Thanks Kylemeister,

the games you mention are very inspiring, especially the Karpov game. 

3...Nc6 against 3.c3 looked kind of familiar, and indeed there is a thread about this:
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1276002250

This is an interesting idea. I remember I wasn't convinced by it when I first saw it because of 4.e3 and White seems to get his regular Colle.
I just don't like it when my opponent can play 10 moves or so on auto-pilot and still gets a decent position (the Colle is not such a bad opening after all). 

But Kylemeister went for d5 against 3.e3 anyhow, and I think there is really no better way to go. You can't have it all, and sometimes you have to take the black side of a Colle. 
Well, the Colle is not such a great opening after all. 

kylemeister wrote on 03/15/13 at 21:32:19:


I'm curious. What do you play against 3.e3 and 3.c3?

I know Eingorn recommends 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 c5 in his "A Rock-Solid Chess Opening Repertoire for Black", but after 3.e3 and 3.c3 he gives systems with d5 and I believe that is what Colle/London/Torre players like to see.

I like 1.d4 e6 very much, but I had always difficulties against the d-pawn specials after 2.Nf3.
2...Nf6 and 2...d5 make the Colle/London/Torre guys feel comfortable.
I tried 2...f5 heading for a Stonewall, but in the majority of the games I had to face 3.Bf4 and although Black is objectively fine I just somehow didn't like the positions.

2...c5 looks like the best shot. I'm ready to play a Sicilian after 3.e4 or the English after 3.c4, but are there some crafty move orders after 3.c3 and 3.e3 to annoy the Queen's Pawn players?

I like Dave 1998's thinking on making both d4 and c4  players uncomfortable.  In continuing the thread on making white players uncomfortable, which e6 Sicilian would be most off putting to a d pawn special player (i.e., Colle, Colle-Zurkertort, Stonewall, and London players)?  The Scheveningen is too much work unless you normally play it.  The Kan seems lower maintenance but still relatively confusing especially in the Nc3 b5 lines.  The only other idea is to play the Four Knights to transpose to the Sveshnikov rather than to play the Four Knights proper as I guess Eingorn suggests (haven't seen the book).

Basically, you can convert USCF to FIDE by subtracting 100 points.  Class A is 1800 to 2000.  I am 1900 USCF.

Dave1998 wrote on 03/17/13 at 02:10:05:

Dave1998 wrote on 03/15/13 at 20:13:53:


I've been playing 1 ... e6 against 1 d4 for as long as I can remember.  I find transpositions to the French to be rare.  A little higher in games when an opponent might have had an opportunity to prepare for me, but not by much.

I don't play 1 d4 e6, 2 Nf3 c5 though.

If you like to play Nimzo/QID or QGD, what do you do against 3 c4?


btw: i've no idea what a "Class A" player is.  What kind of elo equivalent would that be?

I play both e4 and d4 as white.  Usually, but not always, I play d-pawn specials against higher rated opponents (I am a USCF Class A player) and I play e4 against lower rated opponents.  I also have played the French for many years as my main e4 defense so I have decent familiarity with the various exchange French setups.  One of the nice thing about the exchange French is that basically if you know it for White, you know if for Black. 

Note that I don't play the exchange French when I open e4 but instead usually play the Tarrasch.

Most of the higher rated players I have played use e6 not in the Eingorn fashion but to play a Dutch Stonewall avoiding anti-Dutch weapons (e.g., 2 Bg5).  I find the exchange French as White easier to play for me than the White side of the Stonewall (knowing that it has less theoretical teeth).

None of this is to say that e6 against d4 isn't something I won't start to try.  I already play e6 against the English most of the time.

Dave1998 wrote on 03/16/13 at 06:14:55:

I am curious if you are a 1.e4 player and achieved those draws against higher rated opposition.  I have had a very good record against 1.d4 players in the exchange French.  I feel they are unfamiliar with the resulting positions, which I believe have some subtlety.   

I definitely keep the minor pieces assymetric, but do not play risky moves like a c5 break in the exchange French.  If I wanted more assymetry, I would sooner play a Franco-Benoni back on move 2.  But I feel comfortable that I can beat a 1.d4 player 300 to 400 points below me in the exchange French almost every time.

Eric,

Thanks for the response, it is appreciated.  I also play 2...c5 against 2.g3, which is yet another benefit to this system.  A lot of players think that I want to play a deferred Dutch (to avoid 1.d4 f5 2. e4 gambit ideas), and play something other than 2.c4 (such as 2.Nf3 or 2.g3), only to face 2...c5!  I am not sure the explanation point holds at the IM/GM level, but I do think it is warranted at the club level.

I love it when any 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 player wanders into my e4 defenses.  How many 1.d4 club level players play the white side of the Sicilian Taiminov well?  French transpositions are more frequent, where I usually encounter the exchange (probably because my 1.d4 opponent does not know French theory).  But the exchange is a horrible choice!  The French exchange may be objectively equal, but there are many nuances in the positions.  Against an equal-rated 1.d4 opponent, I will take my chances on the black side of the French exchange any day, knowing that my familiarity with the resulting positions is a practical over-the-board advantage.

I think a move like 1...e6, when you are playing it willing to transpose into sound systems such as NID/QID/French/Sicilian and not as a gimmic system, will score many more wins that something predictable like 1...d5.  I have the personal belief that an opponent is not a static rating, but is an array or matrix of ratings associated with different positions (with higher effective ratings in positions the player may have played many times and read many books on).  So my defense 1...e6 aims to, statistically over a sequence of tournament games, place my opponents in positions they are unfamiliar with so that the average effective rating of my opponents is reduced relative to if I were to try to play the same systems by a more conventional move order.