Latest Updates:
Normal Topic 4…d6 vs. 4…0-0 (Read 633 times)
BobbyDigital80
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 353
Joined: 05/15/08
Gender: Male
Re: 4…d6 vs. 4…0-0
Reply #6 - 03/28/22 at 10:56:42
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/28/22 at 03:16:45:
The only difference I'm aware of, for the _white_ side, is 5.Bg5. Here is what Hartston wrote about the "Accelerated Averbakh"
[quote]1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bg5
This is a more blantantly aggressive system than the Averbakh proper, though motivated by the same general strategic themes. Its basic defect is a lack of flexibility. In particular there is no really satisfactory retreat for the bishop after 5...h6, since 6.Be3 Ng4 favours Black. As may be expected, 5...h6 is Black's best reply. Alternatives leave him (sic) in danger of reaching a poor version of the Averbakh system with White having omitted Bf1-e2 in favour of a more aggressive move.
(big snip)
5...h6!
It should be mentioned here that in the case of the less usual move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O 5.Bg5, this reply is no longer good in view of 5...h6 6.Be3! since ...Nf6-g4 is no longer possible and White has time to play f2-f3 with a Sämisch fomation. In this case it is advisable to play 5...d6 leading to note (c) above.


I was looking at Gawain Jones' Short & Sweet King's Indian course on Chessable and he gives 1.d4 2.Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bg5 h6, and mentions that if Black instead plays 5...0-0, then 6.Qd2 is a bit annoying. I don't think he mentions anywhere in the course if he prefers 4...d6 to 4...0-0, but in this specific line if he thinks 6.Qd2 is annoying, then it makes sense that he would prefer the 4...d6 move order.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3261
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: 4…d6 vs. 4…0-0
Reply #5 - 03/28/22 at 04:57:38
Post Tools
One more line where 4...d6 is better:

In the Four Pawns Attack White sometimes tries the sideline 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Nf3 c5 7.dxc5!?, which has some venom. But when Black has played 4...d6 instead of 4...0-0, he can avoid that line by going 5.f4 c5(!) 6.dxc5?! (6.d5 0-0 should lead to the 4PA main lines) 6...Qa5 7.Bd3 Nfd7!, when White is already struggling to equalize after either 8.Bd2 Nxc5 or 8.Nge2 Nxc5. Credit where credit is due: I first saw this point mentioned in a chapter by Glenn Flear in Dangerous Weapons: The King's Indian.

Looking at the database now I see people are using this line as a drawing weapon: 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Bd2 Qxc5 8.b4!? (else White is getting an inferior version with the Bishop on d2; in the normal 7.dxc5 variation his standard setup is Nf3, Bd3, Qe2 and Be3) 8...Qxb4 9.Na4 Qa3 10.Bc1 Qb4+, etc. Though Black could (and maybe should) keep the game going with 8.b4 Qb6 instead.

Actually the already mentioned book Dangerous Weapons: The King's Indian by Palliser, Flear and Dembo (Everyman, 2009) is uniquely relevant to this discussion - it also has two full chapters based on a delayed 0-0, which obviously require 4...d6:

* The Hungarian/Kramer variation with 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nge2 Nbd7 6 Ng3 e5 7 d5 h5!?, with ...Bh6 often on the agenda;

* The Seirawan system with 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Bd3 Nc6 6 Nge2 Nd7!? using the tempo "saved" on 0-0 for a faster-than-usual ...e5 and ...Nd4.

Both of those were by Richard Palliser.

But there's also a chapter where ...d6 is delayed: On 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 0-0 5 f3 Nc6!?, by Yelena Dembo.

In practice I've also seen a delayed ...d6 used with the idea of sometimes going ...c6 and ...d7-d5 instead. This has to be dubious against most setups, but maybe it makes some sense against the Averbakh, where there is a known Black setup with ...Na6, ...c6 and ...d6-d5.
I actually faced this 4...0-0 with ...c6 and ...d7-d5 ploy once when I surprised a strong opponent with the Four Pawns Attack, but I easily got a stable space advantage and attacking changes.

Finally, 4...0-0 5.Nf3 c5!? may be a valid move order if Black is after a Maroczy Bind or a "Lazy Benoni" with the delayed ...exd5. The question is whether Black should be after those things...
Instead 6.dxc5 Na6 seems to work out OK for Black after 7.e5 Ng4 8.Bf4 f6 or 7.h3 Nxc5 8.e5 Ne8 9.Be3 b6. (Warning: this is very cursory analysis.)
« Last Edit: 03/28/22 at 06:54:58 by Stigma »  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4774
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: 4…d6 vs. 4…0-0
Reply #4 - 03/28/22 at 04:30:03
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/28/22 at 03:16:45:
  • (c3) 6.Qd2 Szabo - Fischer, Leipzig 1960 (=)

  • That is, the "ripe apples" game from My 60 Memorable Games. A related one I remember is Christiansen-Rachels 1986; the move order there was 2...c5 3.d5 d6 4.Nc3 g6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Bg5 O-O 7.Qd2 e6 8.Bd3 ed 9.Nxd5 Be6 10.Ne2 Bxd5 11.cd (instead of Szabo's 11. ed) c4 12. Bc2 Nbd7 13. 0-0 Nc5 14. Nc3.  Here Rachels played 14...Re8, whereas if I recall correctly Fischer had given 14...b5"!".
      
    Back to top
     
    IP Logged
     
    BobbyDigital80
    Senior Member
    ****
    Offline


    I Love ChessPublishing!

    Posts: 353
    Joined: 05/15/08
    Gender: Male
    Re: 4…d6 vs. 4…0-0
    Reply #3 - 03/28/22 at 04:18:28
    Post Tools
    Thanks for the info, an ordinary chessplayer!
      
    Back to top
     
    IP Logged
     
    an ordinary chessplayer
    God Member
    *****
    Offline


    I used to be not bad.

    Posts: 1515
    Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
    Joined: 01/02/15
    Re: 4…d6 vs. 4…0-0
    Reply #2 - 03/28/22 at 03:56:58
    Post Tools
    It's worth mentioning 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O 5.Bg5 h6 6.Be3 d6 7.h3. This scores even better than 7.f3. I am vaguely aware this has become popular recently via 4...d6 5.h3 O-O 6.Bg5. Here black has tried a bunch of moves. Notably, of the nine candidates listed at database.chessbase.com, 6...h6 scores the worst for black. So maybe Hartston was right about 4...O-O 5.Bg5 h6, but for the wrong reason.
      
    Back to top
     
    IP Logged
     
    an ordinary chessplayer
    God Member
    *****
    Offline


    I used to be not bad.

    Posts: 1515
    Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
    Joined: 01/02/15
    Re: 4…d6 vs. 4…0-0
    Reply #1 - 03/28/22 at 03:16:45
    Post Tools
    The only difference I'm aware of, for the _white_ side, is 5.Bg5. Here is what Hartston wrote about the "Accelerated Averbakh"
    Quote:
    1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bg5
    This is a more blantantly aggressive system than the Averbakh proper, though motivated by the same general strategic themes. Its basic defect is a lack of flexibility. In particular there is no really satisfactory retreat for the bishop after 5...h6, since 6.Be3 Ng4 favours Black. As may be expected, 5...h6 is Black's best reply. Alternatives leave him (sic) in danger of reaching a poor version of the Averbakh system with White having omitted Bf1-e2 in favour of a more aggressive move.
    (big snip)
    5...h6!
    It should be mentioned here that in the case of the less usual move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O 5.Bg5, this reply is no longer good in view of 5...h6 6.Be3! since ...Nf6-g4 is no longer possible and White has time to play f2-f3 with a Sämisch fomation. In this case it is advisable to play 5...d6 leading to note (c) above.
    6.Bh4 c5!
    (etc.)
    --Barden/Hartston/Keene (1973) The King's Indian Defence, pages 159-161

    Looking at "note (c)", it's not one line. Hartston says "White has a number of promising plans":
    • (c1) 6.f4 Nikolayevsky - Vasiukov, Vilnyus 1957 (-/+)
    • (c2) 6.Bd3 Gligoric - Stein, Lvov 1962 (+/-)
    • (c3) 6.Qd2 Szabo - Fischer, Leipzig 1960 (=)

    Of course Hartston was writing when 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 c5 (!) was unknown, whereas today it's a main line. In other lines Qd1-d2 wins an important tempo by attacking a pawn on h6, but in the ...c7-c5 lines black defends this tactically, or even advances ...h6-h5, transposing to a position usually reached by ...h7-h5 which is a normal move in the structure. Nowadays I don't think black should be so afraid of the Sämisch transposition, meaning it's an ordinary Sämisch rather than one that is particularly good for white.
    4...O-O 5.Bg5 h6 6.Be3 d6 7.f3 c5:
    • 8.dxc5 The addition of ...h7-h6 is unlikely to harm black, although I'm not an expert and perhaps ...Bg7-h6 is a missing resource in some offbeat variation.
    • 8.d5 This is a direct transposition to the 6.Bg5 Sämisch theory, where ...h7-h6 Bg5-e3 is routine for both players.
    • 8.Nge2 In this line I think black might actually be _helped_ by having played ...h7-h6. There is one variation where white plays Be3-g5, but that's not on the cards now.
      
    Back to top
     
    IP Logged
     
    BobbyDigital80
    Senior Member
    ****
    Offline


    I Love ChessPublishing!

    Posts: 353
    Joined: 05/15/08
    Gender: Male
    4…d6 vs. 4…0-0
    03/28/22 at 00:38:24
    Post Tools
    After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 does it matter if Black plays 4…0-0 instead of 4…d6? I’ve heard that 4…0-0 5.e5 isn’t good for White, so I’m wondering if there are any lines White can try where it’s favorable for Black to play …d6 and delay castling.
      
    Back to top
     
    IP Logged
     
    Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo