Probably if White wants to play with a knight on e2 he should follow Botvinnik and Schandorff, he has a great reperotire on 1.d4 (at least I like how he writes and what he suggests, specially in the Queen's gambit) and his second volume on the Indian defenses deals the Nimzo Indian with an Nge2-f3 system.
Reshevsky variation refuted?
Sort:
I've played this c6 line as black a few times and done well with it, but it's hardly a refutation. I think black comfortably equalizes, but he doesn't really get an advantage.
Of course, black is usually happy to achieve comfortable equality in the opening. 
Bramblyspam escribió:
I've played this c6 line as black a few times and done well with it, but it's hardly a refutation. I think black comfortably equalizes, but he doesn't really get an advantage.
Of course, black is usually happy to achieve comfortable equality in the opening.
Arent opening where Black equalizes quickly and easily are considered refuted for White?
Playing for a draw with the white pieces is to some extent a crime against chess isnt it?
Could you share some games? Or share how your opponents reacted?
Schandorff doesn't recommend 5. Bd3.
Remember, just because black equalizes doesn't mean that the game is drawn. The c6 variation leaves plenty of play for both sides.
Lots of GMs play the same lines with both colors. Perhaps they just like playing the type of position that results, even if it is objectively equal.
SilentKnighte5 escribió:
Schandorff doesn't recommend 5. Bd3.
You are right, I just had a quick glance at the book (had many other books that Im reading right now) and he seems to suggest 5.Nge2 to avoid 5.Bd3 c5 lines. I beg your pardon lol.
Bramblyspam escribió:
Remember, just because black equalizes doesn't mean that the game is drawn. The c6 variation leaves plenty of play for both sides.
Lots of GMs play the same lines with both colors. Perhaps they just like playing the type of position that results, even if it is objectively equal.
But it does mean that Black had a perfect opening and that perhaps White's setup is not testing. I am talking theoritically, not practically (hopefully things would be as easy as saying them)
I had a better glance at the book and he suggests the following line against it:
That seems a normal slight white advantage position. Personally don't see advantages of 5...c6 compared to the straightforward d5. I guess it may be more unexpected by white.
An odd response that White can play to ...c6 is 6.c5.
Im not very knowledgeable on these lines, but I remember some Grandmaster saying this gave White a slight edge.
The idea is to keep the black d-pawn backward, I think.
{Edit: That being said, Blacks's position looks very solid after ...c5}
{Double Edit: I might have messed up my lines- lol. The position in the diagram is wrong}
The line the grandmaster recommends is the following:
The grandmaster said the following about the position:
I think that this rare continuation is White's best bet for an advantage in this position. White's reaction is very principled since Black has a backward pawn on d7. In order to complete his development, Black should play d7-d5, allowing the exchange of his central pawn after cxd6. Later on, if Black wants to bring his light-squared bishop into play by means of e6-e5, the central pawn will be exchanged and White will enter a position with central pawn majority.
Makes sense, could you tell from where you got the info?
Only think White may not like is that he would end up with an IQP wouldnt he?
Here is the link:
http://www.modern-chess.com/en/chess-databases/database=12
The link will take you to a page showing a database and article. If you scroll down you will find the variation we are talking about. By the way, dont think White will get an IQP in this position, if he plays well.
SnowRealms escribió:
Here is the link:
http://www.modern-chess.com/en/chess-databases/database=12
The link will take you to a page showing a database and article. If you scroll down you will find the variation we are talking about. By the way, dont think White will get an IQP in this position, if he plays well.
Thanks for the info.
Regarding the IQP, I guess he isnt forced to have one if after d5-cxd6-e5 he takes on e5 and I guess that after Black recaptures on e5 he would play f4-e4.
After taking a look at Pfren's game I did some analysis on 2 ideas which seemed nice to me.
I like the 8...e5 move or at least consider it interesting while my Ne8 idea is probably a fail.
Perhaps pfren should share his opening thoughts on his game.
Hello everyone! I was wondering if anyone here (
especially pfren) has any thoughts on 9...Ng4!? after e5 in the a3 Ba5 b4 Bc7 e4 d5 e5 variation of the Reshevsky. If white does not find 10. Ng1!, It looks like black could have winning chances. White must play precise after 10. Ng1 as well in order to gain an advantage.
Hello honorable sir, Im eating some lentils right now but I will bump this again and shortly ruin this thread with more of my crappy analysis, please stay on the line just one second.
Incidentally, there's a lot of merit behind the idea of c4-c5 which allows white to get pawns abreast on d4 and e4. However, it's obviously slow for white. For years I've been playing either a deferred a3 approach or the Reshevsky. Dissimilar approaches but I find I get results with both: especially the Reshevsky. It should be obvious that it's a positional approach to the Nimzo, aimed at constructing a big centre for white or creating weaknesses in black's game. The knight can move to g3 or f4. It's a flexible approach and aims at creating long-term pressure.
The idea that it's refuted by a new move is a big over-reaction, because always in these cases, antidotes are found and the scare is over, just like with the Taimanov Attack against the Modern Benoni, which for years put people off playing the MB after a 3. Nc3 move order but now no-one's very bothered by it, except amateurs who may not keep up with things, and so white has been exploring pastures new in that opening, with Modern approaches often involving h3. Logically, that would not have happened had the Taimanov been as strong as had been thought by some. Personally, I just carried on playing the MB and a lot of people gave up playing 2c4 against me. The very first time I ever played it, I beat a FIDE 2000 who pompously told me how he would have crushed me (if he hadn't fallen for the tactic that lost his e-pawn, that is) So I'd say this c6 thing in the Reshevsky is similarly simple hysteria or over-reaction.
I recently discovered this Georgian GM that uploads great content to youtube.
One of his videos talks about the following line: