Actually it's more due to centaur style of chess being considerably stronger than straight OTB performances. An opening must have a real concrete and complicated advantage in order to have winning chances on ICCF. Openings that merely have a psychological advantage may work quite well OTB, but they simply don't have the same effect when deep computer analysis is involved. 

So in the case of that line, white's advantage is all smoke and mirrors. Hence, the better performance for black.

Markovich wrote on 10/05/12 at 18:14:18:


I'm just speaking from experience. To date, none of the 3.g3 specialists I have faced went for anything other than 4.d5. This is because 4.d5 performs about 5% better than 4.Nf3 in the ICCF archives. For example in your line (which is the main variation): 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d5 6.Bg2 e5 7.Nf3 and now 7...d4 8.0-0 Nc6 9.e3 gives black a choice between Be7 at 53% performance and Bc5 at 55% performance. Any variation that hands black the better performance over white is considered a wasted white on ICCF. There are a few extremely rare cases where this can change with new ideas found (like in the case of the early c5 QID that white can now punish with a double pawn-sac), but most of the time the opening is abandoned in favor of better performing moves.

FirebrandX wrote on 10/04/12 at 07:37:11:

While Avrukh hoped for an advantage here back in 2010. 

My comment isn't make that much sense to me at the moment, but I am very tired (currently I'm thinking the last part should be read separately).  Tiviakov covers:

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 Nf3 Bb4+ 5 Bd2 Be7 6 Bg2 c6 7 0-0 b6 followed by ...Ba6 as his main recommendation, but he also looks at Bb7 + Na6 as far as I remember.

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 g3 Bb4+ 5 Bd2 Be7 6 Bg2 c6 7 0-0 d5 reaching the same position as above

but his main QID line is 

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 g3 Bb7 just going into the main line.

Tiviakov doesn't play the 4...Ba6 QID at all as far as I know!

Settling on an anti-QID line was an adventure. That's about all I'll say. I actually had an easier time making anti-Hedgehog choices, which was a surprise.

Quote:


I haven't seen it, but I'm not surprised he covered those seeing as they form an integral part of his repertoire against 1.d4.

I thought black was totally okay in the 4...Bb7 QID lines until just recently (even to the point I was starting to think 4...Bb7 would replace 4...Ba6 in terms of popularity), but having studied the continuation in E. L'Ami-S. Tiviakov, Tata Steel 2012, in depth I'm not so sure anymore. Then again, I'd imagine he addresses that game in his DVD since he lost surprisingly easily (maybe that's putting it too harsh - but he didn't equalize in the opening, that much is certain). I thought the 9.Ne5 continuation was innocuous at first glance, but looking deeper it's annoying.

Without knowing exactly which continuations he is advocating I can't say for certain I've got improvements on him (afterall, any improvements of note he's got have to be in the late teens/early twenties for the concerned variations), but I've found a lot of the recent material that's come out recently is already addressed/improved on as part of being thorough.

If I end up missing something theoretically significant that he recommends that shifts the evaluation back to equal my black repertoire will undoubtedly be thankful, but unfortunately I can't go purchasing everything that comes down the pike.

Quote:


I've looked at it, did so some time last year. I decided black was okay stemming from I. Nei-M. Tal, Keres Memorial 1983. Maybe Kaufman had something in mind to deal with it, because I don't. Having checked it I came to the conclusion the Ng5 is worse than the Nh4 in the long run, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of missing something.

I ended up settling for the approach you hit upon in 7.Nh4 as white's best attempt. 

That said, it's in a foot note because I side-step the theoretical discussion involving the 5...c5 continuation.

Quote:


I play the 4...Bb4+ variations with ...Bb7 instead of ...Ba6 (or an early ...Nbd7 postponing the development of the bishop altogether). I've always wanted to include the ...Ba6 versions in my repertoire (it'd make life easier as a QID player due to the transposition from 5.Qc2), but I just can't get happy with it.

The Closed without 4...Bb4+ is slightly easier to deal with.

As for being happy in the Open...that depends entirely on which Open variation. The 4...Be7/6...dxc4 is pretty much what Catalan players want to see, regardless of theoretical verdict. Other Open lines aren't as clear - ie: 5...a6 in particular is a line I don't think white can claim a concrete edge in, but rather just a position with very good compensation for the pawn and a lot of unclear play remaining.

Quote:


The Catalan has been my repertoire choice for the last decade plus. I added 4.Nc3 some years back because I'm always adding stuff (knowledge is power, etc.). I never thought it was better, just another option. In modern chess one needs many, many options for practical reasons, because theoretically proving more than temporary advantages is quite difficult in any decent opening. Of course I'm just preaching to the choir, but that explains my personal motivation.

While I would have loved to write something about 5.Bg5 I've got nothing against the Lasker or the Tartakower. A much better analyst than myself will have to tackle them if they want to write the type of opening book I'm working on.

5.Bf4 is my QGD preference, but there too I find myself struggling to pose more than temporary problems. If I were writing a book primarily focused on club players I wouldn't hesitate, but this project I'm working on now is something more ambitious.

It's a fine line as an author - who's your target audience? The more complex lines tend to give more hope for advantages, but leave the less advanced players frustrated. The more simplistic lines frustrate the more advanced players because there is often a route to equality. In the end, it is impossible to write a chess book that makes every happy when it comes to openings.

By the way, Pantu, you actually get mention in my book in the Queen's Indian Defense chapter in one of the foot-notes for a contribution you made on here. In my mind it was a theoretically important (critical for that variation, certainly) contribution.

BPaulsen wrote on 04/18/12 at 02:20:35:


One reason I love the Catalan so much  .  As a Catalan player of about 14 years now (holy crap!), I'm most uncomfortable with 3...c5, because I don't really think the Fianchetto line against the Benoni is anything that special for White.  On the other hand, I score very well here; the positions suit my strengths I suppose, even though I'd rather play something else against a pure Benoni move order.