You get a "londony/Colle/trompowsky" sorta thingy with the knight, and c-pawn on more active squares.
The QGD Steinitz variation (Bf4): why?
Sort:
But white gives up the useful Bg5. Surely this trade for Bf4 must have a specific reason. Can't imagine Steinitz and others who played this and these days masters who re-popularized this, merely to play a "londony/Colle/trompowsky" sorta thingy".
Machariel wrote:
But white gives up the useful Bg5. Surely this trade for Bf4 must have a specific reason. Can't imagine Steinitz and others who played this and these days masters who re-popularized this, merely to play a "londony/Colle/trompowsky" sorta thingy".
What exactly is so "useful" about the g5 pin?
Black can completely ignore the pin, and play a variety of moves like:
...Bb4
...Nc6
...Nbd7
...dc4
....Bd6
Why should you react to your opponent? Make your opponent react to you!
That's not the main point. An exploration of the usefulness of Bg5 would deflect from the actual question. Let's pretend it's entirely not useful. I simply find it hard to believe that they just want a Londony game,
And now everyone is going to steal my term "londony"
The bishop is more active on f4.
Machariel wrote:
That's not the main point. An exploration of the usefulness of Bg5 would deflect from the actual question. Let's pretend it's entirely not useful. I simply find it hard to believe that they just want a Londony game,
It's quite natural to compare with Bg5 - you even did that yourself in the first sentence of your original post. Basically both have the same idea: developping the bishop outside of the pawn chain. Usually white does not want to play e3 in the classical queens gambit before that bishop is out. Therefore 4. Bg5, 4. Bf4 and 4. Nf3 are probably the three most natural moves in that position.
Machariel wrote:
That's not the main point. An exploration of the usefulness of Bg5 would deflect from the actual question. Let's pretend it's entirely not useful. I simply find it hard to believe that they just want a Londony game,
One of the most basic points is with Bf4 systems you're denying black some of the typical simplifying piece-trade manoeuvres such as ...Nf6-e4, and ...dxc4 and ...Nd5 etc. So essentially with Bf4 you’re trying to keep the main pluses without giving Black a chance to resolve things.
Nothing wrong with Bg5 though, it will continue to be played at high levels, but don’t expect too many super GM games to be ending with a kingside attack for white 
JamesColeman wrote:
Machariel wrote:
That's not the main point. An exploration of the usefulness of Bg5 would deflect from the actual question. Let's pretend it's entirely not useful. I simply find it hard to believe that they just want a Londony game,
One of the most basic points is with Bf4 systems you're denying black some of the typical simplifying piece-trade manoeuvres such as ...Nf6-e4, and ...dxc4 and ...Nd5 etc. So essentially with Bf4 you’re trying to keep the main pluses without giving Black a chance to resolve things.
Nothing wrong with Bg5 though, it will continue to be played at high levels, but don’t expect too many super GM games to be ending with a kingside attack for white
Ah yes, I've seen those exchanges a few times. Where black can take (back) with Ne4, forcing white to trade of the bishops first and either trade or wait for black to trade of the black Knight for whatever. Makes sense to me. Thanks.
First the moves then question:
So white omits the pin on the Knight and plays Bf4 instead.
Why? What problem (if any) does Bf4 solve? Or otherwise, what does it do there? And doesn't it take away some options for a king-side attack (such as the Capablanca attack).?
All in all, questions questions.