I'm not using their recommendation against the Dutch

When I played the Bird as white, if black played the (reversed) response that they recommend for white, I would jump for joy as it let me get control over the light squares with b3/Bb2 (or in the case of the Dutch b6/Bb7). Instead I'm using Cox's suggestion against the Dutch as found in his great 'Starting Out: 1d4' book: 1 d4 f5 2 g3.

The line they recommend at ICS is 1 d4 f5 2 Nc3, which gives up too much. For one, it stops you from getting in c4. For another, it lets them get in b6/Bb7 which gives them killer control over the light square diagonal. For another, it allows black to get in Bb4, which takes away even more control over the central light squares. All of these make for a tough game for white. By playing 2 g3 right away, you contest that most important diagonal, you don't give them the c Knight to pin, so you aren't giving them obvious good plans early on.

Also, with 2 g3 the pawn structure for white is similar to the Catalan, which makes me surprised they didn't recommend it.

Overall, I'm triangulating three book sources for my white d4 repertoire: Cox's Starting Out book, Avrukh's crazy encyclopedic reference, and the ICS material. It's pretty cool as they make some different recommendations so I can go with what I feel more comfortable with.

Note I realize their line is perfectly fine at lower levels, but in practice I want to put up more of a fight for the light squares in the center.

Interesting views. I have never played d4 in my life but wanted to use ICS as a vehicle for extending my knowledge (i.e. learning d4). Without any knowledge my natural response to f5 is the "g3" choice you give. Conversely I really like their view as it gives a position that in my view has the 'feel' of an e4 opening.

My promise to myself is that I will not prejudge any of the material and take it as sound - UNTIL RESULTS TELL ME OTHERWISE. On an earlier forum there was the discussion about only taking on the parts of the course we liked or we second guessed what was meant. The view at that time is that the unquestioning response to this explains why children develop faster than us. Whilst I do not adhere totally to this view I will go with the naiive "These guys are better than me therefore they must be right" approach".. But to repeat my earlier comment. If I had not heard of ICS then I would go "g3".

Also where do you find he time to research this additional material? I'm impressed.

hoopy wrote:Also where do you find he time to research this additional material? I'm impressed.

Im with you on this hoopy. BDK know far more than I do about variation and pretty much everything else regarding chess. Vary impressive.

Chess? wrote:BDK know far more than I do about variation and pretty much everything else regarding chess. Vary impressive.

Except how to win games

I only have an opinion on this line because I played the Bird as white, no other reason. I know very little about the d4 openings, and frankly I think it is helping my chess to not worry about the openings like I used to.

I have used the 1d4 f5 2 Nc3 line for twenty years and have had tremendous results with it. Actually it is a method for fighting for the light squares, just different from the main line. There is not alot of theory on it and the positions black has to defend after a later g2-g4 (in the Bf6 ef line) are difficult to play for Black. Particularly as Dutch players typically are looking for positions with a more fluid pawn structure than those that often arise in this line.

Good at the higher levels to. I beat the English grandmaster Conquest at the Bristol or Hanhem Open in 1993 or somewhere around that time. I was rated about elo 2000 or 175 BCF at the time. Good tournament that one as I had beaten the IM G Buckley the round before!

Yes sorry it is a bit of a gloat - I couldn't resist as it was GM with the specific line under consideration.

Yes I think all of us have done well to sign up for this course. If someone does not want to use a particular line I think that is fine. I just wanted to point out that the lines they do offer are competitive for the 2300 level we are looking for. In reality a specific variation is neither here no there. The course material is convenient to follow but we are still asked to follow it up with a study of model games.

The important thing is that we understand the line we play and have confidence in it and know the TO DO list at the end of our theory.

Yes, the line they recommend scores quite well in my database and even at the GM level it is playable. Personally, though, I don't like it, so will use something else. With Bb4/Bxc3 and b6/Bb7 they can get a nice clamp on the long dark diagonal facing my King, and I'd rather take this option away with g3. My hunch is the GM you beat didn't play the Bb4/Bb7 line. :O

The best opening to pick at my level is one I like. I could play the BDG and be fine for a few more hundred rating points, but I just don't like it.

I've had extremely bad results in BDG against players rated over 1800. but fantastic results with NID/QID/Bogo-Indian setup against the same players in tournament conditions. It seems most players I know who play in the same age category play the King's Indian [either cuz Fischer and Kasparov played it or cuz they like the 'tag' of the attacking player], so none of them share the same enthusiasm I have for the Nimzo lines

I've not had the chance to play 2.Nc3 yet in an OTB game but on playchess I'm 4-0 with it and all wins in under 25 moves!

Every time my opponent has not understood the need for 2...d5 and I've ripped open the kingside and won before they realise what's hit them!

I'm not sure how this variation works against tough veterans who know how to play the opening but at my current 1600 level I don't face those guys anyway.

Beating Stuart Conequest with it, who was British champ only last year is a pretty big recommendation.

Give it a try BDK, it's a fun line, especially online where you can just wipe guys out who don't know what they are doing.

Would be nice to see the game with the win over Conquest by an amateur over here ;-)

My problem with this line against the dutch is what to do after 1.d4 e6, 2.c4 f5.

So If black responds after 1.d4 with e6, we don't know if our opponent is heading for the nimzo, the QGD or for the dutch.
In the case of the nimzo and QGD we play our Catalan, but after 2..f5 we are tricked with the move order.

Any Idea's recommendations?

Hey Gm69 I emailed ICS about this problem and they said they needed to write a reportoire for that. Raul provided me with a simple system against it to use in the meantime which I will upload here later, currently I'm on my mobile phone writing this.

Hi Bilbo,

Can you post the system that was sent to you by Raul.

Regards

Sure I forgot about this actually! Here is what Raul wrote me in his email.


After 1.d4 e6, White should play 2.c4 indeed. There is no other good move
based on our repertoire as Black can continue with 2...Nf6 or 2...c5.
For this issue, we need to do an update on our repertoire. There is no
shortcut for this issue.

However, until then, you can play some simple systems as:
1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. Nc3 (with idea e4) Nf6 4. Qc2 (with idea e4) and now
A) 4...Bb4 (Classic setup) 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3 b6 7. Nge2 Bb7 8. f3 with idea
0-0 and e3-e4
B) 4...d5 (Stonewall setup) 5. Nf3 c6 6. Bf4 Be7 7. e3 O-O 8. Bd3 with idea
0-0-0, h2-h3 and g2-g4
I hope this will help.


Kind regards,
Raul Neagos

In the Arena little mainbook for A) 6.. d5 is recomended instead of b6, which lead to a mix between A) and B) setup and a bit more difficult for move ordering.

Anyway Qc2 is already a tricky line, you get a more simple system with 4.e3 Be7 5.Bd3

Personnally, against 1.d4 e6 i would play e4 to force a french exchange (2.e4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.Bd3) with good possibilities for white.
Ok, you may not get a french, but most of the time, opponent will answer with it.