I play the Triangle pretty regularly as Black and was interested in his thoughts.  He offers two ideas for White versus the Triangle, 4 e4 followed by 6 Nc3 rather than 6 Bd2 Marshall.  He says this leads to an engine plus for White.  I played a rapid game as Black against this and found it much easier OTB than playing against the Marshall itself but was still worse out of the opening (and thereafter have reverted to the Marshall declined lines).  

His main recommendation is to allow Black to play the Abrahams-Noteboom and then play 15 Nd2 in place of 15 Re1.  It will be interesting to compare Scherbakov's thoughts on these ideas either in his new book or on his ChessPub column.

I agree with the comments  about the Semi-Slav.  I am more likely to stick to a simple Anti-Meran rather than put in the work on Bg5 for now, especially since I don't see so many Triangles or Semi-Slav's as White at my level.

BTW to the comment about the Tango: I didn't see it either but assume he would steer things towards the Nimzo Zurich variation line he likes for White.

I like this book even better than his first one.  You can build a great White repertoire as an amateur combining this with the Cox Starting Out d4 book as appropriate (e.g., for further ideas vs. Dutch).

Do people like his ideas against the English?  Like the Semi-Slav Bg5 lines it seems like a lot of work.  Presumably, the payoff is that English players will be just as confused by the transpo issues.  Can someone recommend something simpler to learn and more reliable?   

At the moment, I play e6 and d5 against the English which broadly fits with the Triangle and have had pretty good success (again at my level . . . roughly 1900 USCF) as English players will fight head over heels to avoid transpositions to the QGD, Semi-Slav or the Catalan.  My inclination is to stick with this, at least for now.

Quote:

MNb wrote on 02/14/12 at 09:53:23:


1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Be3 intendng 4. - c6 5. h3 or 4. - Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. Bh6

The modern is also met by Be3.

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 02/14/12 at 05:18:55:

None of these three were reason for me to switch from 1.e4 to 1.d4, so I don't have any objection to 2.e4. Specifically I have always loved to play against the Pirc and the Modern (Be3 and Qd2).
I wonder how Kaufman tackles these two defences?

I am not sure if 2. e4 is the "best" move, but maybe that is because I do not mind playing the Pirc or Philidor as Black. 1. d4 d6 2. c4 e5 I would not like to play as White, but I was following Avrukh's GM1 repertoire book with 1. d4 d6 2. Nf3.

With regards to the Marshall move order, what if White anticipates the marshall with 7...0-0 and plays the anti-Marshall lines 8. a4, 8. h3, 8. a3, etc.? In this manner, Black cannot play the Breyer, whilst it may be the case that White may be willing to play against the Breyer but not against the Marshall. Then White is the one to prevent the Breyer (and Marshall). If a Breyer player wants to use the Marshall move order, then only it will work against players who are willing to play against both the Marshall and Breyer. The Breyer will only arise after 8. c3, after which the Marshall could also arise.

TN wrote on 02/14/12 at 06:36:33:


That and in fact 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5(!) is indeed given as the reason. By the way: a couple of months ago I produced a series of videos for my Youtube channel outlining a 1.d4 repertoire. I also went for the transposition to the Pirc/Modern, as this seems much easier to manage then the alternatives. There is also all kinds of d6,g6 stuff (like the Azmaiparasvili line for instance) that is avoided by simply going e4 on move two. I also couldn't go for 2.Nf3 at all as I recommended the KID for white without Nf3 (Sämisch among others).

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 02/14/12 at 06:22:20:


2...f5 or 2...g6 3.c4 f5 might be a good reason (IIRC he recommends 1...f5 2.Bg5).

Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 02/14/12 at 05:18:55:


I believe Kaufman thought the real problem was the specific move order 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5(!).