FreeRepublic wrote on 05/20/22 at 23:22:23:


Well perhaps I should revise that. Black could play 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 c6. This looks to my eyes very much like the QGD Orthodox variation, though obviously it differs in the placement of the the white king bishop.

What I have seen recommended is 6...c5, 6...Nbd7, and 6...b6. These too bear some resemblance to the QGD Orthodox. However I tend think of these as distinct lines.

MNb wrote on 05/20/22 at 20:37:58:

One thing I notice here is that after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 0-0 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Qc2 h6 8. Bh4 c6 9. Rd1, the maybe last-ever edition of ECO-D gave the calm approach of 9...b6 10. Bd3 Bb7 11. 0-0 Rc8 as leading to equality.  (Side note: one of the cited games was by Fabian Doettling, whom I know of as a QGD player and whom I recently noticed playing again.)

Hi doefmat, 

the Orthodox is maybe a little worse for Black but very, very solid. 
If you prefer nonforcing play the Orthodox is certainly possible but I think there are better options.   

Nethertheless I would strongly advice that you stick to the Semislav instead of switching to the Orthodox. 
Shankland reaches the Semislav via 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6. 
If you change to the Orthodox you have to start with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6. 
So everything you have already learned about the sidelines on your way to   
the  Semislav is in vain. 

The Cambridge Springs is a tricky opening, if you study Shankland you should score very well at your level. And Shankland has very interesting ideas how to respond to an early cxd5 in the Cambridge Springs. 

If the Cambridge Springs is not acceptable for you, than there are some 
other possibilities: 

1) Use 5...h6 as a "dragon", 
ie 
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 Be7 changing to a Pseudo-Orthodox at last. 
Most White players will be afraid of the demanding Anti-Moskau-Gambit (6...g5 followed by 7...dxc4). So they will prefer  6.Bxf6 which Black can answer very solid. 

2) Go for the Botwinnik-Variation with 5...dxc4. This is also covered by Shankland. If White comes superficially prepared he could easily go wrong. 
Of course you have to learn by heart quite a few lines. I have played the Botwinnik myself and with very reasonable results. If White tries to bail out, very often he is simply worse. 

3) Play 
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.Bg5 Be7 
this is worse than 1) but still very playable. 

To get a small advantage in the Bg5-Be7-Semislav White has to play the opening very precise. 
As kylemeister has already mentioned a plan with c5 is not optimal, because Black has c7-c6 in, already. 

But instead you maybe have dxc4, b5 with tempo, a6 and a timely c5 
ala Meran. 

Bryan Paulsen has written a book about the complete Bg5-Semislav (at Everyman-Chess). This is no repertoire book but tries to give the complete picture. 
Now it is somewhat dated but the only source about the Be7-Semislav I know of. 

If you play the Orthodox instead of the Semislav, you have to be ready for the Catalan, Bf4-systems and the Exchange-variation after 2...e6. 

Btw a triangle-move-order d5c6e6 delaying Nf6 could be a way to avoid Bg5-systems, but this deserves another post.   

Right now I play the Semi-Slav using Shankland's course where he goes for the Cambridge Springs against Bg5 instead of the Botvinnik/Moscow sharp stuff. I'm around 1500

I was wondering if I could replace that with the QGD orthodox. I just bought a book on Alekhine's games. The orthodox seems like a very historical rich opening where I can learn a lot from.

I see it is not popular at all. Is there a line that clearly refutes it? I know everything is playable at my level but I'm just curious.