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.

Hi Negi,
I think that you overlooked the most challeging option in the 4...Bb4+ variation which is Nbd2. I have looked at the existing theory and I haven't liked it at all.
Instead 4...exd4 5...Nc6 6...Be6 can be caotic but gives counterplay to Black if White plays 7. Bxe6. 7.Bb5 allows White to pressurize by sacryficing temporarly a pawn but the resulting endgame seems holdable.

I think 3. e4 e5 is best for Black.

Here is some analysis, it is not complete as I haven't had the time to analyse everything.

@Scarblac
The QGA is pretty unpopular compared to most of the opening being played today at the top level.

I have the impression that the main reason why the QGA is not used more at higher level are:

- The dxc5 endgame
- The forcing nature of most  of the other lines in which a well prepared White player can enter a very plain position.

My feeling is that even a traditional Declined Queen's gambit could provide better winning chances because even in draw positions the non-forcing nature of the game gives opportunities to out-manouvre the opponent.

I would say that the Petroff stays to the QGA as the Spanish Berlin stays to the QGD.
However as a drawing weapon I think the QGA is a very good opening. In fact Kasparov and Fischer used the QGA when they were looking for a draw.
As such it should be a perfectly suitable opening also for a weaker player.

NegiRefures, what do you think of 3.e4 e5?

@mrbenoni

Yes, Carlsen did play the QGA vs. Giri, but he is Carlsen and can get away with playing lots if stuff. Lately he has been trying 1... g6 as a way to play for the win. So the QGA is totally fine, but, stuff like the Nimzo/Queens Indian and the Grunfeld are more popular as they are easier to equalize in. I'll post some analysis on 3. e4 lines maybe in a day or so and I'll also check the Ivanchuk games.

The QGA is a perfectly fine opening but at the top level they prefer to play the absolute best lines.

Wang Hao - Ivanchuk and InarKiev - Ivanchuk both 2016 seem to be smooth draws in the 3.e4 variation.
To be noted that also Carlsen has been willing to enter the same variation recently in the game Giri-Carlsen Bilbao Masters 2016.

In your opinion what are the problematic lines and what are  instead the reccomended ones?
Regards & thanks.

Are you saying that the GQA is just not so good? I have noticed that Ivanchuck has played a couple of recent QGA games that ended in very quick draws. If the problem is the central variation ( 3.e4 ) why don't we see more of it after 1.Nf3?
I am really interested in your opinion , thanks.

Hi ChessForum,
I am really wondering why the QGA is not more popular.
Theorically it seems to be in good shape and the theory to learn, compared to other defenses, is relatively small.
Even if the Central variation 3.e4 wasn't sound I don't understand why we don't see more of it at least after 1.Nf3?
To me it seems a very good drawing weapon so why don't GMs use it when Black is fine with a drawn?
What's the expert opinion?