| Sep-05-05 | | azaris: 3...Bb4 is not often mentioned but seems to crop up regularly. I play 4. e3, but 4. Nf3 would seem to allow NID type positions. Both are quiet lines where White has a small positional edge but Black has no trouble throwing in c7-c5. So how about something more exciting? 4. a3!? Bxc3 5. bxc3 dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. Qg4 leaves Black with the option of Ne7 since he hasn't played Nf6 yet, but White has more space. I'm not sure how many people will snatch the pawn though. |
|
| Jun-23-06 | | refutor: i don't get what the advantage is of the noteboom (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4) is to the normal slav...can someone educate me? |
|
| Jun-23-06 | | KingG: <refutor> I don't play it myself, but i know a bit about it. Basically, in the Noteboom, Black is better prepared to try and hang on to the extra pawn, since he hasn't yet played ...Nf6. Eventually, White can get the pawn back, but it leads to a strange pawn structure, where Black has two connected passed pawns on the Q-side, but White has a huge pawn centre. So White will try and win in the middlegame and black tries to hang on until the endgame where his passed pawns will be a big advantage. The main line is:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. e3 b5 6. a4 Bb4
7. Bd2 a5 8. axb5 Bxc3 9. Bxc3 cxb5 10. b3 Bb7 11. bxc4 b4 12. Bb2 Nf6 
click for larger view |
|
| Jun-23-06 | | refutor: what if 5.a4? it's just a bad slav where black's light squared bishop is inside the pawn chain...i'm just curious |
|
| Jun-23-06 | | KingG: <refutor> The difference is, in the Slav, Black doesn't have the quick ...Bb4, making it difficult for White to regain the pawn. In this variation, a4 doesn't prevent ...b5 like it does in the Slav, so after 5.a4 Bb4 6.e3 b5, we've transposed back into the line i gave above. |
|
| Oct-12-06 | | jahhaj: Anyone have any experience with the move 7...Qe7 in the Noteboom variation? See Opening Explorer The idea is to support a pawn advance to b4 (something that normally takes two moves in the main line), so White's normal plan of b3 is prevented. It's not obvious at all to me how White should respond. |
|
| Oct-12-06 | | soughzin: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e3 and black has to transpose to the semi-slav Meran instead of playing the noteboom right? I guess that's one benefit of playing the Meran as white instead of the Botvinnik/Moscow to the semi slav, no noteboom and no backdoor Cambridge Springs defenses. |
|
| Oct-12-06 | | MaxxLange: Anyone seen Kasparov's QGD dvd? Is it good? |
|
| Oct-13-06 | | jahhaj: <soughzin> You could play 4...f5 if the Stonewall Dutch is to your taste. Having played e3 White has commited to quite a passive line as well. |
|
| Oct-13-06 | | soughzin: Yeah that's a good choice although I don't play the noteboom,I play against it so thanks for fueling my opponents!; ) |
|
| Oct-16-06 | | jahhaj: <soughzin> Should have figured that out, Sorry! Maybe you could play 4.e4 instead? |
|
| Oct-16-06 | | RookFile: I once saw a game go 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 f5 4. e4 !? dxe4 5. f3 and thought that was an interesting idea. |
|
| Dec-18-06 | | soughzin: Speaking of the noteboom... I'm looking for a teammate to my semi-slav as I don't really enjoy the Botvinnik or Moscow(guess I'm picky!) So it's this or the Cambridge. I like the unbalanced nature of the noteboom but I'm slightly weary of the goal of "holding on" until the endgame. But bascially I was wondering which is more dangerous,(and which black should concentrate more on) the mainlines or the marshall gambit? Also it'd be nice to know if there's any good books or sites on the noteboom.
Thanks! |
|
Dec-19-06
 | | plang: The only book I am aware of is "Play the Noteboom" by Mark Van Der Werf and Teun Van Der Vorm (Cadogan 1996) It is certainly not a great book but it is OK. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | blacksburg: nobody plays the QGD anymore. i'm thinking about making it my main d4 defense, to go with my 100 year old e4 repertoire. i'm gonna switch between lasker defense, TMB, orthodox, etc, and i know all these lines already from studying capablanca, lasker, alekhine games. is there any reason i shouldn't play this opening as black at amateur level? it seems like it might be a good practical idea. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | nescio: <blacksburg> You know, or should know, that at amateur level you can play anything in the opening, as long as you know what you are doing. See for example the games of Basman or Welling. For the positions after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 I would, in addition to the names you already mentioned, recommend the games of Stahlberg and Spasski. The actual reason for my response is the follwing question: What is TMB and what are the moves of "lasker defence" and "orthodox"? |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | blacksburg: <nescio> the lasker defense is characterized by a quick ...Ne4, Queen's Gambit Declined, Lasker Defense (D57) the "TMB" is this monstrosity, Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) Syst (D58), characterized by ...b6 and ...Bb7. the so-called "orthodox", Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense (D60), is really a complex of lines. i think that it was named by Tarrasch. i like gerard welling too, but no way i'm gonna try to play like that. :) |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | blacksburg: incidentally, here are the other main options for black, if anyone is curious, and for my own use. the Tarrasch Defense, Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch (D32), characterized by a quick ...c5, the positions are often defined by black's isolated queen's pawn, played by Kasparov when he was younger. the related Semi-Tarrasch, Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch (D41), characterized by a delayed ...c5. the Cambridge Springs, Queen's Gambit Declined (D52), characterized by ...Qa5 and often quick pressure on c3, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches..., is there no independent page for the Cambridge Springs? :( the Semi-Slav, which is a whole different ball of wax, and beyond the scope of this post (and also my brain), Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D43) the Ragozin, characterized by ...Bb4, Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation (D38), this seems to have a bad reputation, i've never played it, and i don't know much about it, but it doesn't look so bad to me. the Chigorin, characterized by ...Nc6, Queen's Gambit Declined, Chigorin Defense (D07), i guess this is outside the scope, no 2...e6. also the Albin, Queen's Gambit Declined, Albin Counter Gambit (D08). there are also Catalans to think about, characterized by g3 and Bg2, for example, Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3 (E06). whew. i think i got everything, but feel free to add if i missed something. |
|
| Feb-26-09 | | nescio: <blacksburg> Thank you. On this site it happens too often that people throw some names in without giving the moves. In only one of the kibitzes on this page I see the "Botvinnik", "Moscow", "Cambridge", and "marshall gambit" which is confusing for people who don't have their nose in opening books daily. Often I just don't know what's what. On the other hand there is <refutor> who gives "noteboom (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4)". <i like gerard welling too, but no way i'm gonna try to play like that. :)> Me neither, though it's entertaining when your opponent plays like that. Once I played against Basman who started with 1.h3 and 2.a3 and tried to convince me afterwards that that sequence is more precise than 1.a3 and 2.h3. After he had won of course. |
|
Mar-17-12
 | | Penguincw: Opening of the Day
Queen's Gambit, Noteboom Variation
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.♘c3 c6 4.♘f3 dxc4
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-05-13 | | Kikoman: <Opening of the Day> Queen's Gambit, Noteboom Variation
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 dxc4
click for larger viewOpening Explorer |
|
Nov-15-21
 | | alexmagnus: So, does anyone know why the Forgotten Variation of the Marshall Gambit is named as it is? Who "forgot" it? Please no punny answer like "I used to know it but I have forgotten" :D |
|
Nov-15-21
 | | saffuna: <Please no punny answer like "I used to know it but I have forgotten" > Damn. |
|
| Nov-16-21 | | sudoplatov: Marshall may not have invented it but he did play it against Lasker in his first game against Manny. Marshall won; he won a game in about 1940 but lost (or drew) everything in between. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
