Why does GM like Slav but not Caro Kann?

GM Malakhov says he decided on a6 Slav. I wondered why no mention of Caro Kann, since it seems similar. Is Caro Kann a lot different, or are the similarities only superficial?

http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/09/vladimir-malakhov-chess-player-nuclear-physicist/

This is a common chess-equivalent to an "Old Wive's Tale".  Amateurs are misguided into believing that the Caro-Kann and Slav are similar, along with the French and QGD, King's Indian and Pirc, etc.

Well, quite frankly, none of those pairs are similar.  For example, if you are a French player, I would recommend the King's Indian Defense.  Why, you say?  Because they both lead to frequent instances of what is known as a "Blocked Center".  Both openings deal with pawn chains, attacking on the wing, attacking the base of the pawn chain, etc.  Those that play the closed Ruy Lopez ought to play the Orthodox QGD.  Both deal with pawn levers and strongpoints.  Both are also very positional in nature.  If I had to compare the Pirc to a Queen Pawn Opening, it wouldn't be the King's Indian.  Think about the nature of the Pirc.  Semi-Open, highly tactical.  Yet, at the same time, not erratic like say, the Lativan.  What QP opening fits this description?  Probably the Grunfeld would be the closest (King's Indian leads to a blocked center, Leningrad Dutch is a tad too eratic.

So this ought to explain why the Slav and Caro-Kann are, in reality, not similar.  They both feature a pawn on c6 and another on d5.  Beyond that, they are two completely different openings.

Thats a good answer. I think it would be interesting to see a list of openings that paired up in that fashion.

Often the slav features ...dxc and white plays e4 and you have black's queenside vs white's center.  In a semi slav the light square bishop doesn't get out like in the caro.

But there are similarities (in as little as we can talk about a position using only half the board).  Both structures aim for a e5 or c5 break to free the position.

Positions are different.  Slav usually does an early ...Bf5, but this is not necessarily so in the Caro-Kann.  Moves like ...a6 make sense in the Slav, but are rarely played the Caro-Kann.  Part of this is because the ...dxc4 + ...b5 grab and pawn and hang on idea is not present in the Caro-Kann.

Doesn't GM Soltis suggest some similarity between CK/Slav in his books? He suggests a system for black based around c6 and d5. Is that system not quite the same as saying the CK and Slav are similar?

If you're playing c6 and d5 as part of a system (same moves against anything white does) then he's probably recommending something more like a semi Slav.  The Slav has some of the most theoretical lines of any chess opening and is the exact opposite of a system.

But really, it's silly to talk about a position only looking at half the board.  It's also silly to talk about a position with only two moves played.  When you combine this there's really not a lot to say.

Yes and no.  

GM Soltis did write the wonderful book "Pawn Structure Chess," which discusses many general ideas behind various openings.  In that book though, GM Soltis separates his discussion of the CK and the Slav into two separate chapters.  Again, the availability of dxc4 in the Slav but not in the CK makes the two openings different.

The answer given by gundamv about Soltis's book is spot on.  The fact is, Vladimir Malakhov pairs the Slav with the Accelerated Dragon as his king's pawn defense.  (Please note there is some confusing terminology in the chessintranslation article about "Accelerated Dragon" and "Classical" Dragon. The article uses "Accelerated Dragon" for 2...g6 which I know as Hyper-Accelerated Dragon.  When I say "Accelerated Dragon" I mean 2...Nc6.)  My supposition is that the Accelerated Dragon is his "first love" and then when he seeks out a queen's pawn defense, he finds the Slav to be nice and solid.  If one was expecting the Grunfeld to be paired with the Accelerated Dragon, perhaps Malakhov finds the Grunfeld too risky.

Actually its not so spot on at all because Gundamv mixed up and is talking about the wrong soltis book. Soltis wrote another book called

"black defensive system for the rest of your chess career"

which recommends Caro Kann and Slav. Very similar play against both 1.e4 and 1.d4 and against pretty much anything else. against both systems you end up in quite similar positions if i remember right

tigergutt, I have the 1995 edition of Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis.  Chapter 1: The Caro-Slav Family discusses the Caro.  Chapter 2: The Slav Formation discusses the Slav.  The answer by gundamv was spot on.

gumdamvs response was to rtr1129s comment about soltis recommending a system with c6 and d5 against everything in one of his books. this book is

"black defensive system for the rest of your career"

he claims quite similar play against both 1.e4 and 1.d4 but gundamvs comment make it seem like he claim opposite because of another book which look closer at the difference on having pawn or c6 or e6 . btw i have the pawnstructure from 1995 myself and its a good one but its not the topic of discussion:) 

rtr1129 said, "Doesn't Soltis suggest some similarity between CK/Slav in his books?"

Soltis mentions similarity between CK and Slav often.  Soltis mentions the similarity between CK and Slav in Pawn Structure Chess.  gundamv is spot on.

tigergutt, your reading of rtr1129's post was wrong.  tigergutt, your criticism of gundamv was unfounded.

im not sure why you highlighted "one of his books" in this sentence as if it was wrong. are you saying there is more than one book he wrote that gives a system with c6 and d5 against everything? soltis panwstructurebook doesnt i can tell you. 

your last post was the complete opposite of gumdamvs post. he stressed that the two openings was so different they was separated into different chapters in the pawnstructurebook and never mentioned anything about similarites

It is legitimate for gundamv to respond to that sentence by mentioning Pawn Structure Chess.  The fact that gundamv said "Yes and no" obviously means I have made my own life difficult by complementing gundamv.  

tigergutt, your contribution of mentioning "Black Defensive System..." is a good one.  gundamv's contribution is a good one.  And I feel that my discussion of Vladimir Malakhov's repertoire is a good contribution.  I might just go away happy.

OK, tigergutt, you and the original poster were on the same page.  Brilliant.

My personal view is that Soltis causes problems by comparing the Caro-Kann and Slav when they aren't similar.  

Another essential point here is that often the 1 e4 defense is the crucial one while the 1 d4 defense comes along for the ride.  Regarding Vladimir Malakhov, the discussion begins with the Accelerated Dragon.

rtr1129, look into the repertoire of Viktor Bologan: Caro-Kann and Chebanenko Slav are included.

Some players find a comfort zone in playing ...c6 and ...d5 systematically (Bologan and Shankland have been mentioned).  However, the Caro-Kann and Slav are not related systems.  That is, unless you can sneak this transposition:

Caro-Kann Panov

Slav Exchange

There's more to any opening than merely the placement of one's own pawns, and a pairing that may make sense to one player may well be somewhat off-putting to another.

Take the King's Indian defense.

To somebody who likes games that feature interlocking pawn chains in the center of the board, and the strategies that revolve around those, the French defense makes sense as a counterpart, as has already been mentioned.

To somebody who likes games that feature a dark-square defense, and the similarity of the targets in the opponent's camp that different dark square defenses tend to have in common, the Accelerated Dragon may make more sense than the light-square French, because tactics and piece placements aren't going to be as thematically connected in the French.  A recent thread highlighted GM Malakhov's preference for this pairing.  I think Perelshteyn plays like this too.

To somebody who likes the tendency of the KID to evolve into a direct counterattack on the opponent's king, certain Sicilians such as Najdorfs or d6 Dragons may make sense as a counterpart.  Kasparov springs to mind.

To a Petrosian who liked playing with the solid kingside structure and defensive resources of the KID, it made sense to pair it with the Caro-Kann frequently.  Though Petrosian's repertoire was very diverse, of course, those two defenses featured prominently during his WC tenure.

To a player who likes the idea that extremely similar positions can arise from extremely different openings, and the secondary idea that deep knowledge of those positions can give you a better shot at high-level understanding of the differences and similarities (and thus perhaps a small edge over your opponent), the Breyer Lopez may be a good pairing.  See: Radjabov.

The point is, it's very reasonable to find similarities that you want to highlight in two different defenses, and the fact that Soltis chose to do so with the Caro and Slav doesn't make him "right" or "wrong," just outspoken in his opinion.  There are plenty of similarities between these two defenses.  They aren't universal, but you might choose to agree.  Or you may dissent.  It's a lovely game that way.