RdC wrote on 01/07/20 at 22:40:46:

Ugh. Assuming white goes for either the Averbakh or Austrian setups, I have doubts that Tiger's ...a6 is viable. At the least it is risky. Certainly Tiger agrees that against the Averbakh black must transpose to the King's Indian. I haven't studied Tiger's lines against the Austrian (I don't play that way as white), but I did look superficially at his analysis, and the whole thing looks dodgy. Maybe with perfect play black can equalize, but I wouldn't bet on it. Transposing to the Pirc and playing 5...c5 looks solid enough, maybe just not enough winning chances for Tiger?

And against those same two setups, without doubt the double fianchetto (so-called "Hippo") is not viable. Experimental at best. Black is not equalizing, and might get blown away by resolute play.

Against simple classical play -- white holds back both the f-pawn and the c-pawn -- it's a different story. But in that case black has a wide choice of viable defenses.

Not directly related to your question, but black doesn't always have to play ...Nd7 and ...Ne7 in the double fianchetto.

RdC wrote on 12/17/18 at 12:53:46:


More on this.

In a Modern move order, the game went 1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Be3 c6 5. f4

Whilst 4. .. a6 is more likely, setting up  a Tiger Modern, the older idea would have been 5. .. Qb6. 6. Rb1 was usually played, but Anand once tried 6. a3

In the event my opponent went 5. .. Qc7 and perhaps unsurprising got rapidly crushed.

To what extent would there be general agreement that the only viable lines of the Modern are the Tiger treatment with .. a6 and the Hippo treatment with the double fianchetto and playing Nd7 and Ne7?

Stigma wrote on 12/17/18 at 16:56:32:


Yep, I agree 5...b5 is very possible as well. IMO 6 e5 is strong in reply (6...b4 7 Qf3), but admittedly I haven't analyzed this in detail. 5...d5 I'm not sure I've seriously considered, it certainly looks interesting.

@mn: Good points.

After 4...a6 5.f4 I think Black should consider a couple of other moves instead of 5..Ng4, namely 5...b5 or 5...d5!?.

I have dabbled a bit in 4.Be3 a6 as Black, and had the most problems with 5.h3 in practice, but that doesn't have to mean anything.

After 4...a6, White doesn't necessarily have to expend a tempo on h2-h3; 5 f4(!) right away seems strong to me [On 5...Ng4, just 6 Bc1 and despite the extra tempi, Black's position makes a strange impression], while on 4...c6, White does have to play h2-h3 first, because of 5 f4 Qb6!, when (e.g.) 6 Qc1 takes away the retreat square for the Bishop; therefore 6...Ng4!

Meanwhile, yeah, switching to an Austrian Attack after 4...Bg7 5 f4 Ng4 makes less sense than the above, IMO, when Black has played the more "purposeful" ...Bg7, which he wants to do against the Austrian anyway, rather than the "slower" ...a6 or ...c6. But the good news is ...Bg7  strengths the Qd2/Bh6 plan!

I've been experimenting with playing e4, d4, Nc3, Be3 and now f4.

It's not mentioned much in books, as chapters on the 150 Attack concentrate on the regular themes without mentioning the f4 idea whilst the Austrian attack material doesn't have much, if anything,  to say about Be3.

You have to be prepared to retreat the Bishop after .. Ng4, to g1 if that square is free, otherwise d2 or c1.