Apr-02-03
 | | Sneaky: The 6.Ne5 Slav is not extremely popular among GMs has a very important variation where White's incredibly strong looking attack fizzles out into a perpetual. This line goes: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. ♘f3 ♘f6 4. ♘c3 dxc4 5. a4 ♗f5 6. ♘e5 e6 7. f3 ♗b4 8. e4 ♗xe4! 9. fxe4 ♘xe4 10. ♕f3!? As you can see from the Opening Explorer this line draws after ♕xd4 11. ♕xf7 ♔d8 12. ♗g5 ♘xg5 13. ♕xg7 ♗xc3 14. bxc3 ♕xc3 15. ♔e2 ♕c2 16. ♔e1 ♕c3 17. ♔e2 ♕c2, e.g. see Khalifman vs Serper, 1987 Because of all of this, White needs to find something better, and in the 80's Karpov et al started to champion 10.♗d2, the winning attempt. The play continues: 10...♕xd4 11.♘xe4 ♕xe4 12. ♕e2 ♗xd2 13. ♔xd2 ♕xd5 (You can explore this variation here: Opening Explorer) Although this database shows immense winning percentage for White in this line, at the GM level Black's nearly perfect pawns seems to compensate for the missing piece. E.g., see Karpov vs Huebner, 1988 1/2-1/2 |
|
| Apr-03-03 | | jimd: i like these lines on the slav.Great site |
|
Mar-20-04
| | Sneaky: <Helloween> <So how do you play against 6.Nh4!? in the Slav(another patzer-looking move that is sound)?> I assume you mean 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Bf5 6 Nh4, I have been shown that the trick to that weird move is to answer it with another weird move: 6...Bc8!! If White wants to bring his knight off sides, wasting a move, then I can afford to move my bishop back to where it started, wasting a move as well. If White has any sense he'll just move the knight back to f3 immediately, when I bring my bishop back to f5. (If he does it AGAIN, I will have to decide if I want to really draw this clown.) <And also, what do you think about the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4(I assume you play this instead of 4...a6, but who knows)> I don't understand this whole ...a6 trend so I play it the old way. <5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 0-0(again, don't know if you play 8...Nbd7 here)> Actually I do play 8...Nbd7 there, I remember a correspondence game I was in where I had to decide between the two moves, and I rember being shocked to learn that there actually is a BIG difference between castling first or developing the knight first. <9.Nh4 Bg4 10.f3 Bh5 11.g4 Bg6(11...Nd5!?)12.e4 Nbd7 13.g5 Ne8 14.Nxg6 hxg6 15.Be3 - what ideas come to mind and how would you continue as Black?> First of all, let me say something: I have almost entirely given up playing the Slav, because it tends to be rather drawish for tournament play. I like to "suggest the slav" and wait to see if my opponent plays 3.Nc3, if he does, it's Winawer countergambit time. If he plays 3.Nf3 or 3.e3, I play the semi-slav, esp. the Meran variation. But the semi-slav is hard to defend against players who know how to attack it properly, so lately I've been fooling around with the Albin countergambit! Now about the line you mention, I looked at it in the Opening Explorer since I don't have a board handy, it's here: Opening Explorer I don't like it very much for Black, it's very cramped. I really like how Eugene Torre tried to mix things up in this game Polugaevsky vs E Torre, 1989 even though it didn't pan out. The other game with that line Ftacnik vs Hector, 1989 (duplicated) looks OK for Black until Ftacnik uncorks an amazing gambit with 22.d6!! But like most cramped Slav positions, it doesn't look too bad. Black might try to exchange pieces through queenside action, with moves like ...Nd6, ...Rc8, and ...c5. I think positions like this are what led me to believe that 8...O-O is inferior to 8...Nbd7. |
|
| Mar-20-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Sneaky, play the Noteboom/Abrahams Slav line. That will give you a lot of enthusiasm for the Slav again. It's a very dangerous and popular weapon right now, although it might not be in your style (white is the one who attacks really, black just tries to win the endgame.) Here's an example of it failing. E Torre vs I Sokolov, 1996 Here's an example where it crushes white. Wojtkiewicz vs S Atalik, 1994. It leads to very sharp and imbalanced play, have you tried it yet? |
|
Mar-20-04
| | Sneaky: <have you tried it yet?> Many times, but only with the White pieces. I always considered it somewhat unsound on principle--to go pawn grabbing before a single piece is developed. But I can attest from the first player's perspective that it can be extremely annoying, and that is exactly what I look for in an defense. |
|
| Mar-20-04 | | Helloween: Wow Sneaky, I didn't realize you played the Quasi-Slav Defence. In the main lines of the Meran, White just keeps coming up with new ways to attack and leave Black with little counterplay lately, which is why I put it on the backburner recently. In the anti-Meran systems, the Shirov/Shabalov attack is all the rage now, and I believe it's a lethal weapon. The Botvinnik Quasi-Slav lines are quite "anti-positional", and White can usually draw by force or gain a crushing advantage(16.Rb1!). I guess the only way to be safe against top competition in the Quasi-Slav these days is to play systems with an early ...a7-a6 and aim for a closed centre/QS. This, however, probably suits my style more than yours, since I like to play a safe yet energetic strategy and build positional advantages. |
|
| Mar-20-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Well, I think you should try it. It might look unsound in principle and white does get a vicious attack and a nice center, but if black survives the initial onslaught, he has *very* good chances of simply running over white on the q-side. I think you should try it a couple times, even if only for variety. It really is annoying. |
|
| Aug-17-05 | | Greginctw: I was just curious what you guys think of this line. It was given by andrew soltis as the recommended line in his "complete black repertoire book". 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. f3 f6 4. c3 dxc4 5. a4 Bg4
Personally i dont understand the difference and importance of the bishop placement and was just curious if anyone can help explain the advantages and disadvantages of Bg4 over the main line Bf5. They both prevent e4 because soltis says the pin will be annoying. Thanks - Gregory. |
|
| Aug-30-05 | | jcmoral: <sneaky:... 10...Qxd4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4 12. Qe2 Bxd2 13. Kxd2 Qxd5> Are you sure about 13...Qxd5 ? Seems like there isn't anything on d5. |
|
| Sep-03-05 | | jcmoral: I had the (almost) exact same game <sneaky> posted above, except Black didn't go for the draw. Instead he plays 15...Qxa1 leading to a Q+R+B vs 2R+2N endgame. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 e6 7. f3 Bb4 8. e4 Bxe4 9. fxe4 Nxe4 10. Qf3 Qxd4 11. Qxf7+ Kd8 12. Bg5+ Nxg5 13. Qxg7 Bxc3+ 14. bxc3 Qxc3+ 15. Ke2 Qxa1 16. Nf7+ Nxf7 17. Qxa1 b5 18. Qf6+ Ke8 19. Qxe6+ Kf8 20. axb5 cxb5 21. Qc8+ Ke7 22. Qb7+ Nd7 23. Qxb5 Rac8 24. Kf2 Rc5 25. Qb4 Nfe5 26. Be2 c3 27. Rc1 Rc8 28. Rxc3 Kd6 29. Qd4+ Ke6 30. Re3 a5 31. Qg4+ Kd6 32. Qd4+ Rd5 33. Qa7 h5 34. Qa6+ Rc6 35. Qa8 Ng4+ 36. Bxg4 hxg4 37. Qg8 a4 38. Qxg4 Nc5 39. Qg6+ Kc7 40. Re7+ Rd7 41. Qg3+ Kb6 42. Rxd7 Nxd7 43. Qe3+ Kb5 44. Qd3+ Kb4 45. Qxd7 Rf6+ 46. Kg1 Kb3 47. Qb5+ Ka3 48. Qd3+ Kb4 49. Qd4+ Kb3 50. Qxf6 a3 51. Qf3+ Kb2 52. Qxa3+ Kxa3 53. h4 1-0 |
|
| Aug-03-06 | | Mislav: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 e6 7. f3 Bb4 8. e4 Bxe4 9. fxe4 Nxe4 10. Qf3 Qxd4 11. Qxf7+ Kd8 12. Bg5+ Nxg5 13. Qxg7 Qe3! And black is the one who has the initiative. Try to analys it a bit with Fritz, white must be very careful, and I prefer this line to drawish 13...Bxc3 |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
