| Jan-09-04 | | aulero: <patzer2> The white player seems to be Dreev not Bareev :-) |
 |
Jan-09-04
 | | patzer2: Interestingly, Dreev, who is considered a specialist in this 4...Bf5 Queen's Gambit Slav line as Black, struggles to find a strong continuation against it as White. Bareev gets equality out of the opening, but nothing more, and loses in the later middle game complications. Indeed, 4...Bf5 might be worth exploring for players looking for an opening as Black with good counterplay against 1. d4. It doesn't appear to require a lot of memorization of complex opening lines, so novice and club level players can spend more time concentrating on the study of typical middle game and endgame positions. P.S. <aulero> Thanks for the quick catch . I reposted with the correct name here. |
|
Jan-09-04
 | | refutor: the problem with the 4. ... Bf5 lines is that, similar to the slav exchange, they don't have a lot of bite to them and black gets equality...and that's it. other options after 4.e3 include 4. ...g6 (my current favorite going to a grunfeld) or 4. ... e6 hoping for a semi-slav, which is what all players should hope for when they play 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 ;) |
|
Jan-10-04
| | patzer2: <refutor> The number of fourth move options (e.g. 4...e6, 4...a6, 4...Bf5, 4...g6 etc.) for Black in the Queen's Gambit Slav is part of what I think makes it so interesting, flexible and popular. In comparing 4...Bf5 to 4...g6, the two moves we discussed have about even results in the Opening Explorer, with 4...Bf5 recording a slightly better winning percentage (22% versus 17%) As a general rule, I agree with you that with the 4...Bf5 line in this game (after 4. e3) < black gets equality...and that's it.>
However, that is not a bad thing, especially when playing against higher rated players. And if White pushes too hard or is an impatient player, Black can get winning chances. While 4...g6 (transposing to the Grunfeld) is double-edged and might have some bite to it, in practical play it has not given Black very much in the way of winning chances. After the sequence 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. e3> (as played in this game), Black has had mediocre results with 16.6% Black wins, 52.4% draws to 31% white wins in the Opening Explorer. However, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. Nc3 g6>, Black's chances with 4...g6 are statistically much worse with White winning 50.3% versus 16% for Black (33.7% draws). Kasparov and Keene's analysis of the move in BCO indicates a slight advantage for White after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. e3 g6> 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Bd3! O-O as in the 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. Nc3>, as for example in the White wins obtained in Van Wely vs Timman, 2003 or Ulf Andersson vs Anand, 1989 or Korchnoi vs S Djuric, 1984 However, Black may have good drawing chances as in Van Wely vs Ivanchuk, 2003 or Seirawan vs J Donaldson, 2003 BCO also indicates a slight edge for White after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. Nc3> g6 5. Qb3! as in Gulko vs N Andrianov, 2003 or Khalifman vs Bareev, 1995 Conclusion: In this line of the Queen's Gambit Slav, 4...Bf6 is a sound reply, but tends to be drawish (50%) with some winning chances (22%). Against 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. e3>, 4...g6 seems to offer Black some winning chance (16%) and good drawing chances <52%>. However, 4...g6 appears to give White too much of an advantage after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. Nc3 g6> 5.Qb3! |
|
Jan-10-04
| | refutor: the statistics look bad at grandmaster level, but i'm not a grandmaster :) seriously though, the ...c6 lines of the grunfeld in general are bad statistically, but that kinda makes sense...it hasn't been played at the super G level since the days of Smyslov! nowadays ...c5 in the grunfeld is king ;) the stats do look horrible when you play Qb3 in conjunction with Black's ...c6. everybody who plays the grunfeld as white should take note of this...of course a great position can always be ruined by bad moves, as i'm sure everybody who's every played chess knows ;) |
|
Jan-10-04
| | refutor: <Kasparov and Keene's analysis of the move in BCO indicates a slight advantage for White after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. e3 g6> 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Bd3! O-O > in NCO, Nunn continues with 7.O-O Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 e6 10.Rd1 Nbd7 11.b3 Re8 12.Bf1 Qc7 13.Bb2 Rad8 and gives equality (obviously there's options all the way through) as in Van Wely vs Ivanchuk, 2003 |
|
Jan-10-04
| | patzer2: <Refutor> I guess time will tell if Black starts to get an even share of wins with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 <4. e3 g6> 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Bd3! O-O
7.O-O Bg4 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 e6 10.Rd1 Nbd7 11.b3 Re8 12.Bf1 Qc7 13.Bb2 Rad8. Despite Nunn's optimism in declaring this an equalizing line, it doesn't appear many GMs are in a hurry to test an opening where white has historically held over a 2 to 1 winning edge (50% to 22%) after 4. e3 g6, and has had to fight for a draw as Black. |
|
| Sep-19-09 | | Everett: I wonder about the idea behind white's 23.Na2 and subsequent intentional trade of a pair of DSB. Dreev and Gelfand both are great endgame players, but this late middlegame position of R,N,B vs R,N,N seems to favor black. White cannot get a good square for his N, and black avoids giving white's LSB any scope. With this in mind, 23.Ne4 may be a better try, swapping off a pair of knights while retaining the two bishops and awaiting developments. If black avoids the swap, the white N is favorably placed and can come to either side of the board quickly. |
|
|
 |
|
