MNb wrote on 05/23/11 at 03:13:25:


I'm wondering if the solution to this problem could be 7.Bd3 Bb7 8.f3 and later e4. White will follow up with Nh3, 0-0 and if necessary Qe2. This is similar to how White plays in several 4.f3 lines, and in fact if Black later wastes a tempo with ...Bb7-a6 it can transpose directly (to 4.f3 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne8).

If Black keeps the bishop on b7 we're in lines like the famous Geller-Euwe, 1953 game (a main game in Emms' DW chapter), so White has to find some improvements over Emms there. I'll give it a try.

MNb wrote on 05/22/11 at 20:34:05:


4.e3 0-0 5.a3 Be7 6.e4 must be good for White, I would think.

But 4.e3 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 b6 is a real problem. It's a lot like the 5...b6 line Emms recommended against the Sämisch in DW Nimzo-Indian. That line is already one of the biggest problems for White, but with a 4.e3 move-order White is even committed to e3 when GMs tend to choose 6.Bg5 or 6.f3 (after 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 b6).

So maybe it's not worth it and I should simply play 4.a3 (I also play 4.Qc2, but there it's really tough to find any advantage in the 4...d5 main lines).

Antillian wrote on 05/22/11 at 21:23:38:


You might be thinking of 5. Bd3 plus Ne2.  As far as I know 5. Ne2 cd 6. ed d5 generally leads either to White playing c5, or to his having an IQP (and bishop pair) but no knight on e2.

Opening is about give and take, in order to win the position must be unbalanced somehow. Pawn to e3 can also be seen as a sort of concesion in d5 line since it looks like a queensgambit where the Bishop is blocked by it own pawn.

Aagaard does not cover 5 a3 directly. Rybka 3 opening books marks the move in red and gives no further moves. MNb:s Be7 is solid, it looks like a Queengambit declined where whites Bishop (for the moment) is more passived placed. Bxc3 also looks playable. Black can follow up with both aggresive c5 and the calm Houdino move 0-0 with the idea of meeting Nf3 with b6 and Ba6 with interesting play for both sides. f3 instead of Nf3 seems to leed to mainline 4 f3 after c5.

huibui wrote on 05/22/11 at 18:22:35:


Does Kasparov give any supporting analysis or 4...c5 5.Nge2, or mention the critical modern games, in those books?

I've been playing the Sämisch 4.a3 as a surprise weapon lately, and I'm thinking of varying with 4.e3 too. My logic would be that 4...c5 5.Nge2, 4...b6 5.Nge2 and 4...d5 5.a3 are all concessions that give White real chances for an edge. And after 4.e3 0-0! I would just return to the Sämisch with 5.a3. Is there anything wrong with this move order to reach the Sämisch (except of course, the Sämisch gives only equality theoretically)?

In his "Revolutions in the 70s" Kasparov writes that 5.Ne2! (Kasparov's exclam) vs. 4...c5. He considers the Hübner OK for Black. Also, in "My Great Predecessors 5", game 29, he writes "It is because of the reply 5.Ne2 that 4...c5 has practically gone out of use nowadays".

Against 4...d5, a critical try seems to be 5.a3 Bxc3 6.bxc3, followed by cxd5 and the old f3-e4 plan. I always thought this line was considered good for White, does Aagaard have anything to say about this?

Agaard thought that that the move order 4 .. d5 was more accurate than 4 .. c5 becouse of Ne2 followed by a3.