I THINK YOU CAN GO FOR BUDAPEST DEFENCE
Solid against d4
Sort:
BoardOfWar wrote:
For some reason it won't let me include the diagram in the quote but I like that QGD variation with the queenside fianchetto. Interesting.
The whole thread is interesting. I've settled into using the QGD here early on against 1. d4 and there's a ton of learning to be done here.
The "QGD with a Queenside fianchetto" has a name: The Tartakower Defence.
It is one of the most ambitious lines for Black in the QGD. Most of the Tartakower lines are a very subtle study on a specific pawn formation: that of the "hanging pawns" (Black pawns on the c and d files, when white has both these file pawnless).
IMO those lines are one of the most significant chapters in positional play- how Black can benefit from his pawn duo, mainly with a timely d5-d4 advance, and how white can utilize his open lines with a timely break (mainly e3-e4) to leave Black with a weak c or d pawn.
But, the resolution of these lines is not a matter of opening moves, but rather a sound and consistent middlegame strategy.
Stavros_34 wrote:
Well, you can start with a QGD, if white goes for Catalan 3.g3 and you don't want to accept the open Catalan dxc4 then it's better to transpose to a modern Stonewall because is much more solid pawn structure and not allows easy game for white to support the critical e4 move which usual do in closed Catalan. If white don't goes for Catalan and simple develops his Knights on c3 and f3 or Bf4 then you can use more ideas : c5 Tarrasch, transpose to a Nimzo Bb4 or Be7.
The problem with starting solid defenses against d4 is that usual loses or draws. It's better to start agressive and solidify after the seven to ten moves : Gruenfeld or Leningrad Dutch.
Bullcrap.
As a matter of fact, I have stopped playing the Catalan at Correspondence Chess, because I could not eek even the tiniest of advantages against correct Black play.
ANY solid "drawish" opening has superb winning chances, as long as you are familiar with the resulting tabiyas.
Stavros_34 wrote:
Even now we are talking, the closed Catalan scores 65% for white against QCD.
1. Stats mean nothing. At all.
2. Right now, I have a problem as white with several Catalan lines, including the very simple, naive one of a "triangle" formation: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 c6 5.Bg2 Bd6 6.0-0 Nbd7 (...or 6...0-0) 7.Nfd2!?- Sviaginsev's finesse, which is advocated as a "refutation" by some, e.g. Bologan.
IMO Black has a very decent game with a pawn sac, even in this relatively nonambitious line.
Won't disclose more details- I do need some personal material for my lab, which I do not intend offering free of charge- after all, I have made a lot of personal work to get it.
pfren wrote:
Stavros_34 wrote:
Well, you can start with a QGD, if white goes for Catalan 3.g3 and you don't want to accept the open Catalan dxc4 then it's better to transpose to a modern Stonewall because is much more solid pawn structure and not allows easy game for white to support the critical e4 move which usual do in closed Catalan. If white don't goes for Catalan and simple develops his Knights on c3 and f3 or Bf4 then you can use more ideas : c5 Tarrasch, transpose to a Nimzo Bb4 or Be7.
The problem with starting solid defenses against d4 is that usual loses or draws. It's better to start agressive and solidify after the seven to ten moves : Gruenfeld or Leningrad Dutch.
Bullcrap.
As a matter of fact, I have stopped playing the Catalan at Correspondence Chess, because I could not eek even the tiniest of advantages against correct Black play.
ANY solid "drawish" opening has superb winning chances, as long as you are familiar with the resulting tabiyas.
Absolutely. It seems so many players don't realize this 
Well, maybe all IMs know it.
I was told to fear the Neg2 f3 plan shown here:
So was told to play this way:
Any opinions on this?
hi gentlemen,please can someone show the relatively "best"white continuation after black's ..3 Be7?thank you
@Apotek
Usually it goes into the standard QGD. It's just a move order finesse that's not allowing the early plan as in the Kasparov game I posted.
Olympian256 wrote:
Yes , you have to fear this if you play against Kasparov.If not , you have nothing to fear.The following game is a typical example of how Black must play to destroy the hanging pawns created after white's e4.
Seems difficult to use as a model game when it appears white lost due to not seeing the tactics.
so a)is it safe to say that by playing ..3 Be7 black effectively forces white to abandon ideas of Ne2? and b)what if white tries the logical 4 e4?
Apotek wrote:
so a)is it safe to say that by playing ..3 Be7 black effectively forces white to abandon ideas of Ne2? and b)what if white tries the logical 4 e4?
I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just the early f3-e4 idea still seems quite good to me.
I've seen 4.e4 a few times in blitz games. It seems like a somewhat worse version of some kind of french defense because c4 is diminishing white's bishop. I don't think black is better, I just think it's harmless.
I treat it like a french, develop and push c5.
thx for your answer leiph!and olympian!
Olympian256 wrote:
leiph18 wrote:
Olympian256 wrote:
Yes , you have to fear this if you play against Kasparov.If not , you have nothing to fear.The following game is a typical example of how Black must play to destroy the hanging pawns created after white's e4.
Seems difficult to use as a model game when it appears white lost due to not seeing the tactics.
Don't expect tolearn hanging pawns from one game.That was only an example.
Tactics are usually the result of superior positionally positions.There are a quite a lot strategic lessons in this game if you study it carefully.For example, the well timed 15...c5 forcing white to abandon his strong centre and the way Black exploited White's various weakneses after that is quite instructive.Black is clearly better on move 20 before any tactics begin.
It's not the first time I've seen hanging pawns 
I play Tartakower QG and get them often enough.
A well timed pawn push (for either side) is the idea for many positions like this, sure. It's just white collapsed so quickly...
Ok, I guess I was wrong in the sense that it's a good introductory model game.
It's also true (well, at least IMO) that you shouldn't fear playable positions. You should analyze them and try to learn something instead. Maybe I was violating my own rule there.
Olympian256 wrote:
Black is clearly better on move 20 before any tactics begin.
And yes, that's what I meant, that white underestimated the latent tactics in the position on move 15. Players that good can calculate quite far / have good intuition for danger. I'm guessing white thought he was getting the better of it until he suddenly realized he was worse.
Is the book that bad? I have great respect for Roman as a player and teacher so that amazes me that a theoretician as known as him could be so wrong in analysis
lolurspammed wrote:
Is the book that bad? I have great respect for Roman as a player and teacher so that amazes me that a theoretician as known as him could be so wrong in analysis
Personally I do not have much respect for anyone that hides the garbage under the carpet. Dzindzi is most certainly one of them. He has repated that very same "strategy" so many times, that you can't assume it was coincidencial.
So his lectures aren't informative? I've watched some of them, I just gave him credibility due to being a strong player and multi time US Champion
lolurspammed wrote:
Is the book that bad? I have great respect for Roman as a player and teacher so that amazes me that a theoretician as known as him could be so wrong in analysis
It's bad. Too many holes in the analysis, too many pictures and advertisements, and not convincing at all. The first two chapters alone were enough to make me dislike the book, and that was before I started with the analysis. I especially love how they state that they "are conscious of your time constraints" and yet waste your time with 4 chapters and roughly 50 pages of rambling, self-indulgent talk, and unneeded explainations, both of the book and of every defense to e4 (yes, even those completely unrelated to their opening choices), as well as a chart detailing the tendency of major players through the ages to care about material. The analysis itself is bad, ignoring or dulling down many sidelines while not giving enough explaination for many of the moves that they do explain. It doesn't help that there are about 3 diagrams per page, and to top it off they often repeat text in boxes to try to get the point across, yet all it does is confuse the reader further due to bad placement . I won't go into the flaws of the analysis itself, because people like pfren can do it better, and I'm wasting enough time as it is just looking through the book to pick at the problems. Buying it is a waste of money.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Well, maybe the second edition is much better- who knows?
I do not have a high opinion about Alburt's or Dzindzi's work, but Perelshteyn has issued quite a few good analytical works, mainly on the King's Indian- his analysis on the Classical ...Na6 variations and the Modern (Grivas) Saemisch (a Saemisch Byrne without a fast ...0-0 by Black) are fine, as far as I am concerned.
Maybe the second edition is a good book, but right now I am short of cash, and can't afford bying a book which might prove being a lemon.
A book I can recommend wholeheartedly is Matthew Sadler's book on the QGD. It is an old book, yet a real classic, most probably the second best opening book ever published- right after the Nimzo book by Glicka (which is more than thirty years old, but still the BEST Nimzo book money can buy - right now secondhand, as nobody cared ro republish). It is really simple: These books are "outdated", yet they do explain the strategical layout of the resulting positons, in a way that is extremely useful both to amateurs, and pros.