Advice for Black against the QGD

As Black against the QGD, after
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.Bg5, which line do you recommend for a developing player (one who will commit to the variation for several years), and why?

A) 5...Nbd7 (Ntirlis 2017);
B) 5...h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 b6 (Cox 2011); or
C) 5...h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Nbd7!? (Kornev 2018) ?

A master, almost in passing, once told me that he recommended the TMB for amateurs, but I didn’t know about these other recommendations to ask and get more insight into his pedagogic reasoning. It also seems convenient that Ntirlis is the most heavily verbal of the books (a good thing for amateurs?) AND his is the only book of the three to give a complete repertoire for Black against 1.d4 (not just the against the Queen’s Gambit). Thanks.

For curiosity sake.  Why arent you considering 5...0-0, or 5...c6?

5...0-0 would lead to the Lasker Defense or Orthodox Defense. Why 5...c6? Because it is a solid wedge set-up? Feel free to make the case for those move choices and I can ask the master for more specifics when I speak to him next month.

To answer your question,
1) The master, who is an experienced amateur chess coach, was pretty high on the TMB recommendation; and

2) I own the 3 books above (ebook versions), so it would be nice to play something in a resource I already own rather than have to shop more;

3) I am not sure if this contributed to the master’s suggestion, but he asked me (in reference to choosing the Petroff versus 2...Nc6 after 2.Nf3 in the Open Games) an interesting question ...

Would you rather draw two games —OR— win one and lose one? I chose win one and lose one, so he promptly recommended 2...Nc6 for me after 2.Nf3 in the Open Games. Could this have influenced him to later suggest that I aim for a TMB (we were out of time as I was squeezing in this question at the end... I lack the patience to wait until next month; regardless, I would still like to hear the experience and recommendations of others).

What is TMB?

Tartakower-Makogonov-Bondarevsky system, or the Tartakower Defense for short.

Choice B) in my original post.

A) and C) are mostly going to lead to the same positions, Kramnik's improved classical line. Not sure why Kornev wants to allow 5...h6 6BxN. In one particular line these can transpose to Tartakower too. The Tartakower is maybe the most straightforward developing line, for inexperienced players.

Don't think 5...c6 is that good, you are ruling out a quick c7-c5 for no obvious reason.  It is pecularily popular on chess com, because of some sort of fear of exchange variation. Although again responding to c4xd5 with c6xd5 is rarely good.

That is about all the help i can offer :-)

I didnt play the QGD much, but when i did this was the line.  My best (uneducated advice/opinion) I can give is to find middle game you're comfortable with.

I'm not sure myself, as my 1.d4 Black theoretical knowledge is on the KID which I would play. I've heard great things of Ntrilis' book so I'd follow that.

I have Ntirlis's book and I have played the be7 qgd for quite some time before switching to the ragozin. 5..nbd7 is designed to cut out bxf6 lines, which aren't bad for black but if you can skip studying them it would save time so why not. I could even make a case for 4..nbd7 one move earlier, this time desgined to discourage 5 bf4. If you are going for the TMB anyway, then it makes sense to remove white's options along the way, or at least make them less effective. The early nbd7 lines do that. So far I haven't found a way for white to exploit the early nbd7. But maybe someone will point out something. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the responses... When I see words like “modern” and “Kramnik”, it makes me think “more complicated.” Meanwhile, I have found some select pages in Mednis’ Strategic Chess and Marovic’s Play the Queen’s Gambit (as well as the corresponding chapters in Sadler’s and McDonald’s books) that verbally explain several games in the Tartakower. I’d have to do some digging to see if they cover anything that overlaps with Ntirlis or Kornev. In combo with TwoMove’s comment earlier, this makes me think Tartakower may be the way to go.

Sokolov's "winning chess middlegames" has some nice examples on the Tartakower too,

 

Nah...it looks to be better to read books on the early move endlessly. Especially if they contain the word winning or awesome or killer or something like that. What would Silman do? Ahh....look for the imbalances. And follow them to the end of the rainbow.

lol...for years that was a running joke a bunch of us had.  Anytime we were at a tournament, we would see all these kids gathered around books with really cool words/phrases like "Win with the..." "How to beat the..." "How to crush the..." Killer..." You get it.  Some kid would ask: "Should i get this book?"  I would be: "Sure...get that book and you'll be beating everyone in the tournament."

Yes! Exactly! What book is that again?! (please start with "Killer...")  

I believe the books title is:  "How to crush any openings in 10 moves."

By IM Cruzhinski

Nice! 10 moves! I am totally getting that book in a few years ... still need to get past move 6 in the book.

I downloaded his free pamphlet.  How to bust the benko in 2 moves.  Its a game changer.