One potential line (which starts to look a little hairy): 

6.c3 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.h4 h5 10.Be2 Qa5 11.a4 O‑O‑O 12.b4 Qc7 13.O‑O e5 14.b5 Nc5 15.Bc4 f5 16.Bg5 Be7 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.bxc6 f4

...and then I have no idea what's going on.

Was having a look:

6.c3 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.h4 h5 10. Be2 Qa5 11.a4 O-O-O 12.b4 Qc7 13.a5 e5! 14.a6 b5(!) 
15.O-O Nb6 

Looks like decent play for Black to my eye.

Edit: if still a bit of a mess 

The line I recall from way back had Black playing 6.c3 Bf5 7.Ne2 Nd7 (with the possibility of a later ...e5 in one go).

MNb wrote on 09/16/17 at 21:40:25:


(Hello, old friend). I didn't reply, because I hadn't sat down with it. My instinct is that Black needs to swing the queen out to a5, to make White think twice about castling queenside too quickly. But I'd need to look at some specifics. It seems as though ...h6 runs Black into some trouble—I think I prefer ...h5. But: more actual lines to follow.

The nice thing about correspondence is you can trot out the same line in 4-6 games at a time without losing the "surprise value." The advantage is the opportunity to really work on a particular opening or two. Games are usually hidden until they are finished.

But it did get me wondering: I'll have to look, but do any of the books on pawns and pawn structures treat playing with doubled pawns as an advantage? Baburin?  Marovic?

I think you're right. It seems to me that there are some general middlegame and endgame characteristics to a number of these positions that would reward greater familiarity. And are probably just enough to throw off the first player with less preparation. I would also note that engines seem to really like White in most lines. Disproportionately so. Which is especially nice for the correspondence player. It's nice to see that +1.02 drop to +0.35 over the course of a half-dozen natural moves. In correspondence chess, there's so much room for sub-optimal moves from White with that kind of mis-evaluation.

Botvinnik is usually a good model to follow.

Viking wrote on 09/12/17 at 21:29:13:


One of these perhaps? In fact, I'm inclined to retract my comments in the previous post about the bishops looking a little passive or stale. 

Horberg-Botvinnik (Stockholm 1962)
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 de4 4. Ne4 Nf6 5. Nf6 gf6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bf4 Nd7 8. Nf3 e6 9. O-O Nb6 10. Bb3 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. c4 Bg7 13. g4 Bg6 14. Re1 O-O 15. Kh2 a5 16. a4 f5 17. Qd2 fg4 18. hg4 c5 19. Bh6 cd4 20. Bg7 Kg7 21. Kg2 d3 22. g5 Nd7 23. Qf4 Rc8 24. Rad1 Nc5 25. Ba2 f6 26. Qg4 fg5 27. Ng5 Qf6 28. Ne6 Ne6 29. Re6 Qf2 30. Kh1 Rf4

Ciocaltea-Botvinnik (Hamburg 1965)
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 de4 4. Ne4 Nf6 5. Nf6 gf6 6. Be2 Bf5 7. Nf3 e6 8. O-O Bg7 9. Re1 O-O 10. Bf4 Qb6 11. Qc1 Nd7 12. a4 c5 13. Be3 Qc7 14. Bf4 Qa5 15. Bd2 Qc7 16. Bf4 Qa5 17. Bd2 Qd8 18. Bh6 Rc8 19. Bg7 Kg7 20. c3 Qc7 21. Qe3 Bg6 22. a5 cd4 23. Nd4 a6 24. f4 e5 25. fe5 fe5 26. Nf3 f5 27. Rad1 Rce8 28. g3 Re7 29. b4 f4 30. gf4 Rf4 31. Bf1 Nf6 32. h3 Bh5 33. Be2 Kh8 34. Kh1 Ne4 35. Kh2 Ref7 36. Rd5 Rf3 37. Bf3 Bf3 38. Qb6 Qb6 39. ab6 Nc3 40. Rde5 Bc6 41. Re7 Re7 42. Re7