if you block in your C-pawn in a 1.d4 opening, it has to be for a good reason. some involve trying to still play e4 at some point by undermining blacks pieces or a gambit... there are also more passive systems like the Colle
but this doesnt do much IMO. black can play c5 and gain space
c5 is met by e3, quite happily to, as it is not the best response, and if accurate, White gets a big advantage.
Any more notes.
C'mon,
Any more comments???
I would think 3...c5 4.e3 (continued with Nc6 after the threat is gone) would not lead to any advantage by white... just me, but white is short on space and I think this leads to equality. if youd like a game against me with this Id be more than willing.
actually maybe 4..e6 would be better after e3
I guess there are some very strong players that have reached this position once or perhaps twice, but it is extremely rare, and it usually is reached via 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3?! d5 3. Bf4?!. I don't really see what advantages it gives.
OK, it is now officially to be known as The Sam.
nice!! the does have a ring to it :)
Looks like White is misplaying a Grunfeld. For Black I would be looking more at g6 than e6.
it's a london system but than in an other move order and with nc3!?
Well 1.d4 followed by 2. Nc3 is the Veresov, though you usually go 3. Ng5 in the Veresov but I don't suppose it is mandatory. It is considered to be a playable second-rate opening which can lead to a dry positional game or a more tactical one depending on what both sides are doing. It may be noted that, unlike most 1. d4 games, the white retains the option of castling long.
I agree with most of what has been said, especially the point about there having to be a purpose in blocking the c pawn. As such, I am 1000 x more in favor of playing 3. Bg5 (which is what I assume Atos was trying to say in the last post) where the bishop is developed with tempo, and the N on c3 is supporting the e4 push to dominate the centre.
That is logical, and that at least, has a distinct and functional purpose. To me, the move to f4 seems like a waste of a bishop and/or a waste of time/tempo if he will eventually end up on g5 (preferable mostly) anyways.
This is like a reversed Guioco Piano, only worse because you're creating a huge weakness in b2 by developing your queen's bishop early, which, in the example game, was easily exploited. If Black chooses not to play a symmetrical variation (especially, for example, a king's indian defense or a grunfeld proper, where the bishop would be attacking said weak square directly), Black would have no problem both equalizing and possibly even gaining material early.
I agree with most of what has been said, especially the point about there having to be a purpose in blocking the c pawn. As such, I am 1000 x more in favor of playing 3. Bg5 (which is what I assume Atos was trying to say in the last post) where the bishop is developed with tempo, and the N on c3 is supporting the e4 push to dominate the centre.
Actually I was thinking in the lines that there isn't much difference since both moves develop the bishop and prepare a possible queenside castling, but on the second thought 3. Ng5 is probably stronger.
Actually I was thinking in the lines that there isn't much difference since both moves develop the bishop and prepare a possible queenside castling, but on the second thought 3. Ng5 is probably stronger.
Sorry I meant 3. Bg5.
It could also be mentioned that after 1. d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 the black has the option has the option of transposing into the Pirc with 2. ...d6, happy to allow 3.e4
After 3. ... g6 4. Nf3, it transposes into a Barry Attack, which has been used by some strong players over the years. But that usually comes from the move order 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bf4.
White then plans to play e2, Ne5, and h4 to launch an immediate king side attack, often castling queen side.
Black's best counter is to play c5 and Nc6, when white can't get away with the h4 attack, because of the pressure on the center. So white then usually castles king side and plays a more positional game.
I´m tempted to ask why you spend all this time on worthless openings instead of actually trying to improve your game.
But it's none of my business.
I´m tempted to ask why you spend all this time on worthless openings instead of actually trying to improve your game.
But it's none of my business.
I wouldn't say that the Veresov is a worthless opening, it is a second-rate opening but it is sound and playable. Surely it is not comparable to 1.g4 or some such stuff.
I´m tempted to ask why you spend all this time on worthless openings instead of actually trying to improve your game.
But it's none of my business.
I wouldn't say that the Veresov is a worthless opening, it is a second-rate opening but it is sound and playable. Surely it is not comparable to 1.g4 or some such stuff.
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3!? Nf6 3. Bf4!? is not the Veresov. The Veresov is 3. Bg5, which can lead to a very different game. Either can be reached by transposition via 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3!? d5
I just LOVE this opening.
I found it while studying the veresov attack. I think it is great to play and suggest it to anyone who needs an opening (I have slightly, though only slightly, gotten over my Andersson '1.a3!?' craze). If anyone has the name for it I would appreciate if you could tell me.
Any comments on the opening???