OrangeCounty wrote on 07/21/11 at 22:19:03:


This is indeed one of the main lines of 6.N1e2/6.Nh3 but I think White should be a bit better after 8.de5 Qa5 9.c3 Qe5 10.Be2 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0-0 12.Qa4 Bc5 13.Nd3. With the kings castled on opposite sides, the game is likely to liven up. 

Incidentally, after 6...e6 7.Nf4 Bd6, the most aggressive variation is 8.c3 Nf6 9.h4, but I think the positional 8.Ngh5 is an objectively better try for an advantage.

...and the other main lines where Black goes ...O-O-O, which imo hold. It is not only Schandorff to deal with..

TN wrote on 05/12/11 at 04:01:12:


That's a good suggestion actually, there is always Tal's famous sac (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. N1e2 e6 7. h4!? h6 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. Bc4 Nf6 10. O-O Bd6 11. Nxe6!?), which I haven't found an easy way to avoid it as Black if White chooses this particular move-order (6. Bc4 is a different story). Black can of course play differently on move 6, but White can still press against these other plans (Tal-Botvinnik 1960 was where these systems were extensively tested, so if you have the book you may give it a look).

BPaulsen wrote on 05/11/11 at 01:40:34:


No, me too! But that is just because I probably play better with the Black than White side!

Gang, thanks for your feedback - you've given me some "food for thought" about the Panov which I appreciate!  I didn't mean to give you the impression that I shunned the Panov...  I was simply wondering if the Advance would offer me even better opportunities for an advantage  and therefore was asking which lines (particularly against ...Bf5) you'd recommend that I focus on as White.

True enough, these themes are quite old.

But I can't see how anyone can play chess and distrust his chances in a straight-up IQP middlegame position with as White.  As Black, not to everyone's taste.  But as White?  It should be grist for anyone's mill.   What are you going to do against the QGA, for crying out loud?  Play 4.Qa4+?   

I recognize taste and style and blah, blah, blah, and I'm not saying that everyone should play the Panov.  I'm saying that it's crazy to suggest that it has any inherent deficiencies.

As for playing against stronger players, I would much rather have a bald IQP setup than some vague maneuvering game where all that positional understanding is likely to come to the fore.  My taste, true enough, but I find the other a little difficult to understand.  Would you rather have the Black side of the Panov against a stronger player?  That's a recipe for a short game, at least the way I play chess.

Lastly I notice that the OP calls himself an attacking player.  In that case it's incomprehensible to me why he shuns the Panov.

MNb wrote on 05/09/11 at 21:46:46:


Theory was completely different 40 years ago.

Well, the Panov is a fully respectable and sound way to combat the Caro-Kann. It leads to relatively open positions with piece play. There is no reason to distrust the pawn structure even against strong opposition as long as you know how to handle the position.

The Advance is of course as sound as well but leads in general to a more slow manouvering game with the exception of the lines after 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.g4 which are razor sharp.

I have made the change from the advance to the panov (or more precisely the Steiner Variation 2.c4) since this is a much more practical choice and leads to equally interesting positions without the danger of a quick loss if I forget the correct moveorder.

My own practical experience against opposition rated above 2000 is quite good while I also find it easier to handle than the Advance with g4.

Which line is better for you also depends on your own playing strength. If you already handle open positions with piece play well it may be a good idea to choose the Advance for some diversity. But perhaps not the lines with g4 but the Short-System with 4.Nf3, Be2 etc. or something similar.