|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-12-05 | | muddywaters: but what is the diffrence in the kind of game you get with slav or semi-slav? or is it just very close? |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | Dillinger: The semi-slav seems geared more to an immediate expansion on the queenside for black with the light squared bishop going to the flank. Whereas in the slav proper the bishop is free to go out to the kingside and kingside play is quicker in general than in the semi. Am I wrong? |
|
| Aug-13-05 | | gooooooooodtimes: No, you are absolutely right.
On another note, does anyone have any insight into the following Botvinnik Line? After 5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.exf6 gxh4 It seems like White gets good play with Ne5 with the Queen sweeping in at either a4 or h5, depending on Black's response. However, it's not that simple, and I'm wondering if anyone knows of any good games or theory relating to this. |
|
| Oct-19-05 | | KingG: Does anyone know why the top players(apart from the retired Kasparov) have stopped playing the Semi-Slav? In particular Kramnik and Anand who have both won many great games with it. It seems that nowdays the only thing the top ten play against 1.d4 is the Queen's Indian. |
|
| Oct-19-05 | | azaris: <KingG> I think they got tired of memorizing Botvinnik theory. Many super-GMs still play it though, check out van Wely's or Shirov's games. |
|
| Oct-19-05 | | KingG: <azaris> Thanks for replying. You're right, Shirov still plays it, but among the Super-GMs isn't he one of the only ones? Also Van Wely is no55 in the world so i'm not sure i would consider him to be a super-GM. :) Reguarding Botvinnik theory, sure there is a lot, but if you're prepared to play the Najdorf, then why not? In any case they don't need to play that line, they could play the Moscow variation instead. |
|
| Oct-19-05 | | azaris: <Also Van Wely is no55 in the world so i'm not sure i would consider him to be a super-GM. :)> Once a upon a time he was 2700, but blunders way too much recently. His greater achievement is that he is a renowned theoretician with the Black pieces, but probably knows this variation inside and out with White as well. As to the Moscow variation, I know even less about it. |
|
| Oct-19-05 | | KingG: Ok, i've check through the games of all the super-GMs(rating>2700). The only ones that still play the Semi-Slav regularly are Aronian(no10), Gelfand(13), Shirov(14) and Akopian(16). Not bad, but i don't think it's as popular as it once was. |
|
| Dec-19-05 | | Averageguy: I'm considering picking up the Semi-Slav, what do you fellow kibitzers think of this? I play against <1800 rated opposition and I'm an aggressive player. I also try to keep the learning of opening theory to a minimum. Thanks in advance. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: <average guy> i think that learning more opening theory could certainly help you in your games against opposition 1800ELO and above(although some highly rated players hate unorthodox players!) i am of your age and do spend some time learning the different openings and developing a repertoire. you should spend even more time studying the endgame because it's the most difficult and exciting part of a chess game! the semi slav is a good opening but white usually gets the advantage(well white almost always gets the advantage in most openings anyway)but you should try it out! |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | KingG: <I play against 1800 rated opposition and I'm an aggressive player. I also try to keep the learning of opening theory to a minimum.> The main line Semi-Slav(Meran, Botvinnik variation, Moscow variation) is very theoretical, but it is also very agressive. However at <1800 level, not many people are likely to know too much theory, so you should be ok. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | AlexanderMorphy: <KingG> when you say too much theory....how much exactly are we talking about here? 10-20 moves...even more? |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | KingG: <AlexanderMorphy> Assuming the 1800 player hasn't studied the Semi-Slav in detail(for example, assuming he doesn't play it himself), i would estimate he wouldn't know more than 10-15 in the Meran, 20 in the Botvinnik(which is nothing for this variation), and 10-15 in the Moscow variation. Of course if you play the Semi-Slav, you also need to know how to play the Exchange Slav(not very theoretical) and the 6.Qc2 lines(including the famous Shirov-Shabalov gambit). |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | alicefujimori: <Averageguy>To be honest, if one wants to play an opening regularly, he/she must study it in-depths before giving it a try. The Semi-Slav is actually a very exciting opening, but there are a lot of lines where you could lose just because you are not up-to-date with the latest theory (like the famous Botvinnik Variation). There are some lines that are totally unclear as well (like the main line Meran). So if you really want to take up the Semi-Slav, then expect yourself to be memorizing quite a number of lines. If you can get access to chess books, try to get Peter Well's "The Complete Semi-Slav". Although some lines in that book were out of date, the book still demonstrated a lot of ideas and analysis for both Black and White. Once you'd got a hold of some basic theory on the Semi-Slav, try it out on Chess21. But a word of warning. Do not run another program while using Chess21 because the program will accuse you of cheating! I once ran BT while playing a game and it said I was cheating. Another time I was running ICQ while playing in Chess21 and it accused me of cheating as well. :( So be warn...and good luck! |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | Dudley: There is a book called "The Chess Advantage in Black and White"-Kaufmann that has a nice section on the Semi-Slav and emphasizes relatively low theory lines-if that is possible in this opening. |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | refutor: why not play the slav proper (4. ...dxc4)? theory is relatively less and the main lines (5.a4 Bf5) are easier to play for black (not i said easier to play, not theoretically better) |
|
| Dec-21-05 | | Dudley: That sounds good and I have tried it-but I find that the great majority of White players will use 5.e4!? when Black is more or less obligated to hold the pawn with 5...b5. I'm not sure I like trying to hold a pawn in the face of a gambit like that, hoping to win in the endgame while White attempts to massacre my king. Any experience with the line? |
|
| Aug-03-06 | | gambitfan: this is a wrong move order : Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D43)
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 c6
after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6
then 4 cd (!) ed(!) 5 Bg5 .... and we land into Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange, Positional line, 6.Qc2 (D36) which is very favourable for White, isn't it ? |
|
| Aug-29-06 | | yanez: <dudley> I like the line which goes 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7 11. exf6 Qb6 followed by ...O-O-O and ...b4 |
|
| Sep-12-06 | | soughzin: I'm trying to play the botvinnik variation against the semi-slav but black often plays 5...Be7 making the position resemble QGD lines more. But black has already committed c6 so my thought is to play e3 with an improved meran since the bishop isn't locked in. Is this (in general) the prefered strategy for white here? |
|
| Oct-02-06 | | soughzin: Again I tried to play the botvinnik against the same player(this time in a tournament) he Again played Be7,I won the game and I wasn't sure what to do. I'm not so sure that having the Bishop at g5 is really a huge improvement towards the meran or orthadox lines. If black is stubborn and wants to play Be7 Nd7 etc and not take on c4, what is the best way to take advantage of this? |
|
| Oct-02-06 | | refutor: <souzhin> it's not an improved meran for white, it's just a main line queen's gambit 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Rc1 c6 7.e3 Nbd7 etc. is mainline queen's gambit declined. you can't really *punish* White for playing that line. the best try is probably 6.Qc2 instead of Rc1 going for a Rubinstein attack Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox, Rubinstein Attack (D61) |
|
Oct-06-06
 | | WannaBe: Time for another dumb question, what is the difference between Queen's Gambit Declined Slav (D11) and Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D43) ?? And what are the possible (dis)advtanges for using the 2 different systems? |
|
| Oct-06-06 | | euripides: <wannabe> I'm not an expert, but ... In the Slav Black plays 4...dxc4 and develops the white-squared bishop outside the pawn chain; in the semi-Slav he plays e6 and keeps the bishop at home. Trying to develop the bishop while delaying dcx4 leads to problems. Both are interesting and difficult systems. The Slav leaves it up to White whether to play 6 e3, which typically leads to a positional game with active play for both sides though Kasparov and now Topalov have shown how to attack with White in this line; or 6 Ne5 often leading to a tricky piece sacrifice. If white is committed to 6 e3 Black may have trouble playing for a win. With the semi-Slav, it is slightly harder for White to avoid very sharp lines; the Botvinnik System, the Meran and the Shabalov-Shirov gambit are all sharp and both sides need to know what they are doing. Relying on instinct here is risky. There are quieter options for White, but they are somewhat less frequent. There is also the option of 4...a6 and I think this is usually called a Slav though it might as well be called a semi-Slav. If Black is well prepared all these systems pose some problems for d4 playrs, who are often not very well prepared against them. |
|
| Oct-06-06 | | JustAFish: <WannaBe>
The difference is that in the Slav (D11) black avoids playing e6 and waits for the opportunity to get in e7-e5, if possible, all at once. This usually doesn't occur. In the Semi-Slav, e6 is played early leading to the "Meran" or "Triangle" setup. I play both lines almost exclusively as my main repitoire against d4 with black. I vary between them depending on how combative I'm feeling. In my, admittedly limited, experience:
The main disadvantage of D43 semi-slav, is that the c8 bishop gets blocked in just as in the QGD. The advantage is that avoids the double-edged Botvinik variation in the Slav which, while even, is very tricky to negotiate for both sides. It also allows black to keep the center strong for much longer and gives the option of pushing either the c or e pawn to the 5th rank if white opts not to take on d5. If white plays Bg5 right away, then black can transpose into the Cambridge Springs defence of the QGD, which is a heck of a lot of fun and wins a lot of games at my 1500ish level due to the presence of a number of common traps. The Slav is generally one of the most "unclear" openings- often leading to games with strange imbalances, queen sacrifices, and shattered pawn structures... If one is playing for a safe draw, it's not the way to go. On the other hand, if you need a point, and are willing to shake things up, it's quite a tool for that. Bringing out the bishop to f5 early is very common for me, and it often leads to wild tactics. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
