Slav: Positional, quiet and solid response to 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3

Not really, what level is that?

Here's my opinion:

3...dxc4 is not usually boring, but leads to positions similar to those arising from 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e3 b5 and 5. e4 b5. You probably have these in your repertoire, so 3...dxc4 should be considered because its structure is similar to those from other lines you already should (or will need to) know.

4...g6 is good and quiet, but after 5. Nf3 Bg7 6. Be2 (6. Bd3 is something you'd have to prepare for too) 6...0-0 7. 0-0 Black is again at a crossroads. The positions are generally somewhat slower, so you might like this, but you will have to prepare this line well.

4...a6 is probably good for you if you intend to follow it with 5...Bf5 or 5...Bg5. If so, the purpose of 4...a6 is to allow Ra7 in response to Qb3. This lets Black develop normally, although his rook is a bit misplaced sometimes. 4...a6 leads to positions similar to what you know and is generally not extremely tactical.

In response to the OP - It's not a bad thing to play 4...e6.  You avoid the Anti-meran lines with 5.Bg5, so now you are looking at Meran or Anti-Meran Lines via 6.Qc2.

Just because you play one opening doesn't mean you should shut the door on other openings if those other openings are limited variations that don't give you a major problem.

In my case, as a Grunfeld and Dutch player, I sometimes get a KID, but only the Fianchetto variations.  Still don't have to deal with the Classical, Four Pawns, etc.

Because it's not his choice.  He can't make White play 3.cxd5.  The O.P. is playing this as Black, not White!

Pellik and SJFG gave good answers. You already have 1.d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e3 and 5. e4 in your repertoire. So although the Schlecter meets your criteria, you really do not avoid very much by learning it.

WOW You like playing the KID as black against a Catalan/ Fainchetteo Variation?

That is surpising what line do you play with the KID?

I am a KID player myself but I have recently been playing a Gruenfeld vs Fianchetteo Variations.

Well that sucks lol. I guess I will have to stick with KID and Gruenfeld against 1.d4

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1028335

Is black's ideal game in the Bd3 line of the Schlecter, and show's Smyslov's typical plan preparing e5. If looked at his games, could find his preferred approach against Be2. He played c6 in many Grunfeld type positions, but was just about the only world class player to do so.

Thank you for that. Yeah I asked a online friend of mine as well since he plays the slav/semi-slav rather extensively like its his main line weapon. An I was asking him about this variation. Funny thing is lol I have talked some smack to him before about the slav. He use to hate on my Kings Indian Attack line. An I use to hate on his Slav line lol. Use to tell him when ever I felt like getting good night rest I would load up one of his game on a PGN and it help me sleep at night with all the boring play lol.

However, I love fianchetteo lines. Have soft spot for them lol so when I saw this line have one. I did ask him for some advice. He went off laughing and trash talking. Saying stuff like finally you have seen the light lol.

He told me Gata Kamsky played this line. So hopefully I will try and check out Smyslov's games and Kamsky games to see how it goes. The only draw back would be if white doesn't play 4.e3.

He told me that they have other options their. So I guess I would need something esle against 4.e3. My friend told me that he heard from other players the Schlecter wasn't that great against some lines white plays.

Are you sure that Smyslov  played c6 in many Grunfeld positions, but was the only world class player to do so? He was not the only one to play 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 c6. He played a true Schlecter against Kasparov once, but that is about it.

Thank you to all who have taken the time to answer my thread.

It’s been two months now. I have experienced every single move but I am still undecided…

I am not sure if 3…dxc4 can really be described as “positional, quiet, solid, slow, boring and strategic”. I’m also not sure if this move is really that strong from an objective point of view.

On the other hand the Chebanenko 4…a6 looks like it’s safe and solid, exactly what I am looking for. But I think that it would make more sense to play 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 a6 only if I also play 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 a6, but unfortunately this isn’t the case since I play 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4.

Many people have been suggesting me to play the Schlechter 4...g6. And it does seem to be very safe, quiet, positional and solid. But I believe there are two problems with the Schlechlter:

Firstly, I believe that the main good thing about the Schlechlter is that we can play it both against 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 and against 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3, and both of these will transpose anyways. We get one defense against both of these move orders. But the problem is that against 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 I play 4...Bf5, not 4…g6.

Secondly, the Schlechlter is not exactly a Slav. It’s a hybrid between a Slav and a Grünfeld. It’s a mongrel essentially. And I don’t want anything to do with the Grünfeld (I will never play this opening because it’s extremely tactical and aggressive), I want to stay in pure Slav territory.

So I believe that the Schlechlter may not be a good idea for me.

Also I said in my first post this: “Obviously I would have wanted to play 4...Bf5 but it’s not possible except if I want to gambit a Pawn which I do not want to do.”

But after thinking about it for a long time I believe that 4…Bf5 might actually be a good idea for me.

40% of the time White will just play 5. Nf3 which just transposes into 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bf5 5. Nc3.

10% of the time White will just play 5. Bd3 Bxd3 6. Qxd3 e6 7. Nf3 which just transposes into 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bf5 5. Nc3 e6 6. Bd3 Bxd3 7. Qxd3.

10% of the time White will play 5. Qb3 Qb6 which is very weak and offers White no advantage at all.

40% of the time White will enter into the gambit 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 Nc6 7. Qxb7 Bd7 which should be perfectly OK for Black. If I am not mistaken, objectively speaking White’s advantage in this gambit is not bigger than his usual first move advantage.

So half the time White will just transpose into 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 Bf5 which is exactly what I want as Black! It seems very economical and cost-effective for my repertoire.

The only thing that would really cause me some problems is 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 Nc6 7. Qxb7 Bd7. Because just like I said in my first post I am looking for something “positional, quiet, solid, slow, boring and strategic” (i.e. not sharp and tactical). But this gambit seems to be exactly the contrary of what I am looking for: it appears to be wild, chaotic, tactical and aggressive.

I’m not really sure if it’s worth it or not…

Yes it is worth it. You need to have tactical lines in your repertoire. You can't avoid them, and a stated goal of avoiding tactics is, in my mind, really illogical from an improvement perspective. And the tactics after Qxb7 work out fine for you and all you need to do is memorize a few things.

Schlechter is hyper solid opening, watch Kamsky's games.

With this move order, u avoided Bf4's annoying system as some pointed it out, so it's perfeclty fine and suits to your style.

Boring is a matter of perspective. I personally find good positional chess beautiful to look at and sacrificial kingside attacks often boring.