The Slav versus 1 d4

I was looking for a book which discusses the use of the slav against any 1 d4 opening (not just the queen's gambit).  For that matter, use of the slav against anything other than 1 e4.

I don't see anything out there, except not sure about Silmans book 'The Slav versus 1 d4' - anyone know if that has coverage other than QG?

For that matter, do you think just studying the slav against the QG is enough to prepare someone for using it against any 1 d4 opening?

That just doesn't make sense. The Slav is a variation of the Queen's Gambit. If you were to use the same moves against something else it wouldn't be a Slav and wouldn't be called one. It wouldn't even give a similar type of game, since in the Slav it's crucial that Black has the option of playing ...dxc4 at various moments. Without a pawn there, it's not a Slav.

Against things like the London, you need to pick some variation of the London, and so on for other tries for White after 1.d4 d5.

Luckily, amongst people who know opening theory (the people you want to use opening theory against), the queen's gambit is easily the most popular option for white.

That's an interesting point about 'It wouldn't even give a similar type of game'.

Let's say ... dxc4 doesn't happen early on (or ever), but the other 4 normal opening moves do happen (c6, Nf6, Bf5, e6) - I'm thinking there must be some similiarity - but I take your point in that studying in the QG context might not help alot - I would hope that it would still help some...

I'm not sure I understand.  If its the Slav its d4 d5 c4 c6. There are plenty of good slav books.  If you are looking at using the structure of a pawn chain d5/c6 against other openings you'll need to look in those openings.  For example, the Caro-Kann vs. e4, its also a line in the Kings Indian Attack and 1. Nf3 if it doesn't transpose directly (1.Nf3 d5 2. d4 c6 3. c4)will drop you into a Reti (1. Nf3 d5 2. c4) you can bypass with 2. ... c6 but its not the most testing. 

GM Mednis wrote some articles in Chess Life a decade or two back advocating the use of openings with similar structures whether as white or black, vs e4 or d4.  One of the pairs he talked about was Slav & Caro-Kann

I think I wasn't being clear - but I appreciate the replies.

What I'd like to do is choose a black opening that I can use to almost everything except 1 e4.  This can be done with the dutch and tarrasch defenses, and I think it can be done with an opening sequence (for black) used in the slav (and also orthodox QGD).

Basically, even when not against a QG, you play similiar opening moves and go from there - instead of starting from scratch every game whenever white tries something new (london, torre, colle, ...).  Hopefully, you would still be able to retain some common middle game goals and have at least some similiarities - at least that's the goal.

Just for the sake of discussion ...

For example, against the colle setup, someone could play a slav type defense, a semi-slav type defense, a queen's indian, benoni, kings indian, gruenfeld, ...

It doesn't mean that they make the same exact moves against the colle as they do against the QG, but it's still similiar enough to give it the same name.  That's what I'm talking about.  It would be nice to get some pointers on how to play a slav type setup against all non 1 e4 openings - but there isn't any books on that.  There are books on how to do it with other defenses, but not the slav.

Am I being any more clear now?!?

 The slav DEFENSE is in no way, shape or form, the Queen's gambit. You play the Slav or even the semi-Slav to try to stop white's attack and development.

Yes, we understand, and sorry for being a bit pedantic earlier.

So let's look at moves. After 1.d4 d5 2.c4, why does Black play 2...c6? Among others, to defend d5, to threaten ...b5 defending the pawn after a later dxc4, and to allow the Bc8 to move out, something that 2...e6 doesn't do.

In practice, it turns out that in several lines, ...Bf5 for Black still isn't really playable because of stuff like 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3, putting pressure on both d5 and b7. So Black plays ...dxc4 first in many lines.

So without 2.c4, which of these reasons for 2...c6 still hold up? None of them. d5 doesn't need defending, there is no dxc4, and the bishop can already move out.

But there's another reason why ...c6 is sometimes played after stuff like 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c6, and that is the possibility of playing ...Qb6, since pawn b2 is weakened and White has no Qb3 yet.

Against the Colle (say, 1.d4 d5 2.e3 c6) I think it just looks bad. What's the point of playing c6 in that position? Black is reduced to hoping that White plays c4.

So that's why I still think that it doesn't make much sense to try to play the Slav against everything White can do -- the whole reason for playing 2...c6 is the presence of that pawn on c4.

So I'd say playing ...c6 and ...d5 is viable when White has a pawn on c4 (1.c4 c6, 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6), or when White plays an early move with his queen's bishop, but not against other lines (well, 1.e4 :-)).

So why is there no book about this? Perhaps because black has better options (1.c4 e5/c5, 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4/d4, ...c5 lines against the London et cetera).

(About to submit, and I realize I've forgotten g3 lines. Exercise for the reader :-))

The Queen's Gambit 1. d4 d5 2. c4.  White has offered (gambited) the c-pawn.  There are many ways to respond to this, all have different names: 2. ... dxc4 Queen's Gambit Accepted, 2. ... e6 Queen's Gambit Declined 2. .... Nf6 Marshall's Defense QGD, 2. ... e5 Albin CounterGambit, 2. .... c6 Slav Defense, etc.  Different names but all a subset of the Queen's Gambit thus the Slav is a Queen's Gambit, accurate but not most informative.