MartinC wrote on 11/24/16 at 16:18:26:


I just bought Pert's book and impressed by its breadth and depth.

I was surprised that Pert and Cornette, in their respective books, covered the accelerated Ragozin: 1d4 d5 2c4 e6 3Nc3 Bb4. This is a very small part of each book, but still worth noting.

I "knew" those moves to be bad for black ever since Hans Berliner covered it in his newspaper columns "My System." I'm not aware of anyone advocating this sequence prior to Pert and Cornette.

I put it squarely in the "Dangerous Weapons" (DW) category. Now I feel obliged to digress. I bought the entire DW series and still refer to those books periodically. The words "dangerous weapons" do not convey the same impression as "main line" or "rock-solid," and that is as it should be. I can think of one DW line that has not stood up to (engine) scrutiny. But I can also think of a DW recommendation that went on to become a major line at every level of play.

As to the accelerated Ragozin, it's great if it works. The move order has various advantages, some previously mentioned. I think it provides a nice answer to the English opening:  1c4 e6 2Nc3 d5 3d4 Bb4. Also there is no need to concern oneself with the main lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined exchange variation.

Does it work? I'm still somewhat skeptical. If black is well prepared and white is not, then it should lead to a reasonable game. To put it differently, if I prepare this as black, I should be O.K. in many of my games.

I think these strong players, Pert and Cornette, have advanced novel ideas that will deny white players the "refutation" that they might be expecting. It would be interesting to know the extent of overlap from these original thinkers.

Perhaps the line should still get the disclaimer used in the DW series: "roll the dice."

Arnaudov wrote on 11/24/18 at 18:49:34:

4...dxc4 looks fine for black, and is maybe the reason why Bf4 is much more played after first taking on d5, without this exchange the knight on g8 can go to d5
Something like 4...c5 5.e3 Nf6 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 O-O 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Qc2 cxd4 looks good too, White lags in development as Bf4 doesn't help in castling kingside
But I can imagine 4...Nf6 works better repertoire-wise and there I found: 5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.e3 Ne4 7.Qc2 g5 8.Bg3 h5 9.f3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Bd7. 
Stockfish also gives the crazy suggestion of 7...e5, but I think White is better in the end: 8.dxe5 (8.Bxe5 Bf5 9.Bd3 Qg5 10.Nge2 Qxg2 11.O-O-O Bxc3 12. Nxc3 Bxd3 13.Qxd3 dxc4 14.Qxc4 Nxe5 15.dxe5 O-O) Bf5 9.Bd3 d4 10.Nf3 dxc3 11.O-O cxb2 12.Rad1 (12.Rab1 g5! 13.Nxg5 Nxg5 14.Bxf5 Ne6) Qe7 13.Bxe4 Bxe4 14.Qxe4 h6 (14...O-O 15.Qc2 Ba3 16.Ng5 g6 17.Ne4 Nxe5 18.c5) 15.Rd3 O-O 16.Rb3

So when introducing the Vienna via the 4...Bb4 5 Bg5 dc4 move order, RP mentions that it avoids the QGA-esque lines after 4...dc4 5 e3. However, later in the book, after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3, he gives 4...a6 5 Nc3 and now 5...dc4, which, as far as I can tell, transposes into the 5 e3 Vienna. Not that this is a theoretical problem for Black, but, for example, the move 6 a4 is not mentioned.

Incidentally, after flipping through that part of the book earlier today, my game tonight went down exactly that path  I got an excellent position from the opening but made some bizarre decisions and ended up having to be careful to hold.

Against the catalan if want too can play the 4..Be7,  5...0.0, 6...pxp lines which is move-order proof. It's probably the most reliable line of the lot, but a little drawish.

I think it is good if you are happy to play Stonewall structures.

My main problem is that White can avoid it by holding back d2-d4 which means you need a second weapon if White starts with 1.Nf3 or 1.c4.

It's covered via the move order 5 Qa4+ Nc6 6 Bg5 dxc4

Commenting on the QC blog probably wouldn't be a bad way to do that.

BadDays wrote on 08/21/17 at 18:37:37:


This hits the nail. I fully agree.