I doubt I've ever seen the way Caruana played against Shankland before (7. a4 is of course a major line from way back; I recall it being played by Botvinnik, Gligoric and Geller, whilst Larsen doubted its merit), but Ju-Tan looked to me like an old pattern.  (Some time ago 9. Qe2+ was given as leading to an edge for White.)

Keano wrote on 08/03/17 at 13:00:52:


it generally leads to 3...Nf6 positions with all the queenside pawns swapped off

"What's the expert opinion?" -- It does not quite equalize.

Back in the day when Max Dlugy was still an active player, I was invited to a dinner where he was present. I will quote what he said, but only from memory so of course this is not 100% accurate.
Quote:
At that time Dlugy specialized in the QGA, so he knows a thing or two about it.

As for my non-expert opinion -- I have played it, not too many times, with great results overall. I can recommend it to certain players but not to everyone. The reason I did not play it more was because I was getting even better results with the Slav.

Interesting thread. The question why the QGA isn't more popular was answered. The question why the QGA after 1.Nf3 isn't more popular was also answered.
But I'm still interested in the question why the QGA isn't more popular after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3.
I've seen many people asking what to pair their Nimzo or Benkö with after white doesn't play 2.c4 and 3.Nc3. Shouldn't the QGA be mentioned? (I'm probably overlooking something.)

Edit: for example, I overlooked that it could be a solution for a Benkö-player, but won't help a Nimzo-player against an uncooperative white player.

The QGA is quite concrete at times so many players shy away from it and try to pick more closed openings. I also don't think you can really use it vs flank openings like you can the other options. It's akin to the Nimzo in the sense that White has to let you and people often want universal openings. That's why stuff like the KID, London, KIA and Semi-Slav always has a large following. I might be wrong though. These were my reasons for not playing it.

In terms of soundness, it's extremely reliable and will never be refuted. Even Avrukh's second book after nearly a decade can't find an edge in it. The first 2008 book had e3 lines and his updated version switched to e4 because those didn't seem to offer much of anything. However, even the e4 lines often lead to equality.

For instance, take this line from the first 20 pages of Avrukh's book:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 dxc4 4.e4 b5 5.a4 c6 6.axb5 cxb5 7.b3 Nf6 8.bxc4 Nxe4 9.c5 Bxc5 10.Bxb5+ Bd7 11.Bxd7+ Qxd7 12.dxc5 Qxd1+ 13.Kxd1 Nxf2+ 14.Ke2 Nxh1 15.Bf4 O-O 16.Bd6 Rc8 17.Nc3 Nd7 18.Na4 Nf6 19.Nd2 Ne8 20.Bf4 Nc7

He suggests that White may have better long term prospects due to the passed pawn but I highly doubt it. It's nearly impossible for it to become a true threat and I'd say Black is completely equal.

This is in the first 20 pages and already Black has an equalizing line despite Avrukh picking what he thinks are the toughest variations.

It's not popular because people don't want to play it , There are tons of strong openings like King's Indian, Grunfeld etc which gives better alternatives for the counter player

Hi,

No, 5. Nbd2 after 4... Bb4 is not the most challenging option for sure. Black can go 5... c3 and is much better, just check with the engine.

I think you might be mixing up the line with 4... exd4 5. Bxc4 and then Bb4 where 6. Nbd2 is a good move.