Here's a neat way to play vs the Marshall defense and control the center.
Queens Gambit Declined vs Nf6 (Marshall defense)
Sort:
Apr 7, 2015
0
#2
This is not the best line for white. Various authoritative sources state that 4. Nf3 is superior.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#3
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxe5 4.e4?! Nf6! 5.Nc3 e5! 6.dxe5 black should exchange queens before playing Ng4. I'd rather have black there though maybe white still has equality.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#4
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6, white should play 5.f3 with a fine game. This is by no means worse than 4.Nf3.
After 4.e4 Nb6 5.Nc3 g6 we have a Grünfeld, albeit not the best one. Black has the same option after 4.Nf3.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#5
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.f3 black has 5. ... c5 equalising. 6.dxc5 Qxd1 7.Kxd1 e5 is clearly equal. e.g. 8.Be3 Nfd7! 9.b4 a5 and black gets his pawn back.
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6 Nf3 does very well for white .
After 3... Nxd5 white has two choices that are both scoring better than 70% for white : 4. e4 and 4. Nf3 , take your pick
Apr 7, 2015
0
#8
@Reb You love being provocative so people will point out you're talking rubbish and then you cam hold up your pseudo-title and call them trolls.
You know perfectly well that percentages are meaningless in this kind of variation because strong players don't play this line as black so obviously white is going to score well. In fact, only 70% for white in a line like this is a bit worrying, with the overwhelming superiority of white players in this kind of position white should be scoring higher than that.
As for your suggestion that 4. e4 and 4. Nf3 are of equal merit, your view is flatly contradicted by the experts. John Watson and Richard Palliser both say that 4. e4 is the inferior continuation and if you look through other repertoire books you'll see the same comment come up over and over again.
Please Reb, don't just talk rubbish to provoke people so you can call them trolls when they point out you're taking rubbish. It's not nice. You really aren't helping anyone with these flawed views.
chyss wrote:
@Reb You love being provocative so people will point out you're talking rubbish and then you cam hold up your pseudo-title and call them trolls.
You know perfectly well that percentages are meaningless in this kind of variation because strong players don't play this line as black so obviously white is going to score well. In fact, only 70% for white in a line like this is a bit worrying, with the overwhelming superiority of white players in this kind of position white should be scoring higher than that.
As for your suggestion that 4. e4 and 4. Nf3 are of equal merit, your view is flatly contradicted by the experts. John Watson and Richard Palliser both say that 4. e4 is the inferior continuation and if you look through other repertoire books you'll see the same comment come up over and over again.
Please Reb, don't just talk rubbish to provoke people so you can call them trolls when they point out you're taking rubbish. It's not nice. You really aren't helping anyone with these flawed views.
Just reporting what I got from one database check ... should I check a few more ? What's your problem ? Do you think you are the only one who can answer questions in threads here ? Get over yourself ...
Apr 7, 2015
0
#10
@Reb Use your chess expertise to make a judgement about the actual position. Don't mindlessly report irrelevant percentages from databases. You are a strong player, so use that to help people. I want you to contribute, I don't want you to talk rubbish. Please, be a helpful strong player who actually helps weaker players (like me) and not someone who just adds stupid comments for the sake of it. I think I and many others could learn a great deal from you, but not if you "just report what you got from one database check" which any idiot could do!
That escalated quickly.
@chyss Either the name John Watson or Richard Palliser or "other repertoire books" convinced me at all. (actually it had the opposite effect). Before I looked it up I have to say 4. e4 looked like a good Grunfeld (thats good) and 4. Nf3 didn't look attractive (the very basic question of why is it good is not obvious to me).
I looked it up (I don't think there is any argument that the defense is bad), and there are some interesting ideas on why e4 isn't that great.
According to this article by GM Joel Benjamin (whom I do trust more than the aforementioned names due to his ICC work), e4 is "a tad premature":
https://www.uschess.org/content/view/8213/341/
However, the other "obvious" move is 5. e5 and I think that is a better line. Still, 4. Nf3 does look to be better immediately asking black what to do.
To be fair I don't think it is that clear cut and I am surprised that experts looked into this line in detail at all. Joel's analysis (and I assume most expert's too) end right at or very near Ng4 and conclude that black "recoups the pawn comfortably". However my comp doesn't do that and actually plays the double rook exchange lines, and comp always maintains a +0.5 eval which is comparable to Nf3. The position I got on my comp (black to play) looks better for white:
I think it's a matter of personal choice. Reb is correct to point out that both the moves can be played. I personally prefer e4 coz it suits me more. I don't understand how he isn't contributing by sharing his opinion on ONE particular move.
Apr 7, 2015
0
#14
Reb didn't give an opinion; he quoted a statistic from a database and drew a mindless conclusion from it. This kind of thread needs analysis and the quotation of expert sources. Reb could contribute so much of value and instead drew a feeble conclusion from a misleading statistic. He does that a lot and needs to be called out for it.
chyss wrote:
Reb didn't give an opinion; he quoted a statistic from a database and drew a mindless conclusion from it. This kind of thread needs analysis and the quotation of expert sources. Reb could contribute so much of value and instead drew a feeble conclusion from a misleading statistic. He does that a lot and needs to be called out for it.
Just becuase he is a title player does not mean, He is forced into giving his opinion. He can quote stats if he wishes to. Its a free chess forum. Who are you to tell him otherwise. Frankly, I find you as a troll and if you want his opinion why don't you open up your pocket book and pay him for a chess lesson so he can teach you his opinion. You troll!
VibrantMoves wrote:
I think it's a matter of personal choice. Reb is correct to point out that both the moves can be played. I personally prefer e4 coz it suits me more. I don't understand how he isn't contributing by sharing his opinion on ONE particular move.
How does it suit you more? What are the advantages of 4. e4?
*everyone falls silent and looks at you*
Apr 8, 2015
0
#18
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
chyss wrote:
Reb didn't give an opinion; he quoted a statistic from a database and drew a mindless conclusion from it. This kind of thread needs analysis and the quotation of expert sources. Reb could contribute so much of value and instead drew a feeble conclusion from a misleading statistic. He does that a lot and needs to be called out for it.
Just becuase he is a title player does not mean, He is forced into giving his opinion. He can quote stats if he wishes to. Its a free chess forum. Who are you to tell him otherwise. Frankly, I find you as a troll and if you want his opinion why don't you open up your pocket book and pay him for a chess lesson so he can teach you his opinion. You troll!
Technicaly speaking Reb is not a titled player as Fide does not have NM title. However the USCF does award the NM to strong players 2200+ last i heard. As far as i know he is a very strong player who knows what he is talking about and statistics is very helpful when you study chess whether we like it or not.
Does the FIDE CM title make one qualified to be called a " titled player " ? 
Why would anyone look at me? I'm stating my opinion just like everyone else. We all have different play styles and I prefer to push e4 rather than Nf3. Nothing strange. To understand the advantages, you probably need to play both the moves and see which one works for you. And, other members have also posted some links to material in case you're interested.