Except its really not ultra sophisticated. Yes, it might look odd, but at heart you're just trying to develop and mantain your center. So its really rather classical.
(Rooks on a7 excepted )

jitb wrote on 10/10/12 at 08:36:46:


+1

jitb wrote on 10/09/12 at 11:43:04:

To me 4...a6 has the "very simple" idea that if you want to get the bishop on c8 out in the slav (i.e. you don't want to shut it in with 4...e6) and you want to do this without surrendering the center with 4...dxc4, then this is the way to go. This is because, if you play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bf5, you have a problem with 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 (e.g. 6...b6 7. e4 dxe4 8. Ne5 e6 9. Bb5+ Nfd7 10. g4 Bg6 etc.) attacking b7 and similarly (but not as drastically) 4...Bg4 5.Ne5 Bh5 6.Qb3 is not so great for black (again to do with the weakness of b7).

On the simplest level the black idea with 4...a6 is to either play b7-b5 or be ready to do so when necessary, in order to be able to put the bishop on f5 or g4. Additionally, the 4...g6 is a lot more attractive once white has played e2-e3 and cannot play Bf4 or g5 any longer and in fact the most modern variations in that line often involve a7-a6 nowadays, anyway. Thus, 4...a6 is also angling for the more favorable lines of 4...g6. The great thing about variations like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 g6 is that black will have no trouble with his pieces stumbling over each other overly much (one bishop goes to g7, the other likely to g4 and the only even remotely problematic piece is the knight on b8). Of course, this is not necessarily super-active, but if you just want to sensibly get your pieces out, it is extremely reasonable.

What black is trying to do is more like (I am not saying this is theoretically best play from either side, just that it is the idea that you could aim for, if you do not know what else to do):
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. e3 b5 6. b3 Bg4 or 6. c5 g6 7. Bd3 Bg4 - and one ought to have some idea that perhaps immediately 5... Bg4 may be tricky after all (e.g. 6. Qb3 b5 7. cxd5
cxd5 8. Ne5) and similarly that 6... Bg4 7. Qb3 may be a bit tricky, too.
Another typical variation might be 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 5. Bd3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 b5 7. c5 Nbd7 (it may be important to have some idea that one ought to probably go for 6.Qb3 Bxf3).
Of course, nowadays one might run into 5. e3 b5 6.b3 Bg4 à la Avrukh a lot, but playing that as white occasionally, I find that black often has a relatively straightforward task (perhaps knowing about timing Bg4-h5-g6 right - if you want to go for that - is important).

I do not really know whether 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6 5. c5 Bf5 is 100% okay at the highest level recently, but it looks decent enough to me without knowing the latest info with ideas like

• 6. Bf4 Nbd7 7. e3 Nh5
• 6. Qb3 Qc8 or 6... Ra7 7. Bf4 Nbd7 8. e3 Nh5
• 6. Nh4 Bc8 or 6... Bg6 7. Bf4 Nbd7 8. e3 e5

 
And black is using the fact that 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.Bg5 and 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.Bf4 are a bit weird for white (e.g. 5...Ne4 in the first case and 5...dxc4 in the second). Also you may claim you get an improved 4...e6, after 4...a6 5.a4 e6. However, that admittedly kind of breaks the pattern.

Of course, white can play 5.cxd5 and that's a bit boring, but at least you know where to put your queen's knight in that case!

MaxJudd wrote on 10/09/12 at 09:21:57:


I have been playing around looking at the Triangle and 'cos I share MNb's aversion to the Triangle-Stonewall, I have been looking at the non-Meran lines and they are pretty intensive work. I think the best resource I have located is actually an old book by IM John Donaldson and Im John Silman (D&S) but you then have to check with the database and computers. I have taken to running a Houdini and Hiarcs shootout using Fritz programme to check out the positions. I am not sure I am using this correctly but ......

The line is:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c6 4 e3 Nf6 (Sherbakov gives ...f5) and now White has 5 Nbd2 and 5 Bd3. I think 5 Nc3 transposes into Meran proper where B plays 5...Nbd7 6 Bd3 dxc4 7 Bxc4 b5 ......

D&S gives 5 Nbd2 c5! and 5 Bd3 Nbd7 6 Nbd2 Be7 and if 6 0-0 dxc4 7 Bxc4 Bd6 8 Bd3 but if W plays 8 Nc3, then it transposes into the Chigorin variation.

The other bit which is interesting about the D&S book is the recommendation of the Keres-Monev Variation which is related to a query MNb posted on the Sherbakov Trinagle book thread:
Quote:

Except that MNb's var is played without a Nf6 while the Keres-Minev is played with a Nf6.

Does anyone has any experience playing the the Keres-Monev and the var above with Nf3 e3 ......

My apologies to WSS if this is a hijack of the thread.

I agree about the work involved.  You will see 4 e3 an awful lot out of either the 2 ... c6 or 2 ... e6 Triangle move order.  As such you need to also learn the Meran or the Stonewall.  The Stonewall is less work but not for everyone.  Depending on which lines you chose in the Meran (and Anti-Meran), it may be more work than the Chebanenko  complex even before you get to the Marshall and the AN proper.

My concern with the Triangle is Larry Kaufman's observation that the comps. favor White's refusing to offer a gambit in the Marshall with 6 Nc3.  The stats are more neutral than the comps.  Regardless, to me the position doesn't look so interesting.  If 6 Nc3 in the Marshall became more mainstream, it would turn me against the Triangle as a whole.

Just want to point out that the Triangle is a huge amount to learn to play OTB, while the Chebanenko can be picked rather fast I think.

Good questions. To which I'd add (h) which do you enjoy more?