Stigma wrote on 12/09/19 at 00:15:24:
Not all Grünfeld players want clean positions, at least not all the time. I know when I play it I want complex, unclear positions with winning chances (though I also have the even more complex Leningrad Dutch in my repertoire). Against 7.Nf3/8.Rb1 I have considered virtually everything except the main line with ...Qa5+ and ...Qxa2. Maybe I will be forced to come around to it eventually, but I resist it.
If you're referring to the word Safest in the title, you do have a point - the ...Qxa2 lines probably fit that aim. But I don't have the impression that Delchev really goes for the safest or most drawish lines all the time - in spite of the book title his actual recommendations are somewhere in the middle as far as Grünfeld sharpness and winning chances go.
You have a point. The title I probably took too literally. That line with the knight on c6 I am not very familiar with. I remember 15 years ago I saw games where Black got destroyed several times at elite levels in this line, so that may have clouded my judgement.
"Safest" for the Grünfeld sounds weird to me anyway. The opening is by definition double-edged on purpose to create imbalances to win as Black. It could be like calling a book
The Solid Botwinnik Semi-Slav. But then again they had a book called
Safest Sicilian, so...
I look in my book and he switched the main recommendation in the Russian Variation to the Hungarian (7...a6), which I think is a good change. The 7...Cc6 line I think is not as theoretically robust. Especially since that Giri-Swinkels game a few years ago.
He gives both the solid and dynamic lines against the Fianchetto Variation. I disagree that the ...c6/...d5 line is only to draw. Black can play for a win here just like in the Exchange Slav. But I think that objectively after sufficient analysis, both the solid and dynamic (where Black recaptures with the knight on d5) are equal.