Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Question about a Tarrasch position with Bb5 (Read 328 times)
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 563
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Question about a Tarrasch position with Bb5
Reply #4 - 10/08/19 at 11:54:04
Post Tools
Markovich was right about the Tarrasch. Shaw (2002) Starting Out The Queen's Gambit had this to say: "The Tarrasch may technically be a variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined but, in terms of the ideas behind it, it is a completely different opening. Black's plans are almost entirely based on active piece play ..."

All defenses to the Queen's Gambit have problems. If you switch defenses then you switch problems, which doesn't solve the underlying issue, that the Queen's Gambit is strong. The correct approach is to stick with one defense, and work at the problems until they become manageable. That said, the more orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined is certainly sound.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10368
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Question about a Tarrasch position with Bb5
Reply #3 - 10/08/19 at 10:15:05
Post Tools
Another, equally important part of Markovich' advise was not to study such sidelines in detail. Instead just rely on the three general principles: activate all your pieces, control the centre, castle. So to answer your question it should be sufficient for you to play through a couple of games and then play what looks best to you. Your opponents won't grasp all the positional subtleties anymore than you.
Under ELO 1800 I've seen way to many players butchering the QGD by having no idea how to solve the problem of Bc8. So I'd advise you not to switch back.
  

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
 
doefmat
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 33
Joined: 04/03/17
Re: Question about a Tarrasch position with Bb5
Reply #2 - 10/08/19 at 08:07:14
Post Tools
Thanks for the answer. As a 1500 player I started playing the Tarrasch because of Markovich's advice (playing open positions, active piece play, practice with the IQP etc).

All these complex sidelines makes me wonder if I should just switch back to the QGD and stick with it for life.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 563
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Question about a Tarrasch position with Bb5
Reply #1 - 10/07/19 at 16:26:08
Post Tools
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.e3 Nf6 7.Bb5 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 9.O-O Bd6 10.Nf3 a6

doefmat wrote on 10/07/19 at 08:42:24:
The book from Ntirlis/Aagard says that the position from 9...Bd6 is very typical IQP stuff, no need to analyse. Then they recommend one line from a Kasparov - Kramnik game where the game goes 10...a6 and 11.Be2

"no need to analyse." ??? Irresponsible. If they dismissed this without analysis, I would be very skeptical of all their lines in the symmetrical variations. It's a minefield.

And the quoted Kasparov - Kramnik game was blitz!
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070873

Moves trump ideas every time. L'Ami is absolutely correct about 10...a6 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.e4. 11...Bxc6 is "better" but it's a very depressed bishop on c6 so L'Ami is correct again.

doefmat wrote on 10/07/19 at 08:42:24:
What do you think? Is this overlooked in the Aagard/Ntirlis book or is the position too ' unimportant' for this?

It's important. Many GMs prefer ...a7-a6 over ...Nb8-c6 precisely to avoid Bf1-b5. (For example, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 a6!? 6.cxd5 exd5). In the Tarrasch move order this is impossible. Just another one of those "awkward sidelines" as Sadler mentioned.

The opening is actually a reversed Nimzo-Indian, Rubinstein Variation. The Nimzo-Indian is a very respectable and sharp opening when played by black. In some of the book lines of the Rubinstein Variation, white sacs a P; the same idea is obviously not going to work in a reversed tempo-down line. Kramnik played ...Bd7 to avoid the sac, but after such a passive move (Bc1-d2 by white gives easy equality to black in just about every Nimzo-Indian variation), careful analysis is needed to show that black is not just worse.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
doefmat
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 33
Joined: 04/03/17
Question about a Tarrasch position with Bb5
10/07/19 at 08:42:24
Post Tools
I have a question about the following position:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5
5.Nf3 Nc6 6.e3 Nf6 7.Bb5 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7
9.O-O Bd6 10.Nf3 a6

The book from Ntirlis/Aagard says that the position from 9...Bd6 is very typical IQP stuff, no need to analyse. Then they recommend one line from a Kasparov - Kramnik game where the game goed 10...a6 and 11.Be2

I'm also watching the DVD from Erwin L' Ami on the Tarrasch Defense where he says 10...a6 is not a good move because of 11.Bxc6. Where he says that 11...bxc6 is bad because of 12.e4 where white has a strong initiative and black is in trouble. He claims that 11...Bxc6 also isn't good because white goes b3, black is missing active options and white is very harmonious.

L' Ami recommends 10...Bg4

What do you think? Is this overlooked in the Aagard/Ntirlis book or is the position too ' unimportant' for this?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo