TN wrote on 11/26/11 at 22:57:30:


I like 5.a3 as well.

Well, I have looked at my earlier notes, and in Schandorff's Playing the Queen's Gambit and Vigorito's Play the Semi-Slav.

From what I've understood, in the Botvinnik mainline, 11. g3 is said to be more accurate than 11.exf6 because in the line played in Giri-Smeets, Black can play 13...Nxf6 instead of 13...Qb6 (and also 13...Bh6 and 13...Qc7 according to Schandorff). Just a side-note.

The line TN gives seems to lead to a draw after best play, as also 16. Rb1 does. At least I haven't found any ways to deviate for either side.

I noticed two games from this year:




I haven't seen any comments on these games except at Chessbase. Maybe there are some points that I have missed. The interesting thing is that both Schandorff and Vigorito gives the line in Giri-Smeets as good for White, but ends the analysis after 21.Be7.

Nakamura's deviation in a later round (not a novelty, if the database is correct, since the move was played in Zakhartsov-Michalczak, Guben 2011 earlier this year) might be the latest try. I wonder if he had an improvement on this this game?

EDIT: I have asked in an earlier Botvinnik-thread (Botvinnik-novelty) about the status of the Botvinnik. In that one, TonyRo says that he liked the Botvinnik better when it was dead! Well, that novelty is also to be considered, btw.

EDIT2:
Well, there is an easy improvement on Zakhartsov-Michalczak. White is winning in that game. Does this leave White better after 20.Qd2?

I like the idea!

I disagree with TN's choice of e4 against the QGA, If we are to look at main lines, we should do so. The main line of the QGA, as practiced by GMs over the last decade is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3.  

While this is a minor point at this stage of the discussion, I believe that we should agree on a philosophy for the repertoire. Are we striving for an idiosyncratic repertoire, or one based on main lines?

Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 11/26/11 at 13:16:38:


Sure, I understand what you mean now. I don't think that this line gives White an advantage, but it can't hurt to examine it.

Yes, I figure it's best to start with the heaviest stuff and work our way down. In the worst case we can always put the Botvinnik discussion on hold and examine a different main line.

@Zwischenzugzwang

The reason for offering two different lines against the Triangle is because I want to avoid 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dc4 (the Argentinian Variation) which I think is equal for Black. But I haven't looked at this line in a while, so if White can prove an edge here then I'm happy to make the repertoire move 3.Nc3 (3...Nf6 4.Nf3) instead of 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3. 

@fling

I was thinking of starting with the Botvinnik Semi-Slav, because it is just about the sharpest choice for Black after 2.c4. When I last had a serious look at the Botvinnik I found an edge for White based on 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 dc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Ng5 hg5 10.Bg5 Nbd7 11.g3 Bb7 12.Bg2 Qb6 13.ef6 c5 14.d5 0-0-0 15.0-0 b4 16.Na4 Qb5 17.a3 ed5 18.ab4 cb4 19.Bf4, but theory has moved on a bit in this line since.

Edit: I've just added a PGN file, showing a few recent correspondence games. Although the position is probably a draw with best play, I think White has an edge in all variations, an opinion shared by Stohl in Yearbook 100. I also refuted 9...Nd5, just to get one sideline out of the way. 

TN wrote on 11/26/11 at 10:36:24:


This resembles somehow Schandorff  . But it's fine with me.

Two remarks:
- If you want to start with the main lines, you might better renumber the lines.
- If Black plays the Traingle, after three moves we have either a Nc3 or a Nf3, depending on Black's move order. There are two approaches we could use to deal with that, either (i) playing the other white knight, which leads to the Noteboom in either case, quite some heavy stuff, but two dead birds with one stone [in German: "Two flies with one swatter", btw  ], or (ii) playing 4. e4 in case of the QG move order (your line "e2", also quite theoretical these days) and playing 4. Qc2 in case of the Slav move order (the first half of your line "f1"). Considering restricted ressources, in my view it does not make sense to analyze both 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 and 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6 4.Nc3 (the other half of "f1").

Best regards,

Zwischenzugzwang

Jupp53 wrote on 11/26/11 at 10:25:59:


Yes, I am happy to do this. I will be busy with tournaments in January so it may be necessary to have a substitute to fill in while I am busy, but this can be discussed later. For now I just want to get started on some analysis 

Someone should mentor the topic to avoid a fragmenting of the discussion. TN, would you like to do this?