I recommend playing the Moscow Variation with h7-h6 here instead. If white plays Bh4, then they gambit a pawn after dxc4 e4 g5.
Botvinnik Semi-Slav
Sort:
Botvinnik Variation: 5...dxc4
This line is extremely complicated, with theory stretching past move thirty in some variations.
- - - - -
That's a time suck, but OK...if you think it's worth it.
thanks pandeydhawal, i think logozar finds it very useful...
He wants to play Botvinnik gambit on semi slav, what's the point with your KI, unless u find a fantastic way to transpose?
Go ahead logozar, if u want sharp and fun play, it is a great opening.
poucin wrote:
thanks pandeydhawal, i think logozar finds it very useful...
He wants to play Botvinnik gambit on semi slav, what's the point with your KI, unless u find a fantastic way to transpose?
Go ahead logozar, if u want sharp and fun play, it is a great opening.
Thank you!
I have started to study it, and I have to say I love it so far!
(Though some of the main line variations can get crazy)
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
I recommend playing the Moscow Variation with h7-h6 here instead. If white plays Bh4, then they gambit a pawn after dxc4 e4 g5.
I'll keep that in mind, and maybe one day I will. The botvinnik knowledge will likely come in handy as the positions can be quite similar in some lines
Jun 13, 2016
0
#7
YuriSenkevich wrote:
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
I recommend playing the Moscow Variation with h7-h6 here instead. If white plays Bh4, then they gambit a pawn after dxc4 e4 g5.
Didn't your recommend not to study openings and deep lines like the Botvinnik before beating Carlsen?
The Moscow is not as deep as the Botvinnik. And I'm playing this as black, and logozar is playing this as black, so I can't play 1.e4.
Another variation for white other than Nc3-e3 or Nc3-Nf3-Bg5 is Nf3-e3, along with a bunch of minor variations. If you want that bishop out, you probably have to play Bg5.
Jun 14, 2016
0
#8
The lines after 9...Nd5, and 11...Qa5 are not played very much. Probably for a good reason.
Qa5 is a big line...
Like Qb6, and Bb7 (which often transpose with Qb6).
Rg8 is another idea...
Qa5 and b4 was the way Botvinnik played this system. maybe a bit forgotten (Qb6 indeed is now the main line, with Rg8), but is it refuted? Not sure, and what a mess...
Anybody well prepared in this line could score some points...
@IM Pfren
Thanks.
Personally, I dont really have a lot of trouble memorizing variations (though sometimes I forget) and this line looks really fun!
I finished studying 16.Rb1!? today and I plan to do 16.Na4 over the next few days (I did the sidelines earlier)
Jun 14, 2016
0
#13
I keep telling him: You're a 1700. Opening theory is not a priority. You should know a couple of basic lines and that's all. You're not focusing on positional concepts at all. You keep not doing the positional books you have, saving them "for later". You can't improve if all you do is study openings - 10% of what you should be doing right now is opening preparation.
YuriSenkevich wrote:
logozar wrote:
@Yuri
Maybe I should stop looking at MCO then. Can I ask where do you got all the lines from, seems like I am outdated lol
GM repertoire series The semi slav
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
I keep telling him: You're a 1700. Opening theory is not a priority. You should know a couple of basic lines and that's all. You're not focusing on positional concepts at all. You keep not doing the positional books you have, saving them "for later". You can't improve if all you do is study openings - 10% of what you should be doing right now is opening preparation.
Would you like it if I temporarily stop studying openings period? (After I finish botvinnik that is)
Yeah, this is a pretty bad practical choice IMO. There are so many possible lines against 1. d4, so I wouldn't choose one where whoever left their computer on the longest wins. Besides, you'll have to spend so much time getting your lines right for your tournaments, even though you won't get the positions that often!
But hey, if theory is your forte, go for it. I sure wouldn't. I did have a period of playing the Semi-Slav as black...but not through the main move order. I would only play it when white played an early e3, and otherwise I would play the Classical Slav with 4...dxc4.
YuriSenkevich wrote:
dpnorman wrote:
Yeah, this is a pretty bad practical choice IMO. There are so many possible lines against 1. d4, so I wouldn't choose one where whoever left their computer on the longest wins. Besides, you'll have to spend so much time getting your lines right for your tournaments, even though you won't get the positions that often!
But hey, if theory is your forte, go for it. I sure wouldn't. I did have a period of playing the Semi-Slav as black...but not through the main move order. I would only play it when white played an early e3, and otherwise I would play the Classical Slav with 4...dxc4.
I know lol. Up to this date I have never played a game in the Sicilian Najdorf that has theory pass move 14 (usually lines are at least 17 moves deep) and it is in the Najdorf. I cant imagine how many times he will be able to play the line.
The Najdorf? I love that opening too!
Jun 21, 2016
0
#18
Why don't you learn the queen's Indian Defense or the Nimzo Indian? Mr. Logozar.
pfren wrote:
YuriSenkevich wrote:
Have you studied all the lines? Have you seen in which types of positions does black get into? You cant really say you like the opening until you reach the 17 moves final positions.
If so, I like it too lol it is the only defense or opening in which I have studied extensive theory.
If you reach the 27 moves deep variations of the Najdorf (17 is average knowledge) you still know very little about it.
As of now, I don't know 27 moves deep (average of the lines).
I know enough to get by at my level though, averaging somewhere between 10-20 lines (I think) depending on the variation.
I've been thinking about playing the Botvinnik variation in the semi slav