you would win nearly every match against me, because i would always fall asleep....
I would quit chess, if someone would force me to play that boring style.
In your world of chess, gambits like the Blackmar-Diemer or the Latvian must be devil himself 
Dont take it personally, its only my point of view...
best regards
I guess I agree from your criteria to play the Schlechter too. For a long time Smyslov was the only world class player playing that opening. Should check out his games with it in best games collections.
4...a6 has some pretty solid lines too, i.e against 5Nf3 Bf5 because against Qb3 can play Ras7. In general might be a bit too interesting for you though.
3...dxc4. I think it's the best test of 3.Nc3. But it's probably not for you if you want to avoid a sharp opening struggle.
I think your next best option is 4...a6. Nothing is wrong with 4...g6, but nothing else you play with Black includes a fianchetto, and 4...a6 is more like your Caro-Kann. You are often able to continue your development with ...Bf5 and ...e6 since the ...a6 move allows you to defend the b7 pawn with ..Ra7. I like this interpretation of the Chebanenko more than the one with ...b7-b5 where Black is simply trying to fill up space and close the Qside - or the way that many players just go ...e6 next move anyway... if you were going to do that, why not just play the Semi-Slav? The Semi-Slav is a very fine opening at top level still as Anand has shown.
@skotheim2 Um, no. I'd 4...a6 on that too, although OP said he likes 4...Bf5 which is quite possible as White has no pressure on d5.
@skotheim2 Um, no. I'd 4...a6 on that too, although OP said he likes 4...Bf5 which is quite possible as White has no pressure on d5.
a6 is not sufficient as the knight is not on c3
Bg4 is not so good. Take on d5 maybe and Nc3 Qb3 and Ne5
@skotheim2 Um, no. I'd 4...a6 on that too, although OP said he likes 4...Bf5 which is quite possible as White has no pressure on d5.
a6 is not sufficient as the knight is not on c3
Baloney. There's nothing magical White can do in the Chebanenko by deploying the QN to a different square.
You may be thinking of 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 dxc4, which is considerably less good than 3.Nc3 dxc4. The N on c3 can be used to justify ...b5 advances. Although, 3.Nf3 dxc4 is still playable in my opinion, you definitely don't want to try it without putting in significant work: Black is risking positional collapse if he screws up one move.
I asked this exact question in a thread about a year ago :) and the conclusion was that either 4...a6 or 3...dxc4 is best if you want to play a Classical Slav. I'd say depends- the a6 lines are slightly a different opening. But also I like the Meran as black so in this position I can play 4...e6 as well, although that's probably not what you want and I didn't know enough theory to play the Meran back when I asked the question.
I am very curious becuase I have not really tryed the Slav as black yet. I have seen similar positions in other lines like the Caro Kann and Gruenfeld. Which I have played those before.
I am just curious on how the follow up on the The Schlechter: 4...g6 goes?
Does it have similar idea's of that of like a Gruenfeld? I.E are you going to fianchetteo than later on try and proceed with like a c5 pawn break against whites center?
I am just curious to know what blacks follow up idea or themes are. Like he plays g6 fianchetteo's castled etc. than what lol?
@skotheim2 Um, no. I'd 4...a6 on that too, although OP said he likes 4...Bf5 which is quite possible as White has no pressure on d5.
a6 is not sufficient as the knight is not on c3
Baloney. There's nothing magical White can do in the Chebanenko by deploying the QN to a different square.
You may be thinking of 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 dxc4, which is considerably less good than 3.Nc3 dxc4. The N on c3 can be used to justify ...b5 advances. Although, 3.Nf3 dxc4 is still playable in my opinion, you definitely don't want to try it without putting in significant work: Black is risking positional collapse if he screws up one move.
I am not taking on d5 ;)
If you're trying to play the most boring repertoire, have fun improving. You'll never learn how to play dynamically or tactically that way.
Skynet, do take a look at this link from April 2014 which has a 4. e3 Slav game, note the comment on White's 4th move.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/gashimov-r9-all-rests-on-one-game
I'm guessing the 4. e3 Slav is a variation where black has to be careful not to be lulled into a worse position
If you're trying to play the most boring repertoire, have fun improving. You'll never learn how to play dynamically or tactically that way.
are you talking to me? because all my ratings are higher than yours. I went from 1300-1900 in one year ;)
@MyFIDEis1579 Hey buddy, exactly which of my ratings is 1500? None of them. My U.S.C.F. is 1819. I'm sick of you attacking me on this site every time I comment on a thread about improvement or ratings. Meanwhile, you say "why would anyone listen to a 1500 for advice" when you admit to being a 1500 FIDE!
@skotheim2 Yes I am talking to you. I know so many players in the 1900-2200 range who plateau because they play passive, unenterprising openings and never take risks. They don't learn how to play dynamically and before they know it, their time to improve is up. Playing the most boring openings is a great way to ensure that you won't improve. I play the Classical Slav often as well, but I play much sharper stuff as white and have backup openings with lots of tactics and theory.
You have misunderstood a few things..
If I don't feel comfortable with the openings I play, then they are no good for me.
Second of all, learning tons of theory is not the most important thing for us non-masters. As long as you feel comfortable out of any opening, it does not matter wheter it is boring or dull.
Learning the ideas of an opening is the way to go. It is easier to get a much bigger reportarie and also makes you understand your moves as well. Just because you don't play the open scicillian for example doesn't mean that you will struggle to improve.
Ratings is a mix up of all what you know of chess. The opening isn't all chess. Endgame, opening, and the middle of the game are all important factors. If you suck at endings and try to win at openings, how will you win the won positions you get? You need to have a good mix up to get your rating up.
Plus I have taken many risks by changing my reportarie many times in such a way that I feel comfortable with the opening I play. For example I have tried against 1. e4 .. e5 c5 g6 and now I play e6. It is all about getting comfortable play.
Hello.
I’m a 1800 Elo player with a very positional, quiet, solid, slow, boring and strategic style of play.
As White I play the Catalan, the English Symmetrical, the Grünfeld Fianchetto, the KID Fianchetto. I start with 1. Nf3.
As Black against 1. e4 I play the Caro-Kann.
As Black against 1. d4 I play the Slav: against 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 I play 4...dxc4, against 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 I play 4...Bf5.
But one of the biggest hole in my repertoire is this: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3
The variation 4...e6 isn’t possible because it’s a Semi-Slav, not a Slav.
Therefore I believe that these are the possible variations:
- The Chebanenko: 4...a6
- The Schlechter: 4...g6
- The Argentinean: 3...dxc4
[EDIT 13/07/2015] I am also considering playing the Glasgow Kiss: 4...Bf5 (see my post on page 2).
And so my question is: which variation tends to lead on average to the most positional, quiet, solid, slow, boring and strategic positions? i.e. the least sharp and tactical positions.
(I also want that it be sound and reliable, and played by Grandmasters reasonably often.)
Thanks in advance for your answers.