Queen's Gambit Declined: Is this a TN?

*First, I would like to make sure that we all know what a "TN" is. A "TN" is a theoretical novelty, or a new line in an old opening.

A few months ago, I never would have expected that I would respond to 1. d4 with ...d5. It didn't look cool or exotic like the Indian Defenses. Then I found the Tarrasch Defense, but I didn't like having an isolated pawn. Finally, I arrived at Queen's Gambit Declined. I was hesitant at first; surely it must be a lame response from Black with a name as boring as that. But, even if Queen's Gambit Declined didn't sound nearly as cool as Queen's Gambit Refused or Semi-Slav Defense, I found myself loving it nonetheless. 

After studying how the opening was used in the Kasparov-Karpov World Championship matches in the 1980's, I was finally ready to play it. My question is whether or not the lines I have posted are theoretical novelties. I thought the chances of playing these lines would be slim after I first played them, but it seemed to me that the position kept popping up. Here is the line, and on the right is a variation of Queen's Gambit Declined that is easier to reach with the same idea in mind:

On ...e5 white can play d5. Otherwise (after dxe5 if black can get the pawn back) black probably equalizes but d5 is usually difficult to get in and can be achieved easily now. He can cramp black and get good play on the c file so I say white is better. White could also try to maintain the pawn on d4.

You usually shouldn't play Nc6.  Typically, black wants to either play c6 or break in the center with c5.  If you want to defend e5, you should place the knight on d7

Let me check that out for a second-

Instead 9.Nxe5 wins a center pawn (9...Bd6 10.Bb5+). I think black is busted after 8.d5.

Best place to check for TN's is databases (there are several online) rather than the forum.  Opinions on your line, OTOH, are a good topic for here.  First point that comes to my mind is White doesn't know the Queen's Gambit in the examples given.

The problem with coming up with a TN is whether you actually have a valid variation on a standing opening line, or if perfect play by the opponent could destroy that new line, making it a mistake rather than a TN.

Chess is too complicated :/

Not necessarily, TNs can be mistakes as well. Most games have one novelty, the first move that's never been played before (or at least, not known to have been played).

i personally enjoy the c6 instead of e6 to the queens gambit. it is somewhat similar to the caro-kann

I was never "trying" to come up with a TN; that was actually the last thing I was trying to do in a what was a new opening for me. I don't want to play a TN and if he push to e5 is a TN I don't want to play it anymore. In saying "TN" I guess what I meant to say was something untried in tournament play that proved more or less to be effective, yet inaccurate.

Thanks Estragon!

I don't think it's dull- anymore.

If you want exciting QG games I would recommend looking at Marshall's games.

Thanks Carl

The QD is a wonderful opening for both Black and White.

Kasperov's CD "Garry KasperoTeaches Chess Vol 1."

is exceptionally good. GA only, no Slav etc.

He recommends it be your life-long opening.

Truly a best buy.

I believe that goes into the Slav, which he said he has already tried.

If you play Nc6 before c5 (you shouldn't), don't excange d:c4 -> lose control of e4. If you like to excange pawn on c4 this is good way 1...Nbd7 2.Bd3 dc 3.B:c4 c5.

Have you study Tartakower's Defence? Look at move list also.

No, and based on what you showed me, I never will.

The exchange takes a special touch.  If you put the time into it you will probably have a point machine at the lower levels, assuming Black plays the QGD which I find to be rare.  Most club players are angling for Indian defenses.

I'm talking about playing the QGD as black