an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 05/18/21 at 20:51:53:


Indeed. Game 2 Onishchuk-Lputian covers a critical line: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7!? 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bf4 c6!? 6. e3!? Bf5 7. g4 Be6 8. h4 Nd7 9. h5 Nh6! 10. Be2 Nb6. I haven't reviewed all his analysis yet.

kylemeister wrote on 05/18/21 at 01:35:12:

So did Taimanov in 1980.

kylemeister wrote on 05/18/21 at 21:10:07:


Botvinnik vs Alatortsev, Leningrad 1934, began 1 d4 e6 2 c4 d5 3 Nf3 Be7, which might account for the common attribution.

Fischer was correct: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Be7 goes back to the 19th century, e.g. it was played a few times by Alapin. It was played only sporadically after that, but it began to be used more often in the 1950s, following the hugely influential game Botvinnik-Keres, USSR Championship 1952, where Black was rolled over by the development scheme with Bd3, Nge2, 0-0 and eventually f3 and e4.

When Petrosian played Botvinnik for the world championship in 1963, he wanted to avoid this scheme, so he played 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Be7 in three games. Suetin, who was part of Petrosian's "team", described 3...Be7 as a "cunning move". That's the simple story of how Petrosian's name became associated with 3...Be7. 

Botvinnik himself wrote: "The point of it is that Black tries to provoke Nf3 before the development of the bishop at g5."

It almost certainly came as no surprise to Botvinnik, who will have noted that Petrosian had already played it against Taimanov in 1959 and Gligoric in 1961. He will also have noted that Fischer played it in his famous game against Bertok in the 1962 Stockholm Interzonal.

So 3..Be7 is not really a system, but a move order finesse to avoid the Carlsbad with Nge2. White must either acquiesce and play an early Nf3, leading to what is generally regarded as a less promising version of the Carlsbad (although Keith Arkell might disagree!), ot else play the independent scheme that Botvinnik had prepared: 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Bf4, leaving the knight on g1 for a while.

Rizzitano (2007) Chess Explained: The Queen's Gambit Declined, covers the Alatortsev in chapter one. If you "Look inside" the kindle sample on amazon.com, you can see all of chapter one.
https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Explained-Queens-Gambit-Declined-ebook/dp/B00H8Q5JS...

Dreev (2016) Bf4 in the Queen's Gambit and the Exchange Slav calls this the Petrosian Variation and gives 58 pages.
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7607.pdf

Actually I'm not sure why Dreev did that. He doesn't really explain it in the preface. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 (instead of 4.cxd5 in his part two) when black doesn't have anything better than 4...Nf6 transposing to his part three (5.Bf4). Maybe he just wanted to cover some interesting chess in a book on the Queen's Gambit.

Euwe might know. Pachman (1969) Queen's Gambit (pages 112-113) calls 3...a6 Janowski's move, and three-fifths of his quoted game fragments involved Euwe:

• Staehelin - Euwe, Berne 1932 (round 9) https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1042386
• Voellmy - Euwe, Berne 1932 (round 11) https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1042388
• Euwe - Alekhine, Zurich 1934 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008003

It seems to be named for Pillsbury - Janowski, London 1899 https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1109172
Edited:


But anyway, in Janowski's variation black is "supposed" to delay ...Ng8-f6 to avoid the pinning Bc1-g5, similar to white's play in the Exchange Caro-Kann. Otherwise it's an ordinary Exchange QGD with ...a6 instead of ...c6. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 a6!? 5.cxd5 exd5 (or 3...a6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nf6!? I should note for the record that Pachman considers 5.Bf4 c6 6.e3 stronger than 5.Nf3 c6 6.Bf4, but does not consider 5.Nf3 Nf6) 6.Bg5, the most popular move is 6...Be6 (6...Be7 7.Qc2 looks most accurate to me) but then I think 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Qb3 leads to concrete play. As I said, 4...a6!? caught my eye. No doubt the GM did not recommend a bad line, so I'm wondering about it.

There is also a chapter on the Karlsbader Variante starting on page 63, which might include the Botvinnik plan. 

His chapter on 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 a6!? (page 76) caught my eye. If you like that for black, then why not on the third move? After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 a6!? I don't think white has anything better than 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3, when 5...Nf6 transposes. Make no mistake, I'm not *recommending* this for black, I'm just pointing out a transposition. Black has to be really careful here, so I do wonder what he has in mind for club players.

It is a boon to black if he feels comfortable in the main line of the X variation. It can be reached by various mover orders (for example 1c4 e6 2Nc3 d5 3cxd) and remains flexible relative to Be7 systems (e.g. the Tartakover variation) and Nbd7 systems (e.g. the Cambridge Springs variation). My general assessment is that black's position is good but white's position is very good. In other words, white generally remains better. Still, is there a way for black to make it over the hump and get a completely satisfactory game in the exchange variation?

GM Max Illingworth analyzed the game Navara-Hansen for ChessPublishing (CP Sep 2016). It started:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Be7 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O. Hansen played the main line 10...Nf8 and after 11h3! g6!? Max analyzes this extensively. 

However along the way Max briefly considers 10...g6, "to prepare ...Ne4 also deserves attention, given that I am recommending ... g6 in many positions." I think there is another CP analysis of this position, but I can't find the date. If black is going to play ...g6, then he has alternatives to the main Nf8-g6 or Nf8-e6 circuit. ...Ne4 and ...Ndf6 seems ideal, while ...Nh5 or ...Nb6 are also possible.

After 10...g6, 11h3 is as good as any, then ...Ne4 12Bf4 Ndf6 13Ne5. In my notes I have both 13...Nd6 and 13...Bd6, attributed to CP. I prefer 13...Bd6, then 14Rab1 Qe7 15a3 Bf5, where the natural 16b4 is well answered by 16...Nxc3.

White has other moves and plans. That may be the nature of his advantage. Yet perhaps black can hang in there regardless.

One problem with computer analysis is what I can meandering. You can see this in a simple fortress position (say with queen vs rook) where the engine is content to maintain its "plus" without making any progress. Sometimes the engine seems content to meander as white in some exchange variation positions, content to claim an advantage without making progress. In such a case white's claimed advantage is not real. On the other hand some human chess players will likewise meander, just waiting for a mistake!