Well, it doesn't do anything to defend d5, and it weakens b7. So the first thing to look at is some combination of Qb3, Nc3 and cxd5. Compare with the Baltic Defence (2...Bf5), where 3.cxd5 is always followed by 3...Bxb1.
So what's your idea after 3.cxd5? If 3...Qxd5, then 4.Nc3 and white is well on his way to get a rather nice pawn center.
It doesn't look very solid to me.
Hello,
I have been looking for a defense to 1.d4 that I find satisfying and interesting, but also solid. From my perspective, 2...Bg4 after 2.c4 or 2.Nf3 or most any other second move seems solid and natural, as it allows Black to play e6 at some point without hemming in the Bishop (I also play the French Defense as Black, but the light squared Bishop is becoming a thorn in my side in that defense as well).
My question is: why is there such little data on this move sequence? I've found 42 games in the database, and the opening has no name. Is it that positionally crippling as to be unplayable, and if so, how?
Here are the pluses I see with this opening:
1. As said before, the light squared Bishop is not trapped by e6.
2. White's e pawn is momentarily pinned.
3. Black will be able to trade with a Knight at f3, doubling white's pawns, which seems more useful than having it stuck on c8 or b7 with a pawn on d5.
It seems that this may transpose into more commonly known d4 openings, but why is this viewed as a bad way to get there?