I prefer 3.c5 easier to play with Nc6, Bg4(to pin knight on f3) e6 etc. Never worried about dxc5 as that splits white’s pawn structure and black has targets on e5 and c5. Another advantage of playing c5 is if dxc5 doesn’t happen black always has Qb6 which can be very annoying to deal with for white as it simultaneously attacks the center and hits b2
Although if u play 3.c5 u do need to consider moves like f4 after dxc5 where you need to know what you are doing
indeed. As a 1. d4 player, on both sides, I have never considered the CK as analogueous to the QGD Semi-Slav. Dunno why. Maybe because I've never considered playing the line vs the QGD. AND I've played the Caro•Kann for 20ish years. GM Mednis made a good point for "sister openings" but I quizzically disagree. Practically, it's easier for me to not study any Semi-Slav stuff in relation to my CK games.Semi-Open to being compared to Semi-Closed Openings does NOT ring true to me. I learned more about the Caro•Kann studying it as a totally separate Opening.
Study QGD stuff if you want to learn if you should play the Semi-Slav. Don't try to incorporate ideas from it in order to play the CK better. They are inherently totally different openings. If anything, studying players who play the Caro•Kann is far better than trying to clean certain motifs from the Semi-Slav.
ylblai2 wrote:
After 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5, two common continuations are 3 ... Bf5 and 3 ...c5. I am no expert, but my impression is that neither of the resulting positions are very close to typical Semi-Slav stuff.
Was wondering how effective the Soultanbeieff variation of the Slav is...I did a forum search and found a thread [which I was not looking for] from 7 years ago...is that variation not popular or played today.