Actually the line you've posted has gained some attention in the past few years - it gives a position that ends up being fairly similar to the Noteboom.
Slav: Timing of Black's dxc4
Sort:
interesting. But is it a worse version of the noteboom? White now has a knight rather than a DSB. However blackhasnt yet got in the move Bb7.
Interested to hear peoples thoughts of this line.
Avrukh seems to believe the abscence of the dark square bishop is favourable for white and that he should simply play c5 and try to plant a knight on d6 in this neo-noteboom line. Still, its a very interesting idea i may try in some games.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 dxc4 is called the Rausis. Compare it with the Queen's Gambit Accepted 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nf3 where Black would not play 3...c6. After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 now 4...dxc4 is good because the White knight has been wrong-footed in moving from b1 to c3. You might make note also of the line 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 dxc4 which is strong for Black and slightly in error for White. Next comes 4 a4 and Black hits the center with 4...e5!
I spent a while trying to figure out why the variation in corsair's post is dubious while the noteboom is fairly well regarded.
The reason simply seems that black is down a few tempi. No bishop on b7 and his pawn no longer comes to b4 while attacking whites bishop with gain of time. This seem enough to make blacks position quite difficult to deal with.
However, it seems like it may be a very strong surprise weapon.
AssauIt wrote:
I spent a while trying to figure out why the variation in corsair's post is dubious while the noteboom is fairly well regarded.
It's because White's N is better on d2 than exchanged for Black's KB. In the final position White can play c4-c5 and Nd2-c4-d6 which is a significant achievement. Black still has play of course but his position is more difficult than the standard Noteboom. (I've played both)
ghostofmaroczy wrote:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 dxc4 is called the Rausis. Compare it with the Queen's Gambit Accepted 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nf3 where Black would not play 3...c6. After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 now 4...dxc4 is good because the White knight has been wrong-footed in moving from b1 to c3. You might make note also of the line 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 dxc4 which is strong for Black and slightly in error for White. Next comes 4 a4 and Black hits the center with 4...e5!
4.a4 is the move with Nf3 and Nf6 thrown in, so it's an understandable error to make. If White ends up in that position he's better off playing 4.e4 and allowing Black to play ..b5. This similiar to the Geller Gambit 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4!? b5 6.e5 which is dynamic but in modern practice not considered very good for White.
But white can use a very similar plan in the noteboom, c5 Bb5 qa4 and usually something like ne5-c4-d6 right?
So whats the main difference other than the tempi? does white usually stack both his knights up on d6, or?
AssauIt wrote:
But white can use a very similar plan in the noteboom, c5 Bb5 qa4 and usually something like ne5-c4-d6 right?
So whats the main difference other than the tempi? does white usually stack both his knights up on d6, or?
No- In the Noteboom Black has exchanged his KB for one of White's Ns, here, both dark square bishops are exchanged. This makes a big difference.
GreenCastleBlock wrote:
AssauIt wrote:
But white can use a very similar plan in the noteboom, c5 Bb5 qa4 and usually something like ne5-c4-d6 right?
So whats the main difference other than the tempi? does white usually stack both his knights up on d6, or?
No- In the Noteboom Black has exchanged his KB for one of White's Ns, here, both dark square bishops are exchanged. This makes a big difference.
That much is obvious, But why?
After the standard sequence of moves
1.d4 d5
2.c4 c6
3.Nf3
giving:
Why does Black so rarely play dxc4, but after the natural continuation 3... Nf6 4.Nc3 (which appear to cancel each other out in the centre), it suddenly becomes a main move?