Quote:Hmm. Back in the 2000s, ECO "thought" various ways of playing by Black after 5. a3 should lead to equality (or unclarity), though I notice it didn't mention 5...dc 6. Bxc4 a6 (when 7. 0-0 is a recognized QGA line).
I'm in no position to argue White gets an edge here (of course one wonders where he can these days!), but no less a commentator than Max Illingworth has suggested that Black's task after 5 a3 isn't that simple ... (Perhaps it's the same after 5 cd?)
Quote:Sorry, having actually checked it, the suggest move order is in fact 3 d4(!) [avoiding the Reversed Blumenfeld; 3 c4 d4 4 b4, which Axel Smith says is interesting, but less consistent with the rest of the repertoire], and then 3...e6 "transposes to the Tarrasch", in which he does indeed give the line with 5 a3(!).
Given that if you play an early e2-e3 (and want non-insipid setups) you have to be prepared to play various position types, you could argue that it's Smith's very avoidance of the Reversed Blumenfeld that's inconsistent here, especially as this is a pretty good version for White!
Quote:You could always play something "real" against the King's Indian and Grunfeld, while incorporating Axel's lines against other openings. 4.Nc3 and White still has a ton of options. [ErictheRed on p. 4.]
I like this reasoning (relating to the 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 c4 Bg7 move order), but for those of us interested in non-mainline options with some sting, I don't see one after 4 Nc3
d5 here to parallel the Smyslov System against 4 ...d6 (5 Bg5 then e2-e3). Is there one? For this and other reasons I'm interested in the 1 Nf3 d5 2 e3 move order, when after 2 ...Nf6 3 c4 g6, White perhaps(?) has reasonable chances of an edge (or at least an incisive setup) with 4 b4, say, or with 4 cd Nd5 5 d4 (5 Qb3!?) Bg7 6 e4!?. I stand to be corrected!
Pages: [1] 
"e3 Poison" by Axel Smith (Read 74205 times)
