Slav Defense

Sort:
Robert_New_Alekhine

Please feel free to express your thoughts on the Slav Defense.

Anarchos61

Start us up Robert: what are yours? Why do you ask the question?

Dark_Falcon

The Slav defense is a variation of the boring Queens Gambit (which doesnt deserve the name Gambit at all).

Robert_New_Alekhine
Anarchos61 wrote:

Start us up Robert: what are yours? Why do you ask the question?

Don't have time right now... sorry- I must sound like a jerk

leiph15

Playing at lower levels often runs the risk of the slav exchange. Not that this is so bad. Like the french exchange at these levels there's so much play left that I think it's anything but drawish.

Robert_New_Alekhine
leiph15 wrote:

Playing at lower levels often runs the risk of the slav exchange. Not that this is so bad. Like the french exchange at these levels there's so much play left that I think it's anything but drawish.

you are correct! I know one line where black has a lot of play.

Or_theBashaKiller
Dark_Falcon wrote:

The Slav defense is a variation of the boring Queens Gambit (which doesnt deserve the name Gambit at all).

If the slav is a variation of the Queens Gambit than the caro-kan is a variation of french.

and the pirc defence is a variation of the kings indian
and the Ruy Lopez is a variation of the italian 

Robert_New_Alekhine
Or_theBashaKiller wrote:
Dark_Falcon wrote:

The Slav defense is a variation of the boring Queens Gambit (which doesnt deserve the name Gambit at all).

If the slav is a variation of the Queens Gambit than the caro-kan is a variation of french.

and the pirc defence is a variation of the kings indian
and the Ruy Lopez is a variation of the italian 

Why?

Chicken_Monster
leiph15 wrote:

Playing at lower levels often runs the risk of the slav exchange. Not that this is so bad. Like the french exchange at these levels there's so much play left that I think it's anything but drawish.

Why do you say that? I'm not doubting you, I'm just trying to understand.

leiph15
Chicken_Monster wrote:
leiph15 wrote:

Playing at lower levels often runs the risk of the slav exchange. Not that this is so bad. Like the french exchange at these levels there's so much play left that I think it's anything but drawish.

Why do you say that? I'm not doubting you, I'm just trying to understand.

First off there's the idea of IQP structure. In french ex after c4 and in slav ex sometimes you can get e4.

But ok, as black in the french you can even opposite side castle and attack their kingside with opportunity for both piece play and pawn storm depending. In the Slav there are a few different tries... in both cases just don't mirror your opponent then trade off lots of pieces.

But most of all, at our level look at the board... 3 moves into the game and only 1 pair of pawns off. You want to tell me you have the technique to draw? No way. There is nearly 100% play left in the game. Play for a win!

If both sides mirror each other and trade for the first 10 or so moves, then sure, it's very drawish.

Or_theBashaKiller
Robert0905 wrote:
Or_theBashaKiller wrote:
Dark_Falcon wrote:

The Slav defense is a variation of the boring Queens Gambit (which doesnt deserve the name Gambit at all).

If the slav is a variation of the Queens Gambit than the caro-kan is a variation of french.

and the pirc defence is a variation of the kings indian
and the Ruy Lopez is a variation of the italian 

Why?

I'm joking. just saying the slav is diffrent from the QB
main diffrence is the bishop on c8 which is locked at the QB and free at the slave . this means an opening like the catalan is less efective against the slav... the whole idea of the g3 bishop g2 setup is to play against black bad bishop.  the slav is much more tactical and sharp opening than the QB.  the QB is more simetrical and therefore tends to be less sharp than the slav .

Robert_New_Alekhine
Or_theBashaKiller wrote:
Robert0905 wrote:
Or_theBashaKiller wrote:
Dark_Falcon wrote:

The Slav defense is a variation of the boring Queens Gambit (which doesnt deserve the name Gambit at all).

If the slav is a variation of the Queens Gambit than the caro-kan is a variation of french.

and the pirc defence is a variation of the kings indian
and the Ruy Lopez is a variation of the italian 

Why?

I'm joking. just saying the slav is diffrent from the QB
main diffrence is the bishop on c8 which is locked at the QB and free at the slave . this means an opening like the catalan is less efective against the slav... the whole idea of the g3 bishop g2 setup is to play against black bad bishop.  the slav is much more tactical and sharp opening than the QB.  the QB is more simetrical and therefore tends to be less sharp than the slav .

BUt it is a variation of the QG:

Or_theBashaKiller

If you refer to the QG as only 1.d4 d5 2.c4 than yes but the QG is usually refered by the QGA( queens gambit accepted) or the QGD (declined)

 

Robert_New_Alekhine

QG= Queen's Gambit

QGD=Queen's Gambit Declined

QGA= Queen's Gambit Accepted

ghostofmaroczy

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 c6 4 Nc3 dxc4

lolurspammed

The slav is something that any white player should fear.

Chicken_Monster

Sometimes the Game Explorer on this site...or the analysis generated after...called openings the "Queen's Gambit Refused." Is that the same as QGD?

Or_theBashaKiller
lolurspammed wrote:

The slav is something that any white player should fear.

Not really.  just another opening. 

lolurspammed

But it's an opening that is very solid for black, and has little to no drawbacks.

Robert_New_Alekhine

So are other openings.