Slav Question

Probably wouldn't play it either but why not 7... Qb3 8 Nf6+ ef6 9 ab3 Bc2

I don't really see the question, here.  But if it's simply, "is this line bad for black?", the answer is obviously "yes."

Nobody plays 4...Bf5, so it's probably a moot point, but Black isn't without compensation for his pawn in your line.  7 ...Nxd5  8 Qxd5 e6  9 Qb3 Bb4+  10 Bd2 Nc6 and Black is well developed

Alright, time to clear things up a bit.

The reason I've posted this is because I have seen this a lot in live chess on here, and when I checked the statistics in game explorer and they really jumped out.  You can say black's fine, but when white is winning over 65% of the time after 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3, I beg to differ.  I tried looking online for more information on this apparently unsound 4... Bf5, and only found one bit of information that provided the main line above but stopped the variation Nxd5 after just that one move with no explanation on what to follow up with.  Anyways, I looked on another game explorer just now and they give the most common move after 5... Nxd5 as 6. Qb3 anyways (with white winning over 50% of the time).

And please don't argue with the statistics - after 5. cxd5, the percentages are about the same as the Marshall defense.  5... Nxd5 might not be as bad as 5... cxd5, but still, I don't think black wants to play an opening where white is flat out winning 50% of the games.

Probably wouldn't play it either but why not 7... Qb3 8 Nf6+ ef6 9 ab3 Bc2

Maybe develop the dark square bishop, just giving the pawn back and taking over the center with e4 afterwards?  Would that be a good idea?  However if black delays recapture, I'm not sure how I'd deal with it.

I don't really see the question, here.  But if it's simply, "is this line bad for black?", the answer is obviously "yes."

I guess my main questions are mainly how to deal with 5... Nxd5 and why it would be bad for black.

Also, 5...Nxd5 completely gives up the centre and can be met by Nd2 and e4

I'm new on this site.  I actually am not a player but have purchased my carved chess pieces in Istambul. Both my King and Queen have BEARDS.  A friend told me it was the first Gay Chess He ever saw.

WHat do you think?

Thank you for posting.

I see 4...Bf5 on ICC blitz and even at the club blitz when playing weaker players ALL THE TIME!

Many a point has that move given me.

Thanks for all the comments (minus one) everyone!  I see this move ten times more than I see dxc - thanks for the clarification.

I suppose if ChessNetwork approves, then it probably is good, but why does Black have to play 6. ... Qb6 rather than something like 6. ... b6 to block?

If you play against statistics, following them is definitely the way to go.  Against live opponents I've found piece activity is rather often worth more than a pawn.

But the proposition that one cannot argue with statistics is preposterous.  The stats record what's been played, how often, and the results.  But suppose, as has happened continually over the last half-century or more, that popular lines were found to be less effective than long thought.  Whether a White line leads only to equality or a Black defense is refuted, once the innovation is played in a few games and verified to be accurate, the whole line falls into disfavor.  So the result is you may have thousands of games with a strong winning percentage for White, but only a couple with the new defense which equalizes for Black.  The stats will show a huge White advantage where there is in fact none at all.

This phenomenon occurs in many variations to different degrees, depending mainly upon their popularity.  So the statistics represent more of the cumulative fashions, without any way to evaluate which was indeed the most accurate. 

Man, the last thing I wanted to do tonight was argue on the internet, haha.  But here it goes (actually, this response could go so many different ways, arguing on the validity of statistics in general, but I'll try to keep it as specific as possible).

First off, the whole reason I made this topic was because I was seeing 4... Bf5 soooo often in my games, while in everything I've seen on the slav (which isn't a lot, but still) there was NEVER any mention of the move.  I remember seeing the Slav played a ton in the World Championship matches, and I did not remember Bf5 played there either.  Then I go on the internet to look in other places, and I only find one website that actually has something on the move and it essentially says it's a mistake.  They give the variations I posted above, but not much explanation, so I came here to get the explanation (which I pretty much got, thanks everyone again for commenting).

Now I also did what little database "research" I could, but I'm not a premium member on here so I could not see past the move 4... Bf5.  But I could see the statistics on the move, and here it is, according to chess.com - 49.02% white wins, 30.98% draws.  Not only that, but the move was only played in 255 games, compared to over 8000 games with 4... dxc4.

Then I finally became a bit wiser and found another database website that I was able to go even deeper into the moves, but let's start at 4... Bf5.  According to their master database, white only scores a 40% win percentage.  According to you, I'm only going by percentages, right?  So I should have looked at this and said "Wow, maybe this isn't so bad, huh."  Sorry, but your theory that I only care about percentages is completely wrong, because I see that they only have TWENTY games in their master database where 4... Bf5 was played, compared to nearly 4000 games with 4... dxc4.

But I'm not a master, right?  And the people I play aren't masters, so maybe I should not be looking at just master games.  So I turn on their other database filled with even more games, and maybe I can get a better picture on the success of the move.  Out of nearly 1500 games, white is scoring 54.9%.  But you did say that I shouldn't just look at that move - there are other continuations that I guess you assumed I didn't even care to look at, so I guess we are moving on past that.

So now the critical move is 5. cxd5.  I should be looking at this statistic then, correct?  The number is even bigger - 63% now - and it is also the most played move in the position.  And I might as well mention white's winning percentage for 5... cxd5 (a whopping 70%) and 5... Nxd5 (just 50%, and the move I was most curious about).

I really don't get why one cannot trust the statistics for this case, especially considering no one good plays 4... Bf4.  I understand that sometimes statistics aren't the whole story, but for 4... Bf4, when I add in the facts that I had never seen this move played in a high level game, never seen it discussed in a lesson, all main continuations have white winning over 50% of the time, and that the number of times it has been played at master level is so miniscule, I think it is safe to say that 4... Bf4 is definitely not as good as 4... dxc4 (or 4... e6).

P.S.  I hope you didn't think your comment was the one I was referring to when I said "(minus one)" - that was putchkie's comment.

I've got John Cox's "Starting Out: 1.d4!" and this is the reason he gives for the move 4...cxd4 (main line Slav):

"Didn't I just say Black didn't see why he should give up the centre? So what's he doing now? The answer is that he sees his idea to develop the queen's bishop doesn't work at the moment: [4...Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 (5...Nxd5 really does give up the centre for nothing and white is better after, among others, 6.Nd2 followed by e4) 6.Qb3] is very strong since 6...b6 7.e4 dxe4 8Ne5 is just about winning for white, 6...Qb6 7.Nxd5 wins a pawn and 6...Bc8, while forced, clearly isn't what black was after."

I hope this helps you to defeat the move 4...Bf5

I've come across the continuation with 6...b6 a bit and often black will play 8...e6, where white can build up a huge initiative with a combination of his knights and bishops all in great positions to go after the black king.

This game:

http://www.chess.com/games/view.html?id=35014

Although not using the e4 move I normally use to gain time by sacrificing a pawn, this shows the amount of force that white can quickly bring on black's defenseless king. Note that a lot of the pressure comes from the queen and bishop doubled on the a4-e8 diagonal and this will almost always happen when you get this continuation.

In my database 4...Bf5 ?! is played in 1050 games with black winning 230 ( 22% ) , losing 557 ( 53% )  and drawing 263 ( 25% )

clearly this move is inferior to  the 3 most popular, and successful, black moves at move 4 which are : e6 almost 13000 games , dxc4 almost 11000 and a6 with a little more than 3000 games.

Bf5 is bad, but to be honest the "refutations" are quite involved.  Here's where I did my work from: This article answers your question.

It must be black's best option. Let's put it through Shredder:

4. ... Bf5: recommendation: 5. cxd5, value +0.42 (depth 15)

5. cxd5: recommendation: 5. ... Nxd5, but let's try the cxd5 line

5. ... cxd5: recommendation: 6. Qb3, value +0.58 (depth 15)

6. Qb3: recommendation: 6. ... Qb6, value +0.58 (depth 15)

Now 6. ... b6 brings the value to +1.04 (depth 14) after 7. e4, and e.g. 6. ... Qc7 brings the value to +1.03 (depth 14) after 7. Bf4 (... Qxf4 8. Qxb7 wins), so 6. ... Qb6 is indeed black's best option at that point.

Also, read the article mentioned by N-k5 - it's quite thorough.

I see this OTB quite regularly.  My book by Lars Schandorff says 4...Bf5 is too early cxd exd Qb3 is annoying.  The key is to know that and exchange before black plays e6

Wow, thanks for the article - it really does answer my question completely!  How do you people find these kinds of things - I guess I don't use google properly.  Or maybe I should buy a chess book one of these days, haha.

seems like a fine enough line to me :P