May I ask though why black plays ...h6 and ...g5 against Qc2, but (seemingly), not in more typical lines like 6 e3 Be7 7 Bd3 0-0 8 Nge2 etc? What is it about an early Qc2 that makes it so effective? Or is the ...h6 and ...g5 plan a viable option in many different lines?
Should I play the semi-slav?
Sort:
Elubas wrote:
May I ask though why black plays ...h6 and ...g5 against Qc2, but (seemingly), not in more typical lines like 6 e3 Be7 7 Bd3 0-0 8 Nge2 etc? What is it about an early Qc2 that makes it so effective? Or is the ...h6 and ...g5 plan a viable option in many different lines?
Quite simply, because here he can castle queenside quickly, and safely.
Feb 26, 2013
0
#24
You can play the Semi-Slav and meet 5.Bg5 with 5...Nbd7 with a line pfren actually suggested (Cambridge Springs) although he seemed to be using it as an argument against playing the Semi-Slav...
The stuff with Qc2 and g4 is not very threatening if you know a bit of theory, again as pfren indicates.
5.e3 a6 is a bit less theoretically demanding than the Meran and avoids the Qc2 stuff altogether.
FireBrandX, I don't mind at all playing equal positions. But this one is absolutely dead/sterile... white has NOTHING AT ALL, period.
Feb 27, 2013
0
#26
Firebrand, Pfren's game ended with an agreed draw before move 20. That's a tremendous accomplishment for Black, even in the ICCF/LSS.
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Declining-the-Queens-Gambit-p3497.htm
(Lasker+Tartakower repertoire)
FM Steve Stoyko Lasker repertoire : http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2007/lasker-kenilworth-repertoire.htm
Nov 24, 2016
0
#29
Looks like the OP persevered and became better at playing the KID. Well done.
Rogue_King wrote:
Looks like the OP persevered and became better at playing the KID. Well done.
Ha thank you, came back from a chess break so I missed that.
I am sure pfren has a good point with studying "easy" classical lines. But I think if one doesn't mind getting bashed and bashed again that studying very sharp variations (in my case the KID and the Dragon that have been my main weapons) can potentially teach you an enormous lot about chess.
The problem I see with quiet lines as a beginner or a club level player is systematically reaching positions that would require a deep strategic understanding to make anything interesting out of it, and simply ending up exchanging everything into a drawish endgame that, at low level, can be won by either sides because there will be mistakes all the time. I don't think that's a good way to learn.
Maybe the sicilian is too complex for a club player to fully understand, but so is a very subtle positional game where all the difference will be made by microscopic details. At least when you play a razor sharp line, you know what you are aiming for and you understand very, very quickly what was a mistake and what was not.
My two cents for new players building a repertoire. If I ever study properly again, I'lll probably end up learning those classical, quiet, positional, "easy" lines. I feel I am not good enough yet to truly improve my game with those.
Elubas, I already told that 6.Qc2 is basically a poor (and much advertised) move which gives Black easy equality.
White does have to play 7.Qf3 against the Short variation, and play that complex endgame- although objectively he has no advantage. Black's doubled f-pawns are no big deal, unless Black is a woodpusher (but in that case pretty much any opening would be lethal).
7.Bd3 is more or less the definition of "nothing" in every possible language. Black has effortlessly exchanged his single problematic piece, and has no worries about a central e3-e4 push, or a queenside minority attack.