CanadianClub wrote on 01/04/13 at 21:38:56:


Although I haven't read other slav books, the Vigus book made it really easy for me to start playing this opening. I found the explanations very useful.

Well, I've decided to play The Slav as Black. I'll start with Main Line lines (instead of Chebanenko ones).

Which book do you would consider:

- Vigus' "Play the Slav" ?
- Lakdawala, "The Slav Move by Move" ?
- other?

As a total newbie in the Slav universe, it would be important for me some textual explanations in the book, not only encyclopedia-like contents.


thx !

CanadianClub wrote on 01/01/13 at 19:05:29:


I think Bonsai's post on the Chebanenko in this thread explains the basic ideas as well or better than I could: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1349724755/0. As for 4...dxc4, the idea is that Black is surrendering the centre in order to develop his pieces actively (as the immediate 4...Bf5 allows 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3) and break in the centre with ...e5. But to win the c4-pawn White has to play 5.a4, to prevent ...b5, and then after 5...Bf5 White will spend some time winning the c4-pawn, time Black can use to get his pieces developed to good squares. It's worth mentioning that to play 5...e6, you need to be happy with both IQP positions (6.e3) and very sharp gambit play (6.e4). I think both the Chebanenko and Main Line Slav have a healthy combination of solidity and dynamism and aren't difficult to play if you understand them, but to win against lower rated players you'll have to play good chess, regardless of the opening! 

I mainly used Vigus's book and also recently purchased Lakdawala's book. If you want to learn the Chebanenko I'd recommend using Bologan as your main guide, though Kritz's DVD might be sufficient up to the 2000 level (I'm only guessing as I haven't watched the DVD). 

Of course you can combine the 4...dxc4 and 4...a6 Slav systems by playing 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 but meeting some of White's alternatives (3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 and 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 for instance) with 4...a6, whereby you avoid for instance the 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.c5 and 5.a4 e6 6.g3/Bf4 variations. It should be mentioned that if you intend to meet 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.e3 with 5...e6, there are a few lines where White can play for a win with very little risk of losing the game (at least at GM level). 

Since you mentioned that you are considering the Grunfeld Defence, you might like the 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Qc2 g6 and 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cd5 cd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bf4 Ne4 variations which have definite Grunfeld tendencies. If I recall right, Ametanoitos had a thread with some analysis on the latter variation. As for the Grunfeld itself, you have to read Rowson's book - even if you don't play the opening it will improve your 'understanding' rating by 100 points.

Personally, I think that Lakdawala's book is quite a good introduction to the Slav, but it's not entirely comprehensive or perfect.  Still, up to at least 2000 or even 2200 it will probably be all you need to start playing those lines comfortably.  Supplement with some work of your own from a database, and I think it's a great book.

I can't say much about the Chebanenko Slav, unfortunately, except that it's quite solid and as White I have a harder time making headway against it.  In general, the 4...dxc4 lines are a little more about active piece-play (putting pressure on White's center with pieces) and the 4...a6 lines are more about active pawn-play (breaking with ...c5 or ...e5 or expanding with ...b5).  Of course these are generalities.

The Slav is incredibly different than the Grunfeld; it shouldn't be hard for you to choose between the two.  Do you like pawn centers?  If so, then don't play the Grunfeld!  It's the single defense against 1.d4 that is most piece-play oriented and has the least pawn presence in the center.  Of course there are various lines, but in general this is true.

It's also much easier to get blown off the board by making a single mistake in the Grunfeld (some of those sharp 7.Bc4 lines, for instance).  The Slav is a little more forgiving of mistakes; you're liable to end up with a bad Bishop or less space, but single mistakes aren't as catastrophic (the Slav is generally less sharp).   

In my opinion, playing the Slav is a bit easier than the Grunfeld, in that the correct move is more often the simple, classical, develop-a-piece-to-an-active-square move.  The Grunfeld takes more finesse and more non-standard interpretations of positions.  Not everyone is up to the task; we all like to think of ourselves as mini Tals or Kasparovs, but I think that for most club players who play the Grunfeld or King's Indian, for instance, they'd have better results by simply playing the QGD, Slav, Tarrasch, etc.   

Hope that helps!