4/Nf3 f5, but then you have 2.e4 to contend with. Ditto for 1...g6 2.e4.

I think i could play the Leningrad positions themselves, what bothers me more, is all of the potential sidelines - especially 1.d4 f5 2. Bg5 which is akin to pressing the crazy button. I like a little more control than seems available here.

The Main-line Slav suggestion has definately re-kindled my interest, and i would probably feel more at home in those positions - however knowing just how stellar Avrukhs Grunfeld book is going to be, is leaving me torn.

Any suggestions re: the relative merits of Slav vs Grunfeld against 1.c4 & 1.Nf3?

buddho wrote on 03/01/11 at 10:20:55:

It is. Compared with the Slav it is a risky opening indeed, but not compared with the KID I would say. I have noted that quite a few KID-players don't have many problems switching to the Dutch Leningrad. This

buddho wrote on 02/28/11 at 11:08:36:


is what gave me the idea.

Go Leningrad dutch and get Stefan Kindermann's book on the Leningrad. That's an excellent repertoire book with everything you need to know to counter 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3. 

Big advantage of the Dutch is you can use it against almost anything other than 1.e4. It's solid (theoretically sound, I mean) and unusual - even very strong whites are struggling with the types of positions you get.

buddho wrote on 02/28/11 at 15:43:19:

Ever considered the Leningrad Dutch? It's entirely different from the Caro-Kann of course, but I have never thought that kind of consistency a special virtue. The Leningrad Dutch must be complemented with a Closed English: 1.c4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 and if White refuses to play d2-d4 then Black will play e7-e5.
I don't know if the Stonewall is such a good way to cut down on theory. Against the English there are problems with d3 and e4 while 1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.Bf4 and 6.e3 seems to be very good for White. Of course Black has 4...Bb4 but that's another type of play. Moreover the Stonewall seems a lot more popular than both the Tarrasch and the Leningrad if my database is to be believed.

I was instantly attracted to the Slav when i started playing, but dropped it because of it's inability to play for a win against the exchange variation. Which is an important tool to have in a 5 round swiss. Maybe i have to learn 2 systems..

Maybe you'll change your opinion about the Tarrasch when our new QC book will be out in May. You'll see how easily you can play those positions without spending a lifetime trying to learn complicated variations. Of course you cannot really avoid them, but if i can learn and play them then i believe that anyone can! We'll also offer a complete repertoire against anything other than 1.e4.

As for the Grunfeld issue then i think that the solution is there and it is not so difficult, even though not optimal at the other hand! Play 1.c4 e5! with Nf6-Nc6-Bb4 and a quick Bxc3 like the Rossolimo Sicilian and against the 1.Nf3 play ...Nf6 and ...c5 (or 1...c5 if you have the Siclian in your repertoire) and base your repertoire on the Double fianchetto hedgehog. The 1rst Kasparov's book on his matches against the Karpov and the Opening for Black according to Karpov will provide you with the information you need.

Another aproach is to play a classical QGD (Cox's book will be out in a few months if you want something new) and against Reti-English follow the lines we'll give in the Tarrasch book.

I really cannot think something else which is "universal"! The other options are the Slav, the KID (and the Dutch which is similar) and those Nimzo-QID complexes which are not in my taste against 1.c4/1.Nf3