QGD - Cambridge Springs Defense
I looked into it recently, but made a quick opening judgment that basing a substantial amount of your plan on attacking a knight that can be defended, is rather artificial. It just doesn't seem like the pressure on that knight is really that annoying, and it also seems like something that could gradually be neutralized by white, when afterwards black's pieces might look a little dumb. For example, after 7 cxd5 Nxd5 8 Qb3!? (Qd2 is more common) white intends Rc1, and seems to be able to meet black's plan pretty well, and may contemplate a3 later. Moves like ...c5 and ..e5 seem to leave the knight vulnerable, but taking time out with ...Ndb6 could be a bit too slow.
Even if black could win material on c3, it still wouldn't necessarily be that bad for white since he'd only be losing queenside pawns, meanwhile black's queen would be exposed and white may win the center.
Of course, considering strong players have played it, black probably has a lot of resources (to continue to keep the pressure on white), as is to be expected with dynamic plans, but personally I would rather not play the type of position where I would have to find them.
6...Qa5 would be weak if it merely was an attack on the Nc3. But it isn't. It's a multifunctional move serving several purpuses at once:
1) It mobilizes the Nf6.
2) It demobilizes Nc3 (rather than attacking it).
3) It contains a hidden attack on Bg5.
If Cambridge Springs has a real weakness it is the fact that white can avoid it by playing 5.cxd5 forcing black into the orthodox exchange variation. This is why I prefer to play 2...c6 instead of 2...e6. In the Slavic Defense Cambridge Springs is a good way to avoid the complicated Anti-Meran Gambit (5.Bg5 dxc4 6.e4 b5 7.e5 h6...).
Is there a way for black to get to the Cambridge Springs while successfully avoiding the Carlsbad?
I used to like it until I had to face the Exchange Var of the QGD which is very strong vs 4...Nbd7. If it wasn't for the Exchange Var I'd still play the Cambridge Springs Defense, but I've switched to the NID which is much more dynamic for Black IMHO.
But I don't think computers are necessarily that materialistic. When I analyze with houdini, I often see it all the time continue on down a piece for 10-15 moves, still believing that side is better (of course the other side was way down in development). Unless of course it just calculated that far! But if it calculates that far, it's hard to be wrong about almost any position, besides perhaps highly closed ones.
I mean, if there is heavy scrutiny from computers, meaning, I presume, the playing out of tons of variations from that position, it must either be fine, or really, really, hard to refute.
Doesn't it usually go the other way around? Aggressive openings computers claim are lost or something, but are hard to refute when faced with it over the board? Perhaps that happens in the dragon or something?
In my view anyway, if of course computers confirm that there isn't some tactic to immediately smash black in that position you posted, even from a practical point of view I wouldn't be afraid of taking the black side. I guess black's king is more awkward than usual, but it isn't necessarily that significant if white can't find a way to take advantage of it. I think white is better, because black's position is not very coordinated, but I wouldn't feel scared for my king if I were black.
It's mostly a matter of holding the position after 7.cd5 Nxd5 8.Qd2 Bb4 9.Rc1 h6 10.Bh4 0-0 (Shirov was smashed briefly twice last year with his 10...c5 pet line) 11.a3 Bxc3 12.bc3 Qxa3 13.e4 Ne7!
The position is probably holdable, but not really pleasant to play, and certainly not very ambitious.
This.
The OP almost completely discounted this line but black's pieces just don't make much sense to me here.
That would imply I know stuff about opening theory, which is certainly flattering, but unfortunately far from the truth.
I am playing Cambridge Springs defence and i think its OK
The tactics against Nc3 is the main objective of Qa5 move. The critical variations I'm sure when white play Nd2 because to counter Ne4 variation. I watched Chessbase videos by IM Andrew Martin about it and its perfectly interesting opening against QGD especially Ne4 variation
Tactics/Variations of Cambridge Springs
Ahh the joys of thread necromancy.
It wouldn't surprise me if this reapears some day in high level match play.
How many stodgy old openings have shown up at the highest levels, especially during match play? They are being revisited with the question, "how bad can it really be to get a solid, equal position when playing black?"
I remember when the Petrov was considered so fossilized it wouldn't be touched by top level players. Kramnik decided that a solid defense to 1 e4 was probably a good thing after all. His record with it tells all. He drew something like 65 games, won 6 and loss 13. Not exactly thrilling results but when you're facing Kasparov, Anand or Carlsen from the black side you may not be so concerned about thrilling.
Personally I think the Cambridge Springs Defense has more going for it than the Petrov.
One can call it dull or lackluster but as Topfrox pointed out the Qa5 move isn't just a cheap shot at the Nc3. In addition to getting the queen out of the pin by the white bishop (Bg5), that bishop now looks sadly out of place and it can't get back to the queen side when the action starts over there.
In many variations black wins a pawn in exchange for the two B's and center pawns. But if the game drags on the extra pawn may tell. Here's one of the older variations which is as dynamically even today as it was when Lasker played it.
My age is telling but I remember when so many of the defenses used to day were considred hoplessly dull and darwish.
The main reason the Cambridge Springs is not so popular is that White can enter up to move six the exchange variation, with Black already having blocked his c8 officer. Of course this is not the end of the world, but the exchange with Nge2 is still considered quite dangerous for Black.
IMO the variation I posted before is the critical one for the whole opening. If it appeals to you to play it as Black, then go on. A recent game on it, where the talented Turk GM held his own against Nepo, is surely enough food for thought:
Recently I've been studying the various QGD lines and like the Cambridge Springs quite a bit. Not because I think it is a clearly superior opening but that it seems to give Black his due and the moves are intuitive.
Your line gets at a question I've had about the QGD. I don't really want to play against the Exchange for a few reasons (1) I play it personally and don't want to face my own weapons, (2) a number of recent repertoire books recommend it and so it is likely to be played quite a bit, (3) with the QGD move order it is almost impossible to avoid as it can be starte quite early.
It appears that the better way to get to a Cambridge Springs is via the Slav or Semi-Slav.
The Cambridge Springs seems rock solid, gets the pieces out of the box and gives some clear guide posts when playing the defense. That there are traps and gotchas is irrelevant at higher levels and especially since I play on-line at 3 to 7 days per move where two and three move traps are unlikely to work. If that's all it were about I'd avoid it.
The main problem I can see is the move order and deviations that can de-rail getting to an defensive position that is 7 moves deep.
well i remember the opening was very popular in the lasker era of chess...i think chess students of my generation were forced to be familiar with lasker. But maybe that changed.
I think the Lakser is trendy again but confess I don't follow it much. There are a number of d4 books that recommend the Exchange because it as viable, rich, asymmetrical and you can avoid reams of theory if you play it as White. So getting to the Lasker, Orthodox, Cambridge Springs and the like are difficult if White doesn't permit it.
Schiller wrote a monograph on the Cambridge Springs and evidently it was considered formidable back in the 20s and 30s to the point where top level players switched to the Exchange. So the Cambridge Springs disappeared from play back then until the Exchange was tamed somewhat.
Yuspov and Smyslov were respsonsible for resurecting it modern times. Kasparov won a world championship game against Anatoly Karpov with it. If there had been any question of its legitimacy that was likely a proof. Beating Karpov in the QGD back then was a quite the feat. Doing it with the black pieces was phenomenal.
my 4th move is normally 4.e3, thanks
someone may have already brought this up but in your 7. a3 Ne4 8. b4 line, cant you play Bxb4 axb4, Qxb4, and white will lose the knight on c3 and the two pawns...
I played QGD Cambridge Springs with much success, one of my favorite GM " Alekhine" played it against Capablanca to win the match.
It wouldn't surprise me if this reapears some day in high level match play.
How many stodgy old openings have shown up at the highest levels, especially during match play? They are being revisited with the question, "how bad can it really be to get a solid, equal position when playing black?"
I remember when the Petrov was considered so fossilized it wouldn't be touched by top level players. Kramnik decided that a solid defense to 1 e4 was probably a good thing after all. His record with it tells all. He drew something like 65 games, won 6 and loss 13. Not exactly thrilling results but when you're facing Kasparov, Anand or Carlsen from the black side you may not be so concerned about thrilling.
Personally I think the Cambridge Springs Defense has more going for it than the Petrov.
One can call it dull or lackluster but as Topfrox pointed out the Qa5 move isn't just a cheap shot at the Nc3. In addition to getting the queen out of the pin by the white bishop (Bg5), that bishop now looks sadly out of place and it can't get back to the queen side when the action starts over there.
In many variations black wins a pawn in exchange for the two B's and center pawns. But if the game drags on the extra pawn may tell. Here's one of the older variations which is as dynamically even today as it was when Lasker played it.
My age is telling but I remember when so many of the defenses used today were considered hopelessly dull and drawish.
They are dull and drawish lol.