Are you aware that the Semi-Slav has a massive amount of theory? I wouldn't touch it at your level. The Slav might be okay for you; still more theory intensive than the QGD though.
Slav and Semi Slav
Sort:
New_Member24 wrote:
The Slav might be okay for you; still more theory intensive than the QGD though.
I like the Slav better than the Semi but yes I do realize I'm talking about extensive theory between this and the Ruy Lopez. I expect to spend a lot of time studying theory over the next several years.
Of course, I'm focusing on tactics and positional chess along with a touch of endgames right now but ...nothing wrong with getting a head start on the openings I have settled into, right?
Arloest wrote:
You're biting off a chunk of theory between this and the Ruy thread!
The double QP openings are very transpose-y, which accounts for your confusion. You are sort of right, but 2. ...e6 would just be the regular Queen's Gambit Declined. The Slav and semi-Slav are both defined by 2. ...c6, shoring up d5 without hemming in the light-squared bishop. In the Slav, black will almost immediately play PxP, using the c6 pawn to support pushing b7-b5 as well, which will either support the c-pawn or gain time threatening the piece that recaptured it. The bishop uses the unblocked diagonal to go to f5 (typically) and support whatever action can be stirred up on the queenside. e.g. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc5 5. e3 (or e4) b5.
The semi-Slav combines the QGD ...e6 and Slav ...c6, so can be arrived at from either. In the line above, the deviation would occur at after 4. Nc3, when black would delay exchanging pawns and play the QGDish ..e6 instead. It seems odd to now go ahead and block in the bishop anyway, but in these lines black intends to fianchetto the bishop after the b7-b5 push.
So I'm guessing it wouldn't hurt for me to begin learning the QGD as well would it? This way I'll get a head start on the variations and sidelines that I might run into with the Slav and I'll be able to see if I like the QGD better.
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
Arloest wrote:
*snip*
So I'm guessing it wouldn't hurt for me to begin learning the QGD as well would it? This way I'll get a head start on the variations and sidelines that I might run into with the Slav and I'll be able to see if I like the QGD better.
I would pick either one or the other since they don't share much aside from pawn structure. I would try the QGD first since it doesn't require much opening study and that'll save you some time. If you don't like it, you could always switch back to the Slav.
New_Member24 wrote:
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
Arloest wrote:
*snip*
So I'm guessing it wouldn't hurt for me to begin learning the QGD as well would it? This way I'll get a head start on the variations and sidelines that I might run into with the Slav and I'll be able to see if I like the QGD better.
I would try the QGD first since it doesn't require much opening study and that'll save you some time. If you don't like it, you could always switch back to the Slav.
Not a bad idea...thanks.
I am not sure I would recomend the Slav to lower rated players. I was playing it myself for a few years. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 gives up the center. So white has a lead in devolpment compared to the QGD and better center control. I would not recomend 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8. O-O O-O 9. Qe2 Nbd7 10. e4 Bg6 any more then I would recomend any hypermodern opening. Plus there are sharper lines like 6. Ne5 and the gambit with 5. e4.
aggressivesociopath wrote:
I am not sure I would recomend the Slav to lower rated players. I was playing it myself for a few years. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 gives up the center. So white has a lead in devolpment compared to the QGD and better center control. I would not recomend 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4 8. O-O O-O 9. Qe2 Nbd7 10. e4 Bg6 any more then I would recomend any hypermodern opening. Plus there are sharper lines like 6. Ne5 and the gambit with 5. e4.
I've spent some time reviewing both the Slav and the QGD this morning. I still really feel natural and comfortable with the Slav but realize that in the long run, the QGD might get me a lot more mileage. I'm going to play a few games out of the QGD over the next few days and see how it goes.
I like the Slav and Semi-Slav because they shore up a solid central pawn structure allowing for quick attacking chances on the wings.
I was just looking over your archieved games. I diden't see a queen's gambit of any kind, I saw pieces hung in the opening and unsound sacrifices. Study tactics for now, not openings.
aggressivesociopath wrote:
I was just looking over your archieved games. I diden't see a queen's gambit of any kind, I saw pieces hung in the opening and unsound sacrifices. Study tactics for now, not openings.
Too bad you weren't thorough in checking up on me. If you had been you would have noticed the several threads up where I display my ICC games. You do realize that there are other venues to play chess than this site, don't you? You won't see very many queen's gambits or really anything on this site sub 1400. Just a bunch of random opening lines that don't really have names or theory.
As for "study tactics not openings" - When I'm studying 80% tactics and I'm playing 1200-1400 rated ICC players every night as well as playing OTB...I need to familiarize myself with some basic opening theory. You should know this although you obviously still hang pieces yourself and that's why you're rated ~1700 on this site.
I'm sorry - there's just no reason to be a smart ass.
Sep 10, 2013
0
#12
For long term development, qgd is probably the best choice, if only because some semi-slav games can evolve into qgd structures. The semi-slav is a ccompex counter-attacking defence, while the slav allows for fluid piece development
I was not being a smart ass. Offering a game in which you hung a queen and another in which you lost and thought it was because you castled does not refute my point.
Pissing off people who are willing to help you is not a very good idea.
aggressivesociopath wrote:
I was not being a smart ass. Offering a game in which you hung a queen and another in which you lost and thought it was because you castled does not refute my point.
Pissing off people who are willing to help you is not a very good idea.
It's just that your "point" (study tactics as a beginner) is nothing new. We all know. We still need to familiarize ourselves with basic opening theory if we're going to be playing people who do.
As said - I spend 80% of my study time on tactics. It's not a mystery that tactics = progress.
I didn't mean to piss you off but 1) look at your screen name 2) You're rated ~1700 on Chess.com. You're not exactly Bobby Fischer.
You said you didn't see any queen's gambit games. I told you why: because the games I'm referring to took place on ICC. Don't be so ignorant.
hicetnunc wrote:
For long term development, qgd is probably the best choice, if only because some semi-slav games can evolve into qgd structures. The semi-slav is a ccompex counter-attacking defence, while the slav allows for fluid piece development
The more I'm reviewing of the QGD the more I like it. I'm definitely going to play this a bit this week and start getting cozy with it.
I know it is advice that is so bland and flavorless it should come out of a can. But, if you are following it how are you hanging rooks with g6 and not noticing when your king is in mating net?
aggressivesociopath wrote:
I know it is advice that is so bland and flavorless it should come out of a can. But, if you are following it how are you hanging rooks with g6 and not noticing when your king is in mating net?
So if someone ever hangs a rook they've never studied tactics. Good logic.
It takes more than one study session to stop hanging pieces. You should know - you still hang em left and right and that's why you're rated 1700 on chess.com.
You need to learn how to give advice without giving away how both arrogant and ignorant you are.
You are a total buffoon if you think someone should ignore all opening discussion until they NEVER hang a piece. And yes - that IS what you're saying.
I came in and asked about a couple of openings. I never asked your opinion on a piece I hung in a game days ago. It's called a blunder. Once again - see your games.
markgravitygood wrote:
Back on topic:
I like the ...c6 stuff for black against d4. It meshes well from a pawn structure perspective with the Caro-Kann and you get alot of cross-pollination - many principles apply to both and the middlegames are similar. This alone will cut down on your opening preparation volume by necessity. It's not a bad choice by any means.
That's the practicality of it. At a rating of 1111 you should be K.I.S.S. - Keep it Simple, Stupid - in your openings, and play the classics, perhaps the Queen's Gambit Accepted, or some other fun, tactical Gambit lines. opening Theory is lost on you. Crap, it's even lost on me.
Crawl, Walk, Run.
You know - your cross theory theory is fantastic. I just looked over the caro kann and transposing into the slav after 1.d4 c6. Kind of interesting to see that you could have the same response to 1.e4 and 1.d4.
Not that it matters but my ICC rating hovers around ~1200 now. I've improved a lot in the last week or so. Again, I know that even if it was 1350 - opening theory is over my head still...just saying. I bet I could nudge that up over 1200 in the next few days.
I'm posting a USCF rating starting this week so I'll let you know how that goes.
Thanks for your help.
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
aggressivesociopath wrote:
I know it is advice that is so bland and flavorless it should come out of a can. But, if you are following it how are you hanging rooks with g6 and not noticing when your king is in mating net?
So if someone ever hangs a rook they've never studied tactics. Good logic.
It takes more than one study session to stop hanging pieces. You should know - you still hang em left and right and that's why you're rated 1700 on chess.com.
You need to learn how to give advice without giving away how both arrogant and ignorant you are.
You are a total buffoon if you think someone should ignore all opening discussion until they NEVER hang a piece. And yes - that IS what you're saying.
I came in and asked about a couple of openings. I never asked your opinion on a piece I hung in a game days ago. It's called a blunder. Once again - see your games.
I did not actually say you should put off studying the opening until you never hang a piece. However, given your games on this site, you personally should put off studying openings until you stop blundering. Your poor play insults players rated under 1300. Do you think they need to lose all of their pawns or promote three queens to deliever mate?
Sep 10, 2013
0
#20
@as : we have all been beginners one day, and I wouldn't have wanted to hear those harsh words back then, no matter how poor my play might have been...
Actually, I was lucky enough to have very strong players sit with me at the club and gently point my numerous mistakes, without ever making me feel how crap I was playing 
I think you stated your opinion clearly enough, and insulting the op is really unecessary and rude.
What are the main differences? They seem to walk very similar lines and reach each other via transposition easily. The games I'm playing against the Queen's Gambit I have used the Slav exchange variation and am wondering what the Semi Slav is like in comparison.
As always, thank you.
edit: Looking over things on ChessTempo - is it 2.e6 that differentiates the semi from the slav? If it is - I already don't like it. The slav looks so much more solid and stable.