Quote:


What do you have vs 7.Qb3?
I guess 7..Qb6 8.Ne5 Nbd7 9.g4 Bg6 10.Ng6 hg6 11.Bg2 g5 12.0-0 Be7
If you don't have any deviations till that point I think black has very difficult task at hand. For now I don't even see how to end up in something not hopeless for black.
Other tries for black as 7...Qc7 or 8..Nfd7 don't look to convincing either but here I didn't analyse too deeply as the positions just look good for white.

Maybe he means Topalov-Eljanov 2012?

I'll just say that I've played the Black side of 4...Bg4 against fairly strong players (2000-2200), and never been entirely satisfied with my position.  I agree with Bryan about White's possible best line; White has the two Bishops and while Black is solid, it's not that dynamic for the second player.

Without specifics, I remain unswayed. I think Black's task is much easier than in most openings and that White has no advantage after 4. e3 Bg4 5. h3 Bh5.

Countless hours of trying to find even a subtle White advantage forced me to abandon 4. e3. Show me a line you think gives White an advantage and I'll find the way for Black to get equality. 

"4...Bg4 is perhaps the most annoying move to face"

Yes, I've studied this line for Black a lot and it's what put me off the system. As far as I can tell, Bg4 gives Black easy equality and is essentially a refutation of 4. e3 as a serious try to fight for the advantage. I hope I'm wrong because I liked this system but no one has given me a specific line that convinces me otherwise thus far.

Sub Master level, I see 5.Bg5 Be7?! almost exclusively.  Which seems strange to me, but I'll take it!

I'm partial to White in the Botvinnik after 5...dc 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.ef.  I know it's not much theoretically, but OTB White's play is much easier, he has clear plans and weaknesses in Black's position to try to exploit.  The OP might look there.

In the Moscow, I've always liked 6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.Qc2!?, which again may not be a ton theoretically but is easier and more fun to play for White, IMO (having played both sides of it).  Yermolinsky has some good analysis in The Road to Chess Improvement to get started here.

Its the same position with the Grunfeld though

In both cases you've got a mass of perfectly acceptable, objectively dangerous, interesting, tries for white which have all accumulated quite massive amounts of theory. Of course blacks position is very sound too.

This is how chess is in main line openings

So the basic problem lies in picking something that interests you/suits your style. Don't super obsess about what the final evaluation may or may not be. Its almost certainly drawn.

Like with the meran main lines. Massively theoretical and ultimately drawn? Probably. But there's an absolutely massive amount of very interesting chess content in there. Well worth studying and playing for a bit.

Vass wrote on 11/27/12 at 18:54:51:


It depends on the position that the engine is evaluating for +0.05 to +0.22 to be significant. Some of those are a lot easier to play OTB than others.

As for correspondence, the number means very little as we both know.

Now, on the Slow Slav point punter mentioned - I am assuming you were referring to 4...Bg4 (6...Bg4 doesn't make sense to me) and all I can reply is that I only like white in a particular line there.

The Noteboom move order isn't insurmountable. I prefer something different from Avrukh, but don't feel like spending too much time on the point. I think move this is a case of move order begets move order, and that's all I'll say.