1.d4 c6!

If you are a strong Caro player what have you to lose by trying it on with c6 (especailly if you do not know lots of Slav theory) and hoping for 2.e4 - worst that can happen is that it probably go into a Slav.. 🙂

The question is how many d4 players faced wth c6 would go e4?

One of the main ideas of the Queen Gambit (1d4 2c4) is for White to establish pawns at d4 and e4. As a QG player I would jump at the chance to get that done on move 2 (1d4 2e4).

Originally posted by MontyMoose
One of the main ideas of the Queen Gambit (1d4 2c4) is for White to establish pawns at d4 and e4. As a QG player I would jump at the chance to get that done on move 2 (1d4 2e4).

yes indeed, black should fight from the beginning for the e4 square, to give it away so cheaply!

but its not cheap if you'd rather play a caro than a slav?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes indeed, black should fight from the beginning for the e4 square, to give it away so cheaply!

Since Black can respond with 2. ... d5 and transpose into a Caro Kann, I fail to see the advantage for White here over 2. c4.

Both 2. c4 and 2. e4 are perfectly viable responses, and the choice should come down to a matter of taste and style.

Originally posted by plopzilla
If you are a strong Caro player what have you to lose by trying it on with c6 (especailly if you do not know lots of Slav theory) and hoping for 2.e4 - worst that can happen is that it probably go into a Slav.. 🙂

The question is how many d4 players faced wth c6 would go e4?

If you're happy playing slav and caro I don't see what's wrong with the idea.

Doubt you'll get many caro's though,I think most will continue 2.c4

Originally posted by MontyMoose
One of the main ideas of the Queen Gambit (1d4 2c4) is for White to establish pawns at d4 and e4. As a QG player I would jump at the chance to get that done on move 2 (1d4 2e4).

With this you would be out of a QG and into a Caro Kann Defense.

Other things equal, I would expect a QG player to go for 2. c4 and for a sometime kingpawn player to go for 2. e4, but they are intrinsically equal responses, I think.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Since Black can respond with 2. ... d5 and transpose into a Caro Kann, I fail to see the advantage for White here over 2. c4.

Both 2. c4 and 2. e4 are perfectly viable responses, and the choice should come down to a matter of taste and style.

A lot of pawn moves and may prevent Nf3, but I think this is strong for white:

1.d4 c6
2.e4 d5
3.f3

Originally posted by moon1969
A lot of pawn moves and may prevent Nf3, but I think this is strong for white:

1.d4 c6
2.e4 d5
3.f3

That's the caro-kann fantasy variation

Originally posted by moon1969
A lot of pawn moves and may prevent Nf3, but I think this is strong for white:

1.d4 c6
2.e4 d5
3.f3

That is white's fifth most popular response in the Caro Kann, behind 3. Nc3, 3. exd5, 3. e5, and 3. Nd2.

If white plays 2. c4 and black replies 2. ... d5 for the Queen's Gambit, Slav Defense, then white's 5 most popular responses are 3. Nf3, 3. Nc3, 3. cxd5, 3. e3, with 3. g3 and 3. Bf4 in a virtual tie for fifth most popular.

After 1. d4 c6, we are very much in the mainstream of orthodox chess theory, so no experienced player will be caught out at all. The biggest unique feature of meeting 1. d4 with 1. ... c6 is that it gives white more choice as to how he would like to steer the game. As long as black is OK playing a Slav or a Caro Kann, it should be fine.

I myself have dabbled with 3. f3 in the Caro Kann, simply because there are some good lines in the Blackmar Diemer Gambit where a black pawn on c6 is not black's best option, if the transposition takes us in that direction. I suspect that the move is favored by those who would play the Saemisch against the King's Indian or the Yugoslav Attack or English Attack when facing the Sicilian.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
Since Black can respond with 2. ... d5 and transpose into a Caro Kann, I fail to see the advantage for White here over 2. c4.

Both 2. c4 and 2. e4 are perfectly viable responses, and the choice should come down to a matter of taste and style.

the advantage is that after 1.d4 c6 its easy for white to get e4 in, this is not so with other openings like the Nimzo, where blacks whole strategy is fighting from the very outset for control of e4. Ok, so you let white take the centre, but why let him take it so easily? Its not so much a matter of taste, but one of principle.

"The question is how many d4 players faced wth c6 would go e4?"

My DB of OTB games from this postion.


Total 4,957 games.

2.c4 = 2,292 times
2.Nf3 = 1014 times
2.e4 = 726 times.

Then comes e3, Nc3, Bf4 and g3. and only one, funnily enough, 2.a4.

If 2.e3 go for the Dutch Trap.



on RHP


3078 times

2.c4 = 1270 times
2.e4 = 950 times
2.Nf3 = 448 times

Then comes e3, Bf4 and g3.

One of the short, humerous and instructive mates

Counterpoint - blackmanrook RHP 2006

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the advantage is that after 1.d4 c6 its easy for white to get e4 in, this is not so with other openings like the Nimzo, where blacks whole strategy is fighting from the very outset for control of e4. Ok, so you let white take the centre, but why let him take it so easily? Its not so much a matter of taste, but one of principle.

The point is that 1. d4 c6 2. e4 and 1. e4 c6 2. d4 are exactly the same. To suggest that there is anything special about allowing 2. e4 doesn't make intrinsic sense.

I could easily see a player thinking "I play the Caro Kann against 1. e4 and I play the Slav against 1. d4. Since I score better with the Caro Kann, I'll just play 1. c6 against 1. d4 and maybe I'll get lucky and a few queenpawn players will transpose into it". Of course, if they score better with the Slav, I would expect them to play 1. ... d5 to avoid the Caro Kann.

On the flip side, this would be more work for a potential queenpawn player. After 1. d4 c6 2. c4 d5 we have a typical Slav. However, if the white player wants to play 2. e4, they have to learn all the Caro Kann theory in addition to QG Slav theory. That's fine if they have more fun doing that, it's great, but it is more work.

This is an old idea as a black repertoire book- I think GM Soltis used this idea in one of his "Defensive Sytem for the Rest of your Career" books or something like that.

As long as you play the Slav and the Caro Kann as black, 1. ... c6 is fine. White's 2. e4 response is merely a normal transposition to the Caro Kann at move two, and hardly a refutation of anything. Black plays 2. ... d5 and the game goes on, or he can slip into a Modern with 2. ... g6, and the game goes on anyway!

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
The point is that 1. d4 c6 2. e4 and 1. e4 c6 2. d4 are exactly the same. To suggest that there is anything special about allowing 2. e4 doesn't make intrinsic sense.

I could easily see a player thinking "I play the Caro Kann against 1. e4 and I play the Slav against 1. d4. Since I score better with the Caro Kann, I'll just play 1. c6 against 1. d4 ...[text shortened]... ame goes on, or he can slip into a Modern with 2. ... g6, and the game goes on anyway!

no one is claiming that its a refutation of anything Leggy me old son, the fact of the matter is, that after 1.d4 Nf6, black is saying that white, if he wants to play e4, he will need to fight for it, this is simply not the case after 1.d4 c6, where white says says thank you for the invite, we play the Caro Khan. The only reason that I can see for this is an element of surprise for its not every 1.d4 players that wants to enter something that has a reputation for being quite quite but in actual fact can become quite sharp. My concern is not over the move order, for as you correctly state, its simply a transposition, but one of principle.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one is claiming that its a refutation of anything Leggy me old son, the fact of the matter is, that after 1.d4 Nf6, black is saying that white, if he wants to play e4, he will need to fight for it, this is simply not the case after 1.d4 c6, where white says says thank you for the invite, we play the Caro Khan. The only reason that I can see for t ...[text shortened]... er the move order, for as you correctly state, its simply a transposition, but one of principle.

1.d4, c6 is not any more unprincipled than the caro-kann itself unless you can show a specific line that capitalizes on the unsoundness and doesn't transpose to either the slav or caro-kann.

Yes, 1.d4, c6 gives up e4 but 1.e4, c6 gives up d4, its the same thing and they reach the same position after 2.e4 or 2.d4 respectively.