QGD 3...Bb4

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4

Playing as White against this move order the other day, I couldn't work out what the best way to approach it is. It's not mentioned as worthy in the books I have, but it doesn't look too bad either. Against the Nimzo-Indian I play Qc2 after ...Bc4, but that can't be right here; the Bishop can't be easily forced into commitment with a3 for one thing.

Any QG players with instructive thoughts on this, please?

Kicking the bishop should give you a comfortable game.

After 4.a3 if Black takes on c3 you get a kind of Saemisch variation of the Nimzo which is known to be bad for Black if he has commited his pawn to d5 as White will usually get a big center and easily undouble his c-pawns with cxd5 and c4. Here is a classic game to show this:

After 4.a3 if Black retreats his bishop to e7 you can play 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bf4 with a Carlsbad structure to follow in which your are kind of a tempo up as a3 is a useful move for minority attacks.

I should also add that Lars Schandorff does cover this lines in his book Play 1.d4 - The queen's gambits and he also suggests 4.a3

It's a well  known fact that Karpov and Botvinnik have had some sort of love affair, Kasparov probably knows something about it ( just joking obviously ). I don't think Karpov would have played it even it were thought to be a good move. Just my two cents.

Botvinnik was more of a French player, I think that the main reason why he switched to Caro-Kann was Talj.

I will have to partially disagree with Jengaias.

Firstly, posting games without analysis of the opening which we are discussing and filtering them just to show the ones which support your statements is a shameful practice.

An opening line can't be analyzed by just looking at a database, and in case it can be analyzied like that I can also posts many wins by White too. (Caruana, does think that 4.a3 is the best move, or at least he played it against Yifan, and I think it is also obvious that Caruana is better than Karpov)

While I agree with Jengaias that practical chess differs from theoretical chess and that White doesnt have a forced win with 4.a3 (he is very far from it) I think it is rather clear that White does have some sort of advantage after the exchange on c3.

So tell me Jengaias, how is Black exactly equal in these lines? Perhaps the analysis I consulted is outdated and you can illustrate me.

Anyway, Karpov switched to 1...c6 at the time when he was not playing 1.e4 anymore.

No, he is a 13 beggar. You are all stating that Black has an easy game, that's the whole point. Karpov became a legend, now it's up to Caruana. So was Botvinnik, a legend back then.

Interesting Pfren, perhaps Black doesnt have trouble in those c6 systems, but can you disagree with the analysis I posted on the other lines?

In your last game I liked White's position after Black declined the draw with 19...Bd5.

For example wasn't White clearly better after 26.Rxa4? Seems like he is getting the a5-pawn and gaining some pressure over the remaining a-pawn.

Also, what do you think about 11.Ne5 after 10.Ne4.

11...Ncx3 12.Qc2 Ne4 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Qxe4 Qc7 15.Bd2 Bb7 16.Qg4? The line seems interesting and perhaps in practical play it may even be good.

Lol, Jengais, please stop posting games and refute my analysis, while the lines with c6 that Pfren shared are interesting and it is hard to actually prove something for White I think White has an advantage in all other lines.

Shameful is to put words in my mouth, when did I say Botvinnik's game refutes the whole line? I just shared it so the OP could get an idea of what White is playing for.

Common sense 1:

4.a3 seems to be the test, the fact that other players didnt play it means nothing, have you talked with them? How do you know that Karpov simply felt better in the Ragozin Alekhine variation lines and therefore didnt try to refute Black's whole system with 4.a3?

Common sense 2:

I wouldnt consider Bb4 a mistake but perhaps suspicious, the bishop is developed before the knights and to a exposed square, White isnt forced to play 4.a3, he can even consider playing solidly with e3-Bd3-Ne2 trying to claim a tiny advantage.

Common sense 3:

Caruana is younger, he has more decades of knowledge behind him and his rating completely surpasses Karpov's rating, younger generations are by default better than their ancestors, now that is common sense.

A 13 year old kid with internet access cant be a beegar.

Karpov games are amazing and his technique is outstanding, I respect him as a chess player and I have been trying to get my hands on his book "My best Games" but it just logical that future generations will always be better than their ancestors and you can't simply disprove that.

All you do is call me a kid when I sustained my arguments (wether they are right or wrong) with actual chess analysis (instead of just posting games) and logic.

Why dont you stay on topic and talk about my analysis or your opinions on the lines? Saying "it is unclear" and posting some random game from a database is stupid.

And Im not a 13 year old kid, Im 11.

You are rolling it over and over again, don't you, who's been talking about rating, as for legends one could always have asked Fischer what he thinks about legends, actually I think they have but that's another story, in its Game of the Century as a 13 year old kid.

Thanks for food for thought folks, plenty to consider here.