Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit (Read 6348 times)
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2464
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #16 - 03/29/18 at 15:30:18
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/28/18 at 02:59:44:
“I’m not backing off from giving my opinion on an internet forum, on whichever topics catch my interest.


You're of course free to share your opinions, but you could do it in a more civil manner.

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 03/29/18 at 11:05:51:
I was talking about using the Triangle move order to avoid the exchange Slav. And yeah, not interested in the Noteboom...


I went through some similar thinking when I stopped playing the Noteboom but still wanted to play the Meran and Botvinnik (actually Moscow) lines.  The Triangle (1...d5, 2...e6, 3...c6) move order is feasible, but in addition to the Marshall Gambit, White has some other good tries.  There is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Qc2, when if 4...Nf6 5.Bg5.  There are also many Catalan-like lines that you'll have to be willing to play, or proper Closed Catalan positions, such as after 3.Nf3 c6 4.g3, 4.Nbd2, 4.Qc2 Nf6 5.g3, etc. 

Eventually I decided that for me, it was better to simply allow White to play the Exchange Slav and went for the 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 move order.  That also makes White think about his third move, as 3.Nc3 might be met with 3...e5 or 3...dxc4, for instance.  Even if you don't intend to play those lines, White doesn't necessarily know that.  So in a way I felt that it gave White more things to prepare against--unless he was going to just play the Exchange, of course.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3050
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #15 - 03/29/18 at 14:18:46
Post Tools
@BobbyDigital80:

Scherbakov in his Triangle book has a decent amount of analysis of 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 Bb4!? Though he concludes in the end White is slightly better in a couple of lines, the positions are certainly more solid and "rational" than the Marshall Gambit accepted.

If you want to avoid both the Exchange Slav and the Marshall Gambit, you could try allowing the Exchange QGD instead with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5. For instance, the lines Ntirlis recommends in his 1.d4 d5 book (...Nh5 based, I believe) are interesting. Though I haven't looked at his actual material.

4.Bg5 would be a move order problem for a QGD Exchange/Semi-Slav repertoire, but we discussed the interesting 4.Bg5 dxc4!? a bit here: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1511733073
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobbyDigital80
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 315
Joined: 05/15/08
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #14 - 03/29/18 at 11:05:51
Post Tools
I was talking about using the Triangle move order to avoid the exchange Slav. And yeah, not interested in the Noteboom either. I was just wondering if there was some playable line against the Marshall Gambit besides the main line. But I guess the main line is really the only way to go. So I’d have to pick my poison: allow the exchange Slav or the Marshall. Of course there’s also the Nimzo-Indian move order, but that seems like an overly-complicated repertoire if you aren’t a top GM.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 634
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #13 - 03/28/18 at 02:59:44
Post Tools
One advantage of the triangle move order to the Semi-Slav, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6, is that the exchange variations 3.cxd5, 4.cxd5, and 5.cxd5 are pretty easy for black without being as dull as the Exchange Slav. The price is the Marshall Gambit, as BobbyDigital80 noted. I assumed he did not want the Noteboom/Abrahams because then it wouldn’t make sense to talk about the triangle as a move order to something else.

@EricTheRed - “I don’t want to play” was a rhetorical construct meaning “I don’t think that’s a good move”. I was simply mimicing MNb’s construction when he offered the suggestions. I’m not backing off from giving my opinion on an internet forum, on whichever topics catch my interest.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1054
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #12 - 03/28/18 at 00:50:41
Post Tools
Not sure what your other restrictions are or what you're aiming for--maybe a Noteboom? Why not after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 just go ...Nf6 and play a Semi-Slav, which can often produce the same general ideas as the Noteboom, and only if White plays 3.Nf3 play 3...e6 with a Triangle? You'll get the latter reasonably often this way, for example against Avrukh players.

By the way, the main point of Kramnik's 5...c5 as I understood it was to avoid the White retreat 5...Bb4 Nc3=, which Carlsen used to dull Anand's Triangle in a championship game.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2464
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #11 - 03/27/18 at 23:15:59
Post Tools
Well, then it's a good thing that MNb's post wasn't about what you want to play, but a suggestion for another member of the forum. Sheesh.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 634
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #10 - 03/27/18 at 21:15:35
Post Tools
I agree I was not being nice. I wasn't even trying to be nice. It wasn't a consideration. As for the chess....

It's the reaching Semi-Slav lines that I don't see happening, certainly not with the early ...d5xc4 that was advocated. Yes, there is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 e6, but that's just changing the subject. If black played 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 dxc4 it would transpose to one of the actually suggested move orders.

In RE the other point(s) attempted:
  • I am happy with the Exchange Slav, but do not want to play the 3.Nc3 dxc4 position. I play 3...Nf6 and once or twice have chanced 3...e6.
  • I play the QGA, but do not want to play the 3.Nf3 c6 position. Here 3...Nf6, 3...a6, 3...e6 are all on the menu, and I might be persuaded about 3...c5. Nor do I want to play the (again) 3.Nc3 c6 position. In this case my choice would be 3...a6 or 3...e5.

A case can be made that these lines I don't want to play are in fact playable. But they are not for me, and I bet they are not for the would-be Semi-Slav player either.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2464
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #9 - 03/27/18 at 15:06:53
Post Tools
Wow, let's try to be nice. Both of MNb's suggestions are perfectly valid ways of trying to reach a Noteboom and some other Slav or Semi-Slav lines while avoiding a Marshall Gambit.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10404
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #8 - 03/27/18 at 06:16:52
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/26/18 at 21:04:31:
Both of your statements are non-sequiturs, and furthermore none of your suggested move orders is likely to transpose to a Semi-Slav position.

1. They can't be non-sequiturs by definition, because they aren't arguments.
2. You neglect the popularity of the sequence 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 when e6 is the Triangle, with the Marshall Gambit impossible. Must I conclude t that you're incapable of finding this triviality yourself?
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
mn
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 459
Location: Ottawa
Joined: 09/22/16
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #7 - 03/27/18 at 01:39:32
Post Tools
During the live broadcast, Jan theorized that Kramnik may have played the Triangle under the assumption Caruana would avoid the Marshall given the tournament situation. Then, when it was played, not being able to remember his analysis in the main lines, Kramnik decided to wheel out a risky half-idea which he had otherwise reserved for rapid and blitz.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 634
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #6 - 03/27/18 at 00:34:36
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 03/26/18 at 17:13:15:
In the press conference after the game, Kramnik described 5..c5 as a "pretty bad move" for Black, called it a "little bluff," and indicated that he tried it due to his poor tournament situation.
I don't believe that last part. Does Kramnik even believe it himself? He has been playing enterprising chess from the start, now he blames the risk-taking on his poor tournament standing? Rather the other way around. Ding Liren's tournament strategy looks genius by comparison, at least he is not mathematically eliminated.  Wink

Somewhat kidding with the comparison to Ding Liren. Actually Kramnik might have taken his best chance in this candidates. There's no way to run the race again differently and see what might have been. But still, at least analyze correctly afterwards. Rolling the dice with 5...c5 was part and parcel of his overall approach.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 634
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #5 - 03/26/18 at 21:04:31
Post Tools
BobbyDigital80 wrote on 03/26/18 at 05:27:52:
I’m interested in playing the Semi-Slav with the triangle move order, but the Marshall Gambit is what puts me off, even if Black is theoretically fine. If there’s some way to avoid it I might take up the opening, but I have a feeling 5...c5 isn’t that reliable.

MNb wrote on 03/26/18 at 14:50:52:
If you're fine with the Slav Exchange you can try 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4.
If you're fine with the QGA you can try 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3/3.Nc3 c6.

Both of your statements are non-sequiturs, and furthermore none of your suggested move orders is likely to transpose to a Semi-Slav position.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1382
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #4 - 03/26/18 at 17:13:15
Post Tools
BobbyDigital80 wrote on 03/25/18 at 11:34:03:
In the Candidates tournament Kramnik played this line as Black against Caruana:
1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 c5. Is this move actually good? It looks very strange to my eyes and seems kind of pointless except that it avoids all the mainline Marshall Gambit theory.


In the press conference after the game, Kramnik described 5..c5 as a "pretty bad move" for Black, called it a "little bluff," and indicated that he tried it due to his poor tournament situation. 
   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10404
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #3 - 03/26/18 at 14:50:52
Post Tools
BobbyDigital80 wrote on 03/26/18 at 05:27:52:
If there’s some way to avoid it I might take up the opening

If you're fine with the Slav Exchange you can try 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4.
If you're fine with the QGA you can try 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3/3.Nc3 c6.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BobbyDigital80
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 315
Joined: 05/15/08
Re: Kramnik’s 5...c5 in the Marshall Gambit
Reply #2 - 03/26/18 at 05:27:52
Post Tools
I’m interested in playing the Semi-Slav with the triangle move order, but the Marshall Gambit is what puts me off, even if Black is theoretically fine. If there’s some way to avoid it I might take up the opening, but I have a feeling 5...c5 isn’t that reliable.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo