MNb wrote on 09/26/14 at 00:31:14:


I didn't already know the answer. I thought it was okay but I wasn't sure if there was a specific variation that would make it bad, but ...Bg4 is definitely not better than ...Bb7. I don't see the point of ...Bg4.

MNb wrote on 09/20/14 at 15:32:53:


That QGD line isn't challenging at all, nor is it anything Black seeks to avoid.

And how is ...Bg4 better than ...Bb7? Where's the bishop going to end up, on g6? It's not any more active there than on b7. I think it's actually worse on g6.

"BobbyDigital80 wrote on 09/20/14 at 03:41:17:

It's probably more useful to compare with this line of the Tartakower: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 2.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 O-O 6.Nf3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.cxd5 exd5.
Why does White voluntarily give up the pair of bishops, even with loss of tempo? We are not talking about patzers here. Petrosjan, Shirov and Sokolov have done so. The answer is that Bf6 is misplaced. It's biting on granite exactly because of White's pawn on d4. It would be better on d6. Now nobody will argue that this line is unplayable for Black. It's just a small inconvenience.
In exactly the same way in the d3-Archankelsk Bb7 is not optimally placed - and White hasn't even made any concession like giving up the pair of bishops. It's nothing dramatic, but White will seek to exploit it, so Black will have to pay attention to it . By playing ...Bg4 when possible Black avoids this little inconvenience and equalizes more comfortably. Just one worry less. But if you still want to play ...Bb7 for some reason it's OK. Just be aware of the reason and be aware of the little inconvenience. In that case the answer to your original question

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 09/19/14 at 10:02:58:

is simply yes. Some other strong players have done so. At the other hand White's idea Nb1-c3-d5 seems to cause some trouble.

Matemax wrote on 09/20/14 at 06:04:44:


How is 5.d3 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 not playable? If someone's main defense to 1.e4 is the Bb7 Archangel, then it makes sense to transpose to it after 5.d3. Not necessary, but very playable. If it wasn't playable, then the entire Bb7 Archangel wouldn't be playable because of 7.d3.

Matemax wrote on 09/19/14 at 11:43:18:


If it's not logical to place the bishop on b7 biting on granite, then why do lots GMs play the mainline Bb7 Archangel, which allows 7.d3 transposing into the exact same position that you say isn't logical?

Also, the idea that black's bishop is biting on granite doesn't really say much about the evaluation of the position. You could use that same logic for lots of main line openings.

Would you also say the King's Indian bishop bites on granite on d4 whenever White plays e3? That makes very little sense. So then White would play Bg5, Nf3, e3 to refute the King's Indian if that mattered so much in the actual evaluation of the position.

Why isn't the King's Indian Attack an awesome opening in that case? Lots of players play b5 and Bb7 and the bishop does bite on granite on e4. It doesn't need to go to b7, but even if it does, it doesn't really matter.

It's not logical to place the bishop on b7 when he is biting on granite. The e4 pawn is securely supported by d3. Therefore the bishop simply looks out of play and furthermore Black runs risks connected with the f5 square.