Avoiding the Semi-Slav and Slav

Sort:
pfren

Yes, you can play "Catalan style" against the Slav. You can either forget about the c4 pawn, and play gambit style (this has been analysed a lot recently, and Black is OK), or protect the c4 pawn first with Qc2 or Nbd2- but both moves have shortcomings.

I like playing Semi-Slav style against the Catalan, BUT: I have to start with 2...e6 first, and interpose the check from b4 before ...Bd6, for reasons I have already explained. This line actually has a name: The Ukrainian variation.

SmyslovFan
Optimissed wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:

That's a Cambridge-Springs Defense. Back in the old days, it was considered part of the QGD complex as was the Slav. Now, it's usually lumped in with the Slavs.  Obviously, it can be reached by either 2...e6 or 2...c6.>>

It's incorrect to consider it a Slav, since then, Capablanca's Defence would be a Slav, as would any QGD defence where black eventually plays c6, which is completely silly. But it's never worth getting into an argument with Pfren because, of course, he's always right and DeirdreSky seems similar.

 

It's sad when GMs and professional theoreticians are so consistently incorrect.

 

GM Lars Schandorff, in his book on the Queen's Gambit, erroneously placed the Cambridge Springs in the Semi Slav constellation, along with the Moscow and the Botvinnik.

 

These GMs really should just give up and defer to the denizens of chess.com's forums.

poucin
Optimissed a écrit :

This person also played the Richter-Veresov with 4.f3. I did a lot of research, even buying a book on it, since the Veresov is forcing .... it's hard for black to sidestep it. I tried just about every line against the Veresov but found many of them were only drawish. I decided that the best move order is 1. d4-d5 2. Nc3-e6 3. Bg5-Nbd7 4.f3-c6. Seemingly a conservative line but I learned and played Tal's pawn sacrifice. Many GMs seem to think that Tal's line is unsound. Just shows you can be a strong player and still not  have a good judgement for all aspects of chess. Maybe they're just scaredy-cats. Tal played it and I found it was fine. Normally, White returns the pawn by playing e5-e6, giving black a good game. The only problem was that there isn't a forced win for black in all lines where white hangs on to it, but it's extremely difficult to do so and it's difficult to break out of the bind that black gets. Opposite castling, which is forced, means that white's extra pawn doesn't necessarily win, even if he gets that far.

In every sources i know (mostly books), the Tal line against Veresov f3 is supposed to be kind of refutation, and this is confirmed by engine analysis.

I don't know who are the GM u refer, telling this line is bad, but i guess u misread or misunderstood something.

Just to be sure, is it this line?

 

pfren
Optimissed έγραψε:

I think there's a mistaken assumption going on here ... that GMs are always right, so if they say that Shredded Wheat is the correct breakfast cereal then Shredded Wheat it must be. Except of course that sometimes GMs can disagree with each other.

But who are we to take sides, since they are Gods and inhabit the celestial spheres? Then again, we could just get real and stop being so naïve as to think that GMs are more intelligent as a species. They're good at playing chess and that's all the title implies.

 

Yes, I get your point.

A Grandmaster can be wrong about things he knows, while you can be right about things you don't know.

It's the probability theory, stupid...

bardales7510

ups?