MW wrote on 06/15/21 at 21:04:02:


I think 3...Be7 has a lot of merit and is a real candidate.

I also like the sequence 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3Nf3 d5. If the game does enter an exchange variation, black can manage to play ...Bf5. In contrast to the Nigel Short variation, white can not play Qf3 as that square is already occupied.

Each choice opens some doors and closes others.

Here's another sequence one can consider. 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3Nf3 d5 4Nc3 Nbd7 5Bf4 dxc. I rather like this as an answer to 5Bf4. However it shuts the door on the Tartakover system vs. 5Bg5, nor is it the best line vs the Exchange variation. Furthermore, one should be prepared to play the Nimzo-Indian and have a distinct (non-transpositional) reply to the English opening.

Back to 3...Be7. I think it leads to a fighting game vs. the Exchange variation. If white does not exchange, you have to consider both Bf4 and Bg5 systems. After 1d4 d5 2c4 e6 3Nc3 Be7 4Nf3 Nf6 5Bf4 0-0 6e3, there is a real branching: 6...c5, 6...b6, and 6...Nbd7. I've looked at all three, and will doubtlessly  do so many times in the future.

The Ntirlis sample mostly focusses on white playin 0-0, while alluding to another section for 0-0-0. I still have not checked out ChessPublishing.

Here is a sequence obtained using the Chess Assistant data base:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Be7 7.
Qc2 Nbd7 8. Bd3 h6 9. Bh4 Nh5 10. Be7 Qe7 11. Nge2 Nb6 12. O-O-O. Now black's main moves (equally common) are 12...Bd7 and 12...Be6. Black will play ...0-0-0 soon. Practice confirms your judgment that play will become too hot to handle after ... 0-0. Black's stats after the first 12 moves are excellent.

This line greatly resembles an almost identical line recommended by Cox, Davies, and others, that has been played in many games. The new wrinkle is the addition of the free move ...h6.

AOC makes many good points. I made a response, and now it's lost! So briefly.

Ntrilis' line can only be found in footnotes, demonstrating that it was minor. It is a newly recommended line that has grown greatly in popularity since around 2014, especially since 2017, so I hold that is relatively new regardless of the date of first use.

It's ultimate merit has not been determined, but it's certainly worth a look. Every nuance counts, for example 9Bf4 vs 9Bh4, kingside castling versus queenside castling. All this must be examined. Some of this can be found in the sample provided at Forward chess. ChessPublishing has also taken a look.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 06/15/21 at 15:33:31:

The 4th edition (2004) also had 8...h6 9. Bh4 (no mention of 9. Bf4) Nh5 in a note, with 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. Nge2 Nb6 12. 0-0-0 (12. 0-0 was said to lead to equality) leading to += in Sorin-Hoffman, Argentina (ch) 1999 and Malaniuk-Burmakin, Moscow 1995. 

FreeRepublic wrote on 06/15/21 at 14:18:43:

The evidence of influence is there, it is just negative evidence: It had been tried, but did not become popular. The question is why not? This requires detective work. Now the really interesting question is whether Ntirlis has managed to improve on the earlier theory, or simply ignored it. This requires further detective work. That it experienced a surge after the Ntirlis book is totally understandable, expected even. As to whether this popularity will remain, only time will tell. This final point is related to the previous detective work, or lack of it. Caveat: I don't have Ntirlis's book.

I don't have ECO D 3rd edition. In the 1st and 2nd editions it is D36 after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2 Be7 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 and now 1st edition line 6 note 23, 2nd edition line 4 note 15.

Both give Uhlmann - Müller, DDR (ch) 1974 (sic) as +/-, see Informator 19/505. The 1st edition (but not the 2nd) gives Gligoric - Estimo, Manila 1968 as +/-. In both these games, the stronger player won. The 1st edition also quotes a game Taimanov - Arhangelski, SSSR 1962, deviating from Gligoric - Estimo with 11...Nf8 and reaching +=. We can look at this "theory" in different ways. (a) The weaker players ignorantly played an inferior line and were thematically punished. (b) The weaker players played a good line; because they lost theory unjustly rejected the line. (c) Some intermediate conclusion is correct.

[Event "DDR-ch 24th"]
[Site "Stralsund"]
[Date "1975.??.??"]
[Round "15"]
[White "Uhlmann, Wolfgang"]
[Black "Mueller, Klaus Uwe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D53"]
[EventDate "1975.02.02"]
[PlyCount "59"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.11.16"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "FRA"]
[BlackTeamCountry "GER"]

1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qc2 
h6 9.Bf4 a6 10.Nf3 O-O 11.g4 c5 12.g5 hxg5 13.Bxg5 cxd4 14.exd4 Ng4 15.h4 
Re8 16.O-O-O Ndf6 17.Ne5 Be6 18.Rdg1 Rc8 19.Bxf6 Nxf6 20.h5 Ne4 21.h6 Bg5+
22.Kb1 g6 23.f3 Nd2+ 24.Ka1 Qf6 25.f4 Qxf4 26.Bxg6 Kf8 27.Bxf7 Bxf7 28.
Ng6+ Bxg6 29.Qxg6 Bf6 30.Nxd5 1-0

[Event "Manila Meralco"]
[Site "Manila"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Gligoric, Svetozar"]
[Black "Estimo, Nilo"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D36"]
[EventDate "1968.??.??"]
[PlyCount "139"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1999.07.01"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "ENG"]
[BlackTeamCountry "NED"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.Qc2 
h6 9.Bh4 Nh5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.O-O-O Nhf6 12.Nf3 a5 13.Kb1 Qd6 14.h3 Nb6 15.
Ne5 Nfd7 16.f4 Qe7 17.g4 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Bd7 19.Qg2 a4 20.a3 Nc8 21.Rc1 b5 
22.Na2 Nb6 23.Nb4 Rc8 24.Rhd1 O-O 25.Rc3 Rfd8 26.Bf5 Nc4 27.Bxd7 Rxd7 28.
Rcd3 f6 29.exf6 Qxf6 30.g5 hxg5 31.fxg5 Qg6 32.Nc2 Re7 33.Ka2 Rce8 34.h4 
Nxe3 35.Nxe3 Rxe3 36.Rxe3 Rxe3 37.Rf1 d4 38.Qf2 Qe6+ 39.Ka1 d3 40.g6 Qe8 
41.Rd1 Re5 42.Qg3 Qe6 43.Kb1 Rf5 44.h5 Qc4 45.Qxd3 Qxd3+ 46.Rxd3 Rd5 47.
Rxd5 cxd5 48.Kc2 Kf8 49.Kd3 Ke7 50.Kd4 Kf6 51.Kxd5 Kg5 52.Kc5 Kxh5 53.Kxb5
Kxg6 54.Kxa4 Kf5 55.Kb3 g5 56.Kc3 g4 57.Kd3 Kf4 58.a4 Kf3 59.a5 g3 60.a6 
g2 61.a7 g1=Q 62.a8=Q+ Kf4 63.Qe4+ Kg5 64.Qe3+ Qxe3+ 65.Kxe3 Kf5 66.Kd4 
Ke6 67.Kc5 Kd7 68.Kb6 Kc8 69.b4 Kb8 70.b5 1-0

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cd5 ed5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Nge2 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 * 3,574 games

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cd5 ed5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 * 7,858 games

For a total of 11,432 games in the line I described as the main line.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cd5 ed5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 Nh5 10. Be7 Qe7 * 373 games in the Ntirlis line.

Numbers are from the Chess Assistant data base.

I have not accounted for all future transpositions. An example would be lines with Nf3, where Qc2 will be played later. Still, I think this gives a general impression of magnitudes, something that is important in having a sense of proportion. Proportion and ratios can be a great aid to rational analysis. Rational analysis has often been credited to ancient Greeks. In that vein, I'd like to introduce a ratio to this thread. Given the numbers above, main line games outnumber Ntirlis recommended games by more than 30 to 1.

It would be interesting to see similar numbers for known major minor lines, such as the Short variation and the Petrosian/Alatortsev variation. I expect both the Short and the Petrosian line will have considerably fewer games than the main line, and considerably more games than the Ntirlis line.

The position reached after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cd5 ed5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 Nh5 10. Be7 Qe7 was first reached in 1933, but there is little evidence that it, or the game Donner-Tröger of 1958, had great influence. This line began to take-off (in games played) around 2014 but has had a real surge since the publication of the Ntirlis book.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Qc2 Nbd7 8.Nf3 h6 9.Bh4 Nh5 is Donner-Tröger, Chaumont Neuchate. This game is from 1958. That's relatively new indeed, like Arabic numerals are new compared to Roman ones.

Ntirlis analyzes:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cd5 ed5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 Nh5 10. Be7 Qe7 in his book:  Playing 1.d4 d5: A Classical Repertoire (2017).
Some of this is covered in the sample available at Forward Chess.
Chess Publishing has also examined this line. I haven't gone through the variations yet, but the tenor seems positive.

...Nh5 ideas are new, compared to the old main line with ...0-0, ...Re8, ...Nf8. Mixing in ...h6, as Ntirlis does, is  a newer idea yet. I can see that he's done good work on this line.

I believe Ntirlis' repertoire looks at Orthodox lines with ...h6. I see no reason why one couldn't use his recommendations against the exchange variation and play another line, for example, the Tartakover variation if one so chooses.

From the table of contents, his book seems very complete, covering other important lines such as the Bf4 lines, the Catalan, and the London.

Forward chess eBooks play on PCs (presumably Macs) and on Android tablets.