Facing the Caro Kann

What?  Isn't that what an opening is supposed to do?

The Bayonet is not at all "solid."  If Black plays well, he will reach equality.  But nothing in that variation would I consider solid, it is more or less dynamic.  I don't discount the fact that it's fine for Black, but it would be improper to analyze the position as a solid one.

Easy, just leg'it!

Look, a "solid" position is not a "static" position. Dynamic positions can be solid as well; look at the Najdorf.

You are obviously biased towards White in this opening, and I'm sorry if you don't play well against the Caro-Kann. You can argue with the books all you want. I'm done here.

Thanks everyone for their contributions here. I have two questions for devotees:

1) In response to 3. Nc3, I usually play the Caro-Kann Defense: Gurgendize System B15 (link here). As I know it, Caro-Kann fundamentals are keeping the tension in the center or letting White make the pawn exd4 exchange. Thus, I find 3. Nc3 g6! to be a move that plays in the Caro-Kann spirit.

In 1998, Kasparov played it in an internet game as Black here. Kasparov comes out of the opening slightly ahead (-0.37), and has a won game (-3.75) by the middlegame, but blunders horribly on move 43 so draws instead. (I'm not sure what the time controls are, or whether it was played in a simul.) Anyways, what do you think of the CK Gurgendize System?

2) If against 1. e4 you mostly play c6, then what do you play against 1. d4? Also, which of these responses best agrees with the Caro-Kann values?

I am not biased towards White in this opening.  Heck, I don't even play the Advance Variation.  I have plenty of experience as Black.  I didn't mind playing the main lines, but the Advance Variation lines tended to annoy me as Black.  No matter how many times I sifted through databases, I couldn't find a good variation that I liked.  So I ended up putting the Caro-Kann as my backup opening.

Daniel, I seems you are very biased towards Black in this opening.  You provide your favorite variations and pronounce them as good for Black without giving any ideas and suggestions.  The original poster was asking for ideas for White in the Caro Kann, not how great the openings is for Black.  I tried giving him ideas against these lines, but if I give him ideas, does that make me biased?  I have full respect for the Caro Kann and the ideas that it brings to the table.

I already suggested the Classical Variation to the original poster. I was trying to show him that most of the other lines leave Black with the advantage.

Maybe it's better if I just give my opinion, and you can elaborate, or disagree as you wish.

I think that if black exclusively plays the Caro-Kann against 1.e4 then there are two main types of positions (waving my hands here) that he "never gets into" and therefore "doesn't need to learn". These are all Sicilians and all Ruy Lopezes. I have done well in my chess "career" so far, I've got my goals set on becoming an FM _someday_, and yet I "don't know anything about how to play either of two of the most famous openings in history".

In another forum topic, I posted that I was looking for another response to 1.e4, and came away with the recommendations of the Scandinavian and the Alekhine. Haha! So the thing is, it just seems challenging to learn a new opening at this stage.

Now, let's take it from a "typical" 1.e4 player's point of view (yours, in this case). You presumably know how to play double king pawn openings pretty well, you presumably have got some knowledge against the Sicilian, if not being a supreme theoretician (otherwise, what are you doing playing 1.e4, right?). And then someone comes along, plays the Caro-Kann, and you basically never get any of these other position types.

Your thoughts?

Daniel3: yes, I agree that you are biased towards black. You can't just say that after ...e6 that "black has a solid position", it's too gross an oversimplification and borders on wrong.

FYI to everybody: "Solid" position doesn't imply dynamic or static, it basically says "no obvious weaknesses". Which, more often than not, means "no obvious [pawn] weaknesses".

Saccadic: I don't play the Gurgendize, and I wouldn't characterize it as in the spirit of the Caro-Kann. The whole point of the Caro-Kann is to play dxe4 and then follow it up with one of Bf5, Nd7, or Nf6 right away. Because all of these main lines do not maintain the tension in the center, right from the outset, I don't think that maintaining the tension in the center is in the spirit of the opening.

Also, Saccadic: If you learn well how to play the IQP positions in the Panov attack, then a reasonable choice as black is to play some version of a double queen's pawn opening. If you're looking for some activity, maybe the Tarrasch or Semi-Tarrasch. There's also the Slav, but there is a TON of theory there, and a lot of the lines have nothing at all to do with IQP.

I would avoid the King's Indian, the Grunfeld, the Benoni, the Benko, and anything else that has no relation at all to the Panov attack.

Maybe play the Queen's Indian even? But then you must play something else if white doesn't play Nf3.

What do Gurgendize players do against 3 Nd2 ?  Doesnt this move make it less playable? I recall a recommendation in some book for white to play 3 Nd2 if they didnt like the Gurgendize variation and that black didnt really have anything better against Nd2 than 3...dxe4  going into main lines..... you kann players agree with this ?

Right, this is one of those "shadow boxing" types of things. White plays Nd2 just in case black is super-booked on the Gurgendize (which most aren't) then black plays dxe4 and white is super happy with himself that he avoided it.

Yes, I've read the same stuff that Nd2 is better against the Gurgendize because of the option of pawn to c3, blunting the fiancettoed bishop. But really you'd have to talk to a Gurgendize afficionado, because maybe the lines aren't all that different?

Reb and Ozzie, regarding 3.Nd2 to avoid the Gurgenidze: I think of the Gurgenidze as belonging to B15. 3.Nd2 does not require 3...dxe4. 3...g6 is possible, but is considered under B12 and in many games has resulted in +/= or =. Also in B12 are 3...Qb6, often +/= or =; or 3...h6, often =; and 3...Qc7, often =. The last three choices are followed by 4...dxe4.

theres a lot of openings with the same stratigical goals black has to chose from against 1.d4 though..

Whatever. Maybe you don't like it because you try for more complications in your games, but the fact of the matter is that not everything is very complicated! Sometimes things are solid without having to meticulously analyze every single variation, sound and unsound, that can arise after every single move of every single variation of the Caro-Kann.

Borders on wrong? Are you trying to tell me that Black's position is fluid? Or perhaps that his position is loose? I certainly hope not, because that would be wrong.

I don't just stop my analysis after ...e6. There are a whole bunch of lines that White could answer with to e6, but none of them promise any real breakthrough or any lasting advantage.

As you said before, this disscusion is actually about the White point of view. So I say that we just stop the arguement now, and maybe give advice to the original poster? Besides, we both play the Black side of the Caro-Kann anyway; even if I like the position better.

I would characterize the Advance Variation as unbalanced and dynamic. Black has a LOT to worry about in these lines. In some sense it reminds me of the IQP positions - black has a long-term advantage (isolated pawn for white, bad bishop outside the e6-d5 pawn chain) but must defend against the middlegame white initiative. The thing that makes the Caro-Kann Advance tougher to defend is that white has more ideas than in the IQP positions. This is my experience.

"There are a whole bunch of lines that White could answer with to e6, but none of them promise any real breakthrough or any lasting advantage." This is an example of general hand-waving unsubstantiated with any lines (i.e. bias, plus bad advice in this case)

I still recommend to the original poster a simple exchange variation. It's not very book-heavy, since the position is a queen's gambit exchange with colors reversed. I forget who but someone else recommended the King's Indian Attack, which is ok too, but much more likely for black to know a bunch of theory in it (taking myself as an example).

A lot of people are recommending the PBA, which as someone who prefers to use Caro-Kann as their primary black play, I can agree will often forecast the game for stormy weather for me.  There does exist an accelerated modern version of PBA, which I also think is even more effective:

(if anyone has any comments regarding this line, I would appreciate them, as I'm sure the original poster would as well)  Also, I had a little trouble inserting the notes--the aggressive play I'm talking about is taking black's knight with your knight, rather than letting your knight sit tight and developing other pieces.

Look, what the heck is wrong with you anyway? You won't even look at any of the lines I post, much less analyze them. I pity you; but I'll let some hard knocks of experience drive that lesson into you.

To the original poster: You might also try the Accelerated Panov Attack which is: 1.e4 c6 2.c4 d5. This attack has good scores against the Caro-Kann, and might just be the thing you're looking for.

Daniel, nothing is wrong with him.  You're just taking this way too personally.  What lines are you posting?  None.  You just make really broad generalizations which cannot be analyzed without lines.  You think he needs experience?  He is a NM.  Trying to tell him he needs experience is like me telling Michael Jordan to practice basketball.

I have posted lines in previous posts, but you guys just aren't looking at them. Whatever a NM is. The greatest thing since sliced bread I guess...