Hi everyone,
I'm trying to form my repertoire against 1.d4, and I've narrowed my choices to the Slav and the QGA. I've played each for several weeks in 10-20 minute internet games to get a feel for the positions, and I'm still in a quandry as to which opening to commit to long term.
One of the attractions of the Slav for me is that it is also a strong set up against the Reti and English. I also like the positions when I look through books on the Slav (I have Sadler, Burgess, and Flear). However, in actual games, I find that White has a powerful initiative that continues well into the middlegame. It also seems that out-of-book moves for White can be awfully strong. I feel like I have to defend precisely for 20-30 moves just to get a whiff of counterplay. I'm sure that with added experience and study I would gain a deeper understanding of the opening, but I've been disappointed thus far with my Slav games, as the opening seems passive and cramped.
In my experiences with the QGA, it seems that Black has more immediate chances to take over the initiative after an inaccurate move by White, at least in the games I've played thus far. (I have Rizzitano's new repertoire book based on the QGA). However, the 3.e4 lines seem to be tough to handle as Black (I've been playing 3...e5, as recommended by Rizzitano). Again, I'm sure that added experience will help me with these lines, but these lines have been a struggle thus far. I am happy with the 3.Nf3/e3 lines from the Black side. The QGA also doesn't carry over to the English or Reti that well.
Does anyone have any preference for one of these openings over the other? I'd love to hear your experiences as you've decided to play or give up these openings.
Thanks and happy 2006 to all,
Scott
Originally posted by smrex13I play the Slav. Do you play 8... 0-0 or 8... Nbd7? I prefer playing 0-0, as it is very solid, although admittedly it takes a fair effort to win.
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to form my repertoire against 1.d4, and I've narrowed my choices to the Slav and the QGA. I've played each for several weeks in 10-20 minute internet games to get a feel for the positions, and I'm still in a quandry as to which opening to commit to long term.
One of the attractions of the Slav for me is that it is also a st ...[text shortened]... ded to play or give up these openings.
Thanks and happy 2006 to all,
Scott
If you like, you can learn the Winawer Counter Gambit against people who play 3 Nc3 instead of Nf3, expecting just to transpose back. This is a bit sharper, and will give you additional winning chances in games.
I also play d4 as white, and I am always happy to see d4 d5 c4 xc4, as I think the 3. e4 line gives white a healthy initiative.
If there are any questions you have about particular lines, just post them here, and I'll try to answer them.
Thanks for the response. Actually, most of my opponents deviate pretty early, so I'm not often in book by move 8. However, many of the early out-of-book moves seem to be pretty strong and still keep me on my heels as Black. Yes, I can often get my problem bishop out (the main point of the Slav, no?), but then it gets harassed by knight moves or quickly exchanged. I so often find myself without any obvious counterplay. I'll see if I can find a couple of examples and post them.
Thanks,
Scott
Originally posted by smrex13Okay. I have quite alot of experience with the slav, so if you post what you are having trouble with, I'll see if I have come up against them in the past...
Thanks for the response. Actually, most of my opponents deviate pretty early, so I'm not often in book by move 8. However, many of the early out-of-book moves seem to be pretty strong and still keep me on my heels as Black. Yes, I can often get my problem bishop out (the main point of the Slav, no?), but then it gets harassed by knight moves or quickly ex ...[text shortened]... ous counterplay. I'll see if I can find a couple of examples and post them.
Thanks,
Scott