hijodeluna - you really are going to tell me that this position is just a draw?
(I'm assuming you meant 6...e6, as otherwise you can't play 7...Bd6).
What to do against the annoying Triangle/Noteboom move order?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Aug 13, 2014
0
#24
Shhhh! He's the son of the moon, it's rude to point it out to him!
Aug 13, 2014
0
#25
And I mentioned the Slav Exchange was drawish, which it is. It's as drawish as the Caro-Kann, and probably even more equal. But it's certainly playable, even for a win.
The biggest problem with choosing a line that equalizes early is everyone stops analysis once black equalizes, so you're out of the book and you better know what you're doing.
Aug 13, 2014
0
#26
One of the great things about the Slav Exchange is that it doesn't reward the "latest theory" so much as the player who understands how to play chess better.
This is the Carlsen effect. Instead of worrying about the latest ultra-sharp variation (as in the Botvinnik for example), reach a playable position that can be interpreted in several different ways, and play chess.
SmyslovFan wrote:
One of the great things about the Slav Exchange is that it doesn't reward the "latest theory" so much as the player who understands how to play chess better.
This is the Carlsen effect. Instead of worrying about the latest ultra-sharp variation (as in the Botvinnik for example), reach a playable position that can be interpreted in several different ways, and play chess.
++
i would suggest focusing on middlegame plans and spend less of your time worrying about correct opening move orders. Just pick something that you like.
Tracking.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Quacking.
White does not have to be afraid of the Noteboom. Look in the databases. E.g.
. That's the Stoltz Variation of the Semi-Slav. A nice move to ponder for the Masters: 6. ...Qc7 
What now? You're asking questions that can not be answered... But Below-Master-Level players had good results with this.
A 2nd thought: you may want to change your attitude about this setup. Take it as interesting and challenging instead of annoying.
why is it called the note boom
Walter_von_Entferndt wrote:
White does not have to be afraid of the Noteboom. Look in the databases. E.g.
. That's the Stoltz Variation of the Semi-Slav. A nice move to ponder for the Masters: 6. ...Qc7 What now? You're asking questions that can not be answered... But Below-Master-Level players had good results with this.
A 2nd thought: you may want to change your attitude about this setup. Take it as interesting and challenging instead of annoying.
4..bd6 and 5..f5, and it' a stonewall with white having played e3. I believe this is the more popular way to play against e3 and how I played when I used the noteboom.
i like playing e4 so i don't have to face the noteboom
Mr. Noteboom is a funny name.
who was Gedault? there is a chess opening called gedault's opening
4.e4 is another approach, but black has 4...dxc4:
5.Nf3 b5 and you're actually in the Noteboom. So if you don't like that, you have to play
5.Bxc4 Nf6 6.Nf3 (6...Be7 7. O-O O-O +-) but then again 6...b5 7.Bd3 a6 =
rowsweep wrote:
why is it called the note boom
Abrahams is asking the same question.
GodIike hat geschrieben:
4..bd6 and 5..f5, and it' a stonewall with white having played e3. I believe this is the more popular way to play against e3 and how I played when I used the noteboom.
Obviously my estimate is completely irrelevant, but I'd never play f5 here because it inherently weakens the e5 square and white says "Thanks a lot for the invitation!"
Walter_von_Entferndt wrote:
GodIike hat geschrieben:
4..bd6 and 5..f5, and it' a stonewall with white having played e3. I believe this is the more popular way to play against e3 and how I played when I used the noteboom.
Obviously my estimate is completely irrelevant, but I'd never play f5 here because it inherently weakens the e5 square and white says "Thanks a lot for the invitation!"
It's actually a very improved version of the stonewall dutch. With no g3 and bg2 played blacks kingside plans often become crushing. I scored heavily with f5, but gave up the triangle because I had to always defend against any white player who knew the noteboom lines decently.
GodIike hat geschrieben:
[...] I scored heavily with f5, but gave up the triangle because I had to always defend against any white player who knew the noteboom lines decently.
I guess Iossif Dorfman would write a ?! behind the 5...f5 after 5.Nf3, too (weak e5 & kingside). There are much sounder ways for black to treat the Slav/Semi-Slav, i.e. 5...Nf6 + 6...Nbd7 (+= no matter what white plays). I'm tempted to say that f5 (f4) is generally a bad move in the opening (except when O-O-O), because it weakens the kingside.
Sep 24, 2014
0
#40
I'm playing a correspondence game against a FM in the line that Pfren is talking about. I agree with Pfren's assessment. It's very difficult for White to prove a practical advantage there, but White's game is more comfortable. I wouldn't recommend it to class players, or to players who must play for the win as Black.
pfren wrote:
"Botvinnik has won a hell of a lot using the exchange Slav as white, and I don't think his opponents were idiots...
Why don't you try learning and absorbing the ideas behind an opening instead of aphoristically rejecting it, or cluelessly praising it?
Factly, my shortest loss ever as Black against 1.d4 was precisely at an exchange Slav."
Is this a comment to me? I never had a problem with going into an exchange Slav, just an inferior version of the exchange Q.G.D. after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. cxd5 exd5.