So I hate playing against the Mainline Slavs...

...and as a result I've been looking at Slav sidelines. Specifically, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6, I was interested in 4. Nbd2 lines where I build up to play e4 and don't have to worry about any capturing on c4 business from black. This line is also cool because it is playable against both the Slav and the Semi-Slav with the same plan. My problem is this: my opponents could transpose into a Semi-Slav through the Q.G.D. move order- 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 and now I've committed to playing Nc3 so I can't go into the Breyer Slav with Nbd2.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 could be an option, but then A) after 3...Nf6 4. Nc3 c6 we still transpose into a different thing, and B) I like to play the Q.G.D. Exchange, and everyone seems to tell me (and the statistics agree) that white should not play Nf3 until after he plays cxd5 in the Q.D.G. Exchange. Why on earth not? What is wrong with the move order 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. cxd5. Why do masters enjoy the Nc3 lines but not Nf3? At least in the mainline Carlsbad, white does eventually play Nf3, so why do we delay the move if we are playing it anyway? This question is also important because I want to be able to play 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 and still be able to play cxd5 if he plays d5 so as to avoid the Nimzo.

I just don't enjoy playing 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 where I have to play into the dxc4 Alapin lines where I play both a4 (giving black's bishop an amaing home on b4 for a long time) and e3 (blocking in my own bishop). I also don't like 4. e3 because it always leads to really boring games in my opinion where there are no clear plans.

So, in other words, I am looking for a bad transposition-proof non-mainline way of handling the Slav. And also, I want to know what is wrong with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. cxd5 because in the other lines white ends up playing Nf3 anyway. That is all.

Nge2 stuff is supposed to be better than Nf3 in the QG exchange. Anyway I think the Slav exchange is the only way to stop Black from choosing how to play his defence lol. At least that way you could meet the triangle system (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6) by capturing on d5.

TitanCG wrote:

Nge2 stuff is supposed to be better than Nf3 in the QG exchange. Anyway I think the Slav exchange is the only way to stop Black from choosing how to play his defence lol. At least that way you could meet the triangle system (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6) by capturing on d5.

My understanding, based on a video by Varuzhan Akobian, is that both are good because in the Nf3 system, white can play the minority attack while in the Nge2 system, white plays f3 and e4. He says both are good but they just lead to different things.

So what are some options that I have in the way of A) transposition-proof ways of playing against the Slav and B) any alternatives to entering a Nimzo. I know I'm supposed to go into a Catalan but I've been told a million times not to play that opening until I am of a much higher skill because it is a subtle and highly positional sacrifice of a pawn.

Black has very few, if any, problems in that variation (named the Short variation). Actually many white players play 6.Qc2 instead, to avoid that variation. Even 7...Be6 (the Vaganian variation) should be OK for Black, although a tad riskier.

I do not like 6.Qc2, for a reason.

Unfortunately, the above posters are correct about the inferiority of an early Nf3 in the QGD Exchange.  If you want to play 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 you can't play the exchange variation and hope to have any advantage.  If you want any advantage you have to give black more options in the QGD by not playing an early cxd5.  As a result, you need to know how to play against the Lasker, Tartakower, Vienna, etc. That's one of the prices you pay for avoiding the Nimzo (the main other price you pay is in the Benoni).  

To my mind (and I think I think masters' minds as well), the question a 1. d4 player should ask themselves is: Would I rather allow the Nimzo-Indian or allow non-exchange QGD variations?  It's question you really have to answer individually (being a matter of personal taste, style, etc.).  I guess the only other answer to the above question would be none of the above and play the Catalan.

I have had a similar problem with facing the Slav.   I don't much like the main line Dutch Slav (1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. e3 (6.Ne5! is the best move if you don't mind fashionable theory) e6 7. Bxc4 Bb4  8. O-O O-O 9. Qe2 is probably just equal. 

I have experimented with 2 possible solutions. The first variation I have experimented with is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Nh4!?  Some advantages of this are:

1.In the Chesstempo database (my favorite online database because it gives performance ratings in addition to percentages) this move scores rather better than the above 9. Qe2 line.

2. Magnus Carlsen has played 6. Nh4 and 6. Ne5 each 7 times and 6. e3 only twice.  So likely 6. Nh4 has some merit.

3. It also allows you to play your regular line against Semislavs and the Triangle System.

My other suggestion is to avoid the main line Slavs would be to look at the Larry Kaufman repertoire book.  He suggests 1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2!? and also 4. Qb3!? (they often tranpose).  The statistics suggest there is some bite to these moves.  However, Qc2/Qb3 avoid both the main lines of the Slav and Semislav which maybe something you don't desire. I am also not sure of the optimum move order in the Triangle move order (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6), but if memory serves Kaufman considers this.  This variation is probably an option if you are willing to change your variation against both the Slav and Semislav.

Hopefully, my comments are helpful!

I try to play the Catalan at my low rating simply because other players around our rating level probably won't handle the Catalan that well from the black side too.

I do play the Slav exchange variation, and while it is easy equality for black, it's not exactly the "type" of equality many Slav/Semi-Slav players are hoping for. I think this is why I don't face the Slav/Semi-Slav in my games as much as I think I should.

You could try 1.d3

Dale wrote:

You could try 1.d3

I wonder how I never thought of that :)

Also I know in the last few years everyone seems to be playing this 6. Ne5 move in the Alapin, which admittedly looks a lot more fun than e3, but it seems to give black an advantageous-looking piece sacrifice on e4 and black will sac a bishop for four pawns and an initiative. Why do people play that line if black can do something like that?

Because Black has trouble equalizing in that variation.

The current trend in the Slav is 5.a4 e6 : Black agrees to play a Queen's gambit accepted, where white has an extra move in pocket. However, that extra move is a2-a4, which has weakened the queenside (and b4 in particular).

try d4 d5, Nf3 Nf6, c4 c6, Qc2 ...

if black goes naturally e7-e6 there is a lot of choices, maybe not giving advance,but playable and interesting

and you can always try to play b2-b3 with developing bishop at b2, which acts against later c6-c5 and holds d4 and e5 squares.

I want to go back to this topic to ask a question about the Slav from the white side again.

I have been looking into 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2, as suggested several times in this thread, and I have been doing well with it. I often find it transposes into a Semi-Slav after 4...e6 and I like to play 5. Bg5 to try to transpose into a favorable variation where white has developed his bishop outside the pawns without having to gambit c4. I also like the dxc4 and g6 variations.

My question is about the other Semi-Slav move order, with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6. I find this very annoying because it prevents me from playing the setups I want to play against the Semi-Slav. I don't want to play 3. Nf3 because I like the exchange QGD and, as discussed in this thread, it's not accurate to play the exchange QGD with an early Nf3. So what do I do then? One option I was thinking about was 4. Qb3. I want to steer the game into a similar direction to the other Qc2 variations. I have no idea if this move is good or not. It doesn't control the useful diagonal that it controlled in the Qc2 variation, but it does still allow for the bishop to be developed outside the pawn chain without losing the pawn. It seems okay to me but I have never played it, and I want feedback on whether this is playable (I am only U.S.C.F. 1381, but most of my games are against higher-rated players nowadays, i.e. 1400-1600 opponents). Just looking at the game explorer, dxc4 followed by b5-b4 looks a bit grim for white, so I really don't know what to do if I can't play this...Thanks in advance.

5.Bg5 usually is a gambit. Black can capture on c4 and White won't really be able to win it back.

Anyway maybe you should just forget about theory and play some kind of e3 and b3 setup aiming for hanging pawns. This way you avoid the Meran and the Chigorin plans by capturing on c4 with a pawn and just get some kind of pawn structure to play. Black can do a similar thing w/ b6 and although neither plan is popular they are both sound ways to play.

Against the semi-slav I make sure to keep my dark bishop inside the pawn chain. That's because the Botvinnik or Moscow are so full of theory that you'd waste too much time studying them (and still getting smashed should you go against a stronger player).

I think the dark Bishop looks good inside the pawn chain, because it can go to b2 and support e5. e5 is a critical square, so the bishop is doing a job, it's not just looking silly behind its own pawns.

The problem with b2 setups is that I distinctly remember Ben Finegold saying that if white wants to play b3 and Bb2, he should play Nbd2 instead of Nc3 because Nc3 blocks the bishop. Of course, in the Triangle move order, I would have played Nc3 already.