This is an opening line of my own creation.  I play it to avoid the Nimzo Indian.   This is an opening line I've been looking at alot lately.  It only has 160 games in the master db here.  It also seems to score very low.  This also bothers me.   I think this is most unfortunate as I have been playing this line with great success OtB.  I was wondering if anyone could explain why it isn't played.  If you think you find a refutation for it I'd be glad to play you.  I need to practice this line anyway.  Thus without further ado,  my Queen's Gambit Declined: Anti-Nimzo.  

 

I have been unab

le to find the real name of this opening if you know it please let me know

Ah I see I will have to look for this game.  If Capablanca played it it can't be bad.   Thank you.

While it may not be bad, it is simultaneously not good.   It is not even anti-Nimzo.  It is an anti-Ragozin effort, but one that Black can take advantage of and eqaulize easily or even grab the initiative against.

Why not just open with 1. a3, the Anderssen Opening?

The reason it is not played is that it does nothing to fight for the center.  It also hurts white because it gives up a very important tempo for no reason at all. 

1.d4 is about gaining space in the center.  3. a3 does not fit this agenda/game plan and gives away whatever organic advantage White has in moving first.

 

FWIW:  I play 1.a3 myself, and have even done so otb in the World Open, and have punted 3.a3 as well, so I am speaking from experience.....it is not good.  If you want to win as White there are many better choices.

Bd2 !? is better.  It does not create a weakness on b3!

That early b3 weakness is a major sore point about an unwarranted early a3 and is the key to beating the white position quickly.  Once a black knight starts eyeing that square, White cannot stop the invasion.

 

Pawn weaknesses are organic. A misplaced piece can sometimes be corrected.  But that hole on b3 will always be.

---

Could you offer an alternative then.  The reason I play a3 is I have trouble against transpositions to the Nimzo-Indian and against Bb4 in general.  I am obviously not playing at a high enough level for the weakness of the move a3 to be noticable yet.   I currently don't play anyone above a USCF 1800 and on average I only play around 1200s this may be why I have been able to play with moderate success.

The exchange variation of the QGD is one of the easiest positions to play with advantage from the white side and theoretically is very hard for black to gain anything.  White has great choices of minority attack, central pawn storm, or opposite side castling with king side attacking.

Look up Queen's Gambit Declined:

1. d4 d5  2. c4 e6 3.Nc3 (Instead of 3. Nf3 so we can play the Nge2 version of the QGD Exchange)

If 3. ...Bb4 then 4.cxd5 exd 5 Nf3 and you have main line Ragozin

If 3. ...Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 you have main line Exchange QGD.

---

Exchanging on move 3 is a slight inaccuracy because then Black plays 4. ...c6! instead of Nf6 and gets a good exchange Slav..... very annoying for the prospective QGD Exchange player.

---

You got it.  It is a move order issue related to flexibilty and wanting to control the ensuing pawn structures.  The great players play the pawn structures they want and force their adversaries to play in structures they do not want.

A QDG Nge2 player does not want that Knight on f3.  The relationship between the Slav exchange and the QGD Exchange is so close and provides many transpositional links, so if the player of the Wite pieces wants to "lock in" their targeted structure, they need move order "tricks" to ensure it.

 

The higher we go on the food chain, the more important it is to be flexible.

 

There is an excellent treatise on this subject in the several books, among them Queen's Gambit Declined by Sadler and Watson's Mastering the Chess Openings Vol II.  I admit to "cribbing" the overarching concepts from these sources, and others, as well as 1,000+ of my own games played in this line. 

 

Nf3 is less flexible (and less good!) than Nge2 in the Exchange because White usually want to use the Botvinnik centre, which involves pushing f3 after black stops the minority attack.   The new book by Schandorff advocates just this line as a major weapon against Black, but he does not discuss subtle move order issus.

Another great book on this subject matter is:

Middlegame Strategy by Robert Leninger.  It deals exclusively with "The Carsbad Pawn Structure" in the QGD.

"A good plan turns us all into heroes, and the lack of one makes us feint-hearted idiots."  ~ Who said it?

If you get chance, the Schandorff book (which is aimed for GM's) has an excellent verbal explanation on p. 12, which includes this snippet:

After 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 "White fixes the pawn structure in a way that gives him a slight, but long lasting positional edge."

After black safeguards the center with 5. ...c6, "we have the typical Carlsbad structure."

 

This is the bread and butter for 1.d4  2.c4 players.

 

And also this is why I need another crack at you with me playing the White pieces!  Although you play the Nimzo, if you are going to punt d5 at some point, a lot of these ideas merge in that whole Nimzo/Ragozin/QGD system.

Yes, I forget you were a "duo" player (d4/c4) with White as well.

 

otb I see more QGD's and Slavs.  Online it is mostly KIDs, NIDs and Benkos.

I wish I saw more Gruenfelds.