I got curious and checked the Pterodactyl book. 
It does a good job explaining some of the dynamics of this Bg7,c5,Qa5 piece arrangement. Still I wouldn't touch most of these lines without c4. That pawn does a good job justifying Bxc3, taking the square from the white bishop and knight, locking the other pawn to c3, as well as being a long term weakness. 
Additionally, the plan to break down and occupy d4 with Bg4->Nc6 hardly works if white can still go c3 or Nge2.

Not to give away Schillers secret sauce, but since you could figure it out by just plugging on any database or SF...
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.dxc5 Qa5 5.Bd2 Qxc5 6.Nd5 Na6 
given in the book as one of the expert recommendations for white kicks blacks teeth in, both theory and practice. The alternative 6...b6 is given, but as written by the author is "perhaps not the best", it's in fact horrible.
And it is not the only problem. 4.d5 is one of those Benoni-lites where white has Bc4/Bb5+, making an effective e6 break a struggle.

Following the hyper-accelerated sicilian move order, black faces similar difficulties with dxc5 and d5.

About this line:
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nf3 c5 4.e4 Qa5+ 5.Nc3

RosemarysBaby wrote on 08/30/22 at 13:50:29:


I was just checking the engine recommendations on this line. 
6.d5 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Bg4
The d6 move I was so confident on faces a strange response: 
8.Qc2 Bxf3 9.gxf3
It was my impression previously that with Knights v Bishops in a semi-closed game with a superior structure, black would do well.
The machine wants to follow up with Bg2->O-O->f4->e5. A pretty ambitious plan with such a holey position. 
Strangely enough, finding good pawn and piece play for black is a struggle.
I tried to install Benoni knights with various executions of Nd7->Ne5->g5, I tried f5, I tried grabbing the c4 pawn, tried castling both ways. Everything working is always dependent on like 6 other factors with little method to the madness. 
So I guess "pretty good" was a speculative assessment.
*A confusing positional mess.

Hi.

MartinC wrote on 11/07/22 at 10:03:35:

1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.Qb3 Qc8 6.h3 Bg7 7.g4 Bd7 8.e4 h5 9.e5!?
Was the line that Cherniaev and Prokuronov missed. It seems to give white easy inititaive.

If black instead tries the non-delayed move order white instead has:
1.d4 d6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Qb3 Qc8 5.h3 g6 6.g4 Bd7 7.e4 h5 8.g5 Nh7 9.f4!
Seemingly giving some positional edge.

MartinC wrote on 11/07/22 at 10:03:35:

I looked at:
1.d4 d6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Qb3 Nc6 5.Nf3 a5 6.Bg5 g6 7.Bxf6 exf6 8.Nd5!? Nb4! 9.Qe3+ Kd7! 10.Nxb4 axb4
And thought white was a little better, but I also never bothered to prolong the lines much.

Have a nice day.

Just an amusing addendum - even the seemingly idiotic 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 d6 3 Nc3 Bf5 4 e4 is actually quite a good move.

4.. Nxe4 doesn't work at all well - 5 Qf3 Nxc3 6 Qxf5 Na4 7 Qb5+ Qd7 8 Qxb7 is just worse for black.

4.. Bxe4 is OK, but I guess you'd expect white to get decent play and indeed. 

5 NxB NxN 6 Qb3 Qc8 7 g4(!) c6 8 Bg2 Nf6 9 g5 Nh5 definitely looks pretty pleasant to play as white.  g4 on move 7 is obviously insane and computery but the tactics appear to hold together. You can give the pawn back with d5 on move 8, then a bit worse. Shrug.

Hi.

The Janowski is interesting for sure. The delayed version with 4...Bf5 can be played after 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 (via 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5); making that line very enticing to have in one's arsenal from a repertoire standpoint.

The pure Janowski (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5) seems like more study but may work better against these critical looking Qb3 tries. Since last this was discussed I went ahed and got the New Old Indian book by Cherniaev and Prokuronov (Everyman, 2011) and the Janowski gets a lot of coverage there.

From memory: black is very free to go 4.Qb3 Qc8 and it's not so easy to prove an edge (maybe possible though). After 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.Qb3 the same concept (5...Qc8) is a worse version. This sort of gets missed by Cherniaev and Prokuronov since they miss some active e5 move at one point for white. On the other hand 5...b6 seems quite playable and basically like a better version compared to 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Qb3 b6.

Have a nice day.

Hi.

kylemeister wrote on 10/30/22 at 16:35:24:

Yea. Advantage black is a weird assessment.

Have a nice day.

Hi.

I am afraid I haven't thought so much about if Grünfeld players are best going 1.Nf3 Nf6 or 1.Nf3 g6. One general observation is that no matter how white plays you are having to play very early g6 systems as black. For example 1.Nf3 g6 2.c4 and it's basically an English where black has played a early g6. These g6 vs. English systems can sometimes end back up in the Grünfeld but can also move towards the KID or white can just play something inspired and try to avoid both.

If 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 I can't think of any big drawbacks for black if he is content with the Modern. Maybe one small thing would be that 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 could lead to the variation 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 without black having the option to chicken out with 1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.Nf3 Nf6 but that is quite minor. I guess you can go 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 d6 to try and keep the transpositional option but then maybe 3.Bc4 can be a decent sideline. I looked at it at some point but cannot recall anything.

I guess another thing would be 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 and now something that's not 5.d4 commits black to some specific setup vs the Botvinnik English. It is what it is (life is rough sometimes ).

Have a nice day.

Hi.

If you know that playing the KID is the ultimate goal, in other words not using any irregular options stemming from waiting with Nf6, then move order would indeed likely matter a lot less. It could still matter a little bit in subtle ways though. E.g.:

- There are some early deviations that can be made less likely depending on move order chosen.
- In principle one can somewhat benefit from considering what move order the opponent would waste most time in the opening thinking about.
- Just being able to threaten some non-KID transposition could still bring a reaction from the opponent; even if there is no actual intent to go for the line the opponent doesn't like.

When it comes to how a Pirc or modern player should handle the 1.d4 openings.If not entering the proper KID, Grünfeld or Modern Benoni you tend to have to puzzle together responses that fail to enter these major openings for all white early move sequences.

The reason I focused on 1.d4 with g3 to follow immediately or after one or two moves is that it always seems hard to find something that is not just a transposition to a KID or Grünfeld there. If, however, you can 
go for 1...g6 and these types of mostly irregular Benko type lines I proposed previously... There is not to much saying you shouldn't be able to do that against fianchetto setups from white and play 3...d6 to attempt re-entering non-Nf6 KID lines if white doesn't go for a fianchetto setup. I don't think there are very significant benefits for white players not aiming to fianchetto when black goes 1...g6, 2...Bg7 and 3...d6 instead of 1...d6, 2...g6 and 3...Bg7. You lose the options, as black, to aim for 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5, 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5 and 1.d4 d6 2.c4 g6 3.e4 e5, but none of these lines seem like lines critical for a repertoire to me.

I think a 1.d4 g6 repertoire where, as black, you basically never enter any of KID/Grünfeld/Modern Benoni would be quite possible. That would also confuse white players a lot.

Regards.
/ CbT