Chess politics - Slav vs. Semi-Slav

Author

Slav vs. Semi-Slav

Zero

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

Hello,

I am trying to determine whether I should play the the normal (dxc4)
Slav, the a6 Slav, or the Semi-Slav. It seems that the both all three
oepnings are are good openings and lead to equal positions.

I was wondering though why the super GMs don't play the standard dxc4
slav (d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4). Instead, they are opting to play
the Semi-Slav (d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6) and the a6 Slav (d4 d5 c4 c6
Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6)

Do the other two Slav positions lead to quicker equality for black ordo
they provide better winning chances ? please help me understand. The
Semi-Slav has been really popular since the 90s when they were all
young too (Kramnik, Anand, Kamsky, Lautier, Shirov, etc.) hey all used
to play the standard Slav in the early 90s too but now they just like
to play the Semi-Slav. Also the a6 Slav has more popularity than the
standard slav.

thank you

Angelo DePalma

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

I believe the ...dc4 variation, which I studied at one time, gives black the
opportunity to draw if he plays perfectly for 33 moves. One mistake and he's
dead.

I once played this variation (the one where B sacs a bishop on e4) against a
strong player and was still in theory 17 moves deep (I didn't know I was --
I was on my own from move 12 or so). I played one inaccurate move and was
crushed. Had I played the correct move at move 18 the game would have been
objectively drawn (but I probably would have lost anyway).

I don't understand the other variations, even though I have a book on the
....a6 defense. If W plays c5 at any time black is in for a long defense with
little to hope for but a draw.

"Zero" <talltree0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127739682.187467.284780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Hello,
>
> I am trying to determine whether I should play the the normal (dxc4)
> Slav, the a6 Slav, or the Semi-Slav. It seems that the both all three
> oepnings are are good openings and lead to equal positions.
>
> I was wondering though why the super GMs don't play the standard dxc4
> slav (d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4). Instead, they are opting to play
> the Semi-Slav (d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6) and the a6 Slav (d4 d5 c4 c6
> Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 a6)
>
> Do the other two Slav positions lead to quicker equality for black ordo
> they provide better winning chances ? please help me understand. The
> Semi-Slav has been really popular since the 90s when they were all
> young too (Kramnik, Anand, Kamsky, Lautier, Shirov, etc.) hey all used
> to play the standard Slav in the early 90s too but now they just like
> to play the Semi-Slav. Also the a6 Slav has more popularity than the
> standard slav.
>
>
> thank you
>

jamesrynd@aol.com

2005-09-26, 7:33 pm

I have tried both and failed miserably, unless it is against a
lower-rated player who understands even less of the position than me,
and I have analyzed the opening since I first saw Botvinnik's games.

I really think that "style" is more of a consideration than most people
realize in choosing openings. Without an active game, my game always
ends up lost, so I play Tarrasch and Tartakover, which provide me with
the positions I understand well.

I also think the Slav offers more winning chances to certain players
than Angelo gives it credit for; my friend Marc Plum played positions
like this regularly, with good success.

Ray Gordon

2005-09-26, 11:31 pm

>I believe the ...dc4 variation, which I studied at one time, gives black

quote:

>the opportunity to draw if he plays perfectly for 33 moves. One mistake and
>he's dead.

That's another way of saying it.

The Slav is a great drawing line if you are a great player.

dxc4 in the queen pawn games is generally asking for it. Better be booked
out the wazoo to try that stuff.

Matt Nemmers

2005-09-27, 2:33 am

"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:Wz%Ze.2121$wf6.287547@twister.nyc.rr.com...

quote:

>
> That's another way of saying it.
>
> The Slav is a great drawing line if you are a great player.
>
> dxc4 in the queen pawn games is generally asking for it. Better be booked
> out the wazoo to try that stuff.

Listen to Gordo. He would know. He's an Openings Grandmaster.

Equinorm@AOL.com

2005-09-27, 2:33 am

An interesting comment on the Classical Slav (i.e, 4...dxc4) from IM
Semko Semkov, from a thread on the Slav in the Chesspublishing forum:

"I do not know about you, but for me the Classical Slav is one of the
most difficult openings to understand. This is an opening for champions
and the better wins. A very strong GM could lose as White (against
people with deep positional understanding) without committing any
obvious mistake. You can never learn the Classic Slav. You have to feel
it. It is full of variations with the deceiving tag "+=" which could be
true, but it is extremely easy to lose orientation. That's why most
professionals prefer to avoid it. This could be achieved exactly by the
move order we consider in our book: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3.

Some people say that the Botvinnik is the better choice. Even if that
were true, (and I do not think so), that does not solve the main
problem - how to avoid the Classical Slav. I repeat, you just cannot
learn this opening. The Anti-Meran is many times easier, even in its
most extreme forms like 7.g4."

- IM Semko Semkov

IM Semkov has an excellent reputation as an opening theorist, and has
co-written some well-received opening books for Chess Stars with the
strong Russian GM Konstantin Sakaev.

- Geof Strayer

EditorialStaff

2005-09-30, 11:31 pm

NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.193.255.193

Gordon Roy Parker tried to sound like an expert, even though
he is the only person we know of who was called an "Inexcusable
Failure" by a Federal Judge:

quote:

>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
>
> That's another way of saying it.
>
> The Slav is a great drawing line if you are a great player.
>
> dxc4 in the queen pawn games is generally asking for it.
> Better be booked out the wazoo to try that stuff.
>

Gordon Roy Parker once threatened us with a lawsuit, claiming libel,
because we expressed the opinion that he was no expert at anything.
We contacted the nice folks at the US Chess Federation, who could
give no documentation of any rating whatsoever, and in the absence
of any verification either way that he was any kind of "expert", we
continued to post our opinion that he was indeed not rated as highly
as he claimed.

We then ran across a piece of information that suggested he might
actually have an expert rating, and we immediately ceased publication
of our information.

He actually ended up naming us in a lawsuit over this very issue.

We were recently sent another piece of information...

It turns out that he *never was* an expert!!

We are pleased to have this information.
To whomever sent it: Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------
Rating history for Gordon R. Parker

Date of USCF rating supplement Rating
July 1987 1380/4
Sept. 1987 none
Nov. 1987 1810
Jan. 1988 1828
March 1988 1867
May 1988 1940
July 1988 1907
Sept. 1988 1958
Nov. 1988 1877
Jan. 1989 1967
March 1989 1912
May 1989 1877
July 1989 1888
Sept. 1989 1897
Nov. 1989 1890
Jan. 1990 1904
March 1990 1956
May 1990 1888
July 1990 1974 *
Sept. 1990 1912
1990 annual 1912
Feb. 1991 none
April 1991 1956
June 1991 1903
Oct. 1991 1903
1991 annual 1900
Feb. 1992 none
April 1992 none

Even though research does not show an expert rating for
Gordon R. Parker, his 2000+ rating was perhaps published
on his Chess Life mailing label in one of those months
when the USCF did not publish a ratings supplement.
----------------------------------------------------------

1974 seems to be his highest rating. Does that qualify as "expert"
in the chess world?

We ought to contact the court to let them know he harassed us,
threatened us, and filed suit against us with false evidence.
We wonder how much the courts would like that.

Oh, and didn't Gordon Roy Parker post a couple of months back that
he was NEVER going to post here again? What happened to that? Did
his Narcissistic Personality Disorder kick in and he needed another
attention fix?

--
The Editorial Staff
-----
This post is an expression of our Constitutionally protected
right to Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech is WORTHLESS without Social Responsibility.

A quote from Gordon Roy Parker, AKA "Ray Gordon":
"(For a dissenting opinion on my character, please visit
the following website: http://members.tripod.com/~rayfaq.html)*
This site contains many lies about me, but as a defender of
free speech I fully support its right to exist."
-Message-ID: <6ertau$76b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

*The original RayFAQ was removed from the internet as a
result of dozens of complaints from Gordon Roy Parker.

EditorialStaff

2005-09-30, 11:31 pm

NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.193.255.193

Gordon Roy Parker tried to sound like an expert, even though
he is the only person we know of who was called an "Inexcusable
Failure" by a Federal Judge:

quote:

>
> Angelo DePalma wrote:
>
>
> That's another way of saying it.
>
> The Slav is a great drawing line if you are a great player.
>
> dxc4 in the queen pawn games is generally asking for it.
> Better be booked out the wazoo to try that stuff.
>

Alfanje

2005-10-15, 2:31 am

Hi, Zero.

Just trying to help. I am a player rated around 2200 FIDE. I have tried
all the three variations. The problem I see with 4...dxc4 is that it is
very hard for Black to fight for the whole point. You need to struggle
for a draw whereas White keeps a slight advantage (I like playing that
line as White. I think the bishop sacrifice is incorrect, but 5.e3 is
easy and safe).

The Semi-Slav is a very complex opening that requires a lot of study,
and even with that you can be destroyed in less than 25 moves (and I
wouldnt blame you, as many GMs were already beaten that way). It offers
good chances to win as Black, if you are a profound tactical player.

Perhaps, you should start with 4...a6. There's a handbook by Glenn
Flear. I do not recommend it very much, but it is helpful to begin.
Even if the book was written less than 2 years ago, is out of date, as
the defence is flavour of the month and new theory is developing fast .

I hope my advice is useful. In the end, everything is playable. It
depends on taste and strategical point of view.