Slav Indian Defense

Hello there,

I was wondering about this specific opening the other day. There are a few lines which, in my mind, seem to be at least playable. Other Indian Defenses, like the King's, Nimzo, Grunfeld, Queens etc. etc. are more solid and respected. This, however, does seem plainly playable to a good degree.

In the following order: 

Slav-Indian, Kudischewitsch Gambit Accepted

The variation which caught my eye as interesting and playable, at the least.

Slav-Indian, Kudischewitsch Gambit Declined

This is the other side of the gambit, which seems more logical for White and a tougher try against the idea behind the gambit.

Again, this post isn't intended as a game-changer for GM players at top level chess. It is nothing more than a discussion about the strengths and weaknesses behind this interesting Indian Defense appproach. Both these variations seem to to be valued by engines to be between +0,5/+0,8 for White, which corresponds roughly to how the Blumenfeld Countergambit is valued. 

Curious to hear what your thoughts are on both variations. 

imo both are just worse for Black. Also it is not a gambit because Black does not lose a pawn; pawns are merely exchanged on b5

Very true - officially its named a gambit (mainly because the idea used to be to play a6 after which White could take on c6 or on a6, after which Black  recaptures with the knight or with the Bishop depending on the pawn).

What about Slav Indian in general? A decent move order mix... or any obvious flaws?

It doesn't look so bad against 3.Nf3 but what about 3.Nc3?

It's merely a move order. It has no independent value from the regular Slav unless Black does something stupid as the only sensible move will be 3...d5

Against Nc3, the plan with b5 doesnt quite work... You would have to transpose into a Schlecter Slav with d5 and g6. Its solid but believed to be inferior. Other mainline slavs are also possible after Nc3, the Schlecter merely fits the Indian game theme.

Seems like a plan? Although after Qb3 a6 A4 bxa4 White only had equality in my opinion... Could be wrong though...

I agree. I initially thought black's a-pawn might be a little loose but it's not that easy to attack after it advances to a5. Black also has the b4-square to play with.

Paralyzed by Superficial and Grandiose feelings of inadequacy. Just play the d,mn game.

Sorry if that was rude. But the point... maybe we can over analyze? If one goes to the board, trying to remember... if he plays Slav Indian and I reply such and he offers a gambit if I reply such does that leave b4 slightly weak and am I better or just equal... along with dozens of other CPU lines?!

Hello. This may be a little late comment. I just found out this opening. And I made my own setup too, which looks promising for black. It goes...

1. D4 nf6 2.c4 c6 3. Nc3 qc7 (first move that I added) 4. Nf3 E6 (preparing for D4 and transposing to semi slav, just like how Nimzo Indian can transpose to queens gambit declined) 5. Bf4 be7 6. E3 d5 7.be2 O-O 8. O-O nd7.

Our light square bishop can be a problem as where to develop it, but from now we can play it like a semi slav where our bishop comes into the game later. Hope this helps.

Maybe you should've looked this through a bit, before posting.

hey, if you are still there, i did some study on the setup i posted earlier.
it goes,
1. d4 nf6
2. c4 c6 
3. nc3 e6
4. nf3 be7
5. bg5 0-0
6. e3 d5 
7. be2 nd7 
8. 0-0 

after this, u can play it like slav defense again. take on c4. and here there a 2 queens side plans. u can go b5 to hit the bishop (the light squared bishop took back on c4) and play a5 and expand on the queens side. or (the one that i like) you can go b6 then a5 looking to go ba6 and trade off your bad bishop. now again. if they take, now youve solved your problem and can play the middlegame. if they dont, then you just simply leave the bishop there patrolling the whole diagonal. i like this more than the b5 one because this doesnt commit your pawns too forward. you can expand on the queens side whenever you want, and these pawns are solid. i played some games (im thankful that i even got to play this setup at my level, no one plays d4 c4), and i got some good positions. and about the e4 push, i will analyse that too, ill make a lichess study. if you  r seeing this, then thanks.

The problem is that e4 is better for white, and he can play it every move until he goes e3 in your line. Your line also transposes to a not so favourable line in the classical/orthodox QGD. What I don't understand here, is why you just don't play the slav instead of this.

nah, this was just some fun study. you can play the slav too, was just looking at this thing. and im getting good games. and as far as i know, the semi slav is playable. with some good play, you can get good games. the thing is, if white doesnt go e4, then we quickly push d5 and we gain equity. the positon would be 0.0 (if not better for black). thats why i am attracted to this. this can be an alternative to slav, if you dont want to play it traditionally, like d4 d5 c4 c6. if u dont like to play d5 at first then this setup _MAY_ be good. and against e4,u can just play d5 right away (which does transpose to semi slav) and if cxd5 then cxd5 then if e5 then u can simply put ur knight back, develop, castle, and try to chip away slowly at his center. it may be +1 or +2, but yea, u have to play the game from there on.

The thing is that this is a bad version of the semi-slav. And against e4, d5 doesn't transpose to the semi-slav, white usually doesn't have e4 there, and if you're referring to the Marshall gambit, black has time to take on e4 there, because he played d5 before white played e4. In your variation white has time to play e5, which is much worse for black. Now you might say that you don't mind being much worse, but what I don't understand is why you don't just play the slav or semi-slav from the beginning then, since you try to transpose to it all the time. The only reason I can think of to not do it, is if you want to avoid the exchange slav, which isn't much of a problem.

Jbv