Playing for e4 (and not fearing the IQP) seems like one way to go. How else to complete development?

Didn't we have some discussion about Bb3 and conclude that it was always bad recently (i.e., Ba2 > Bd3 > Bb3)? At least, that's my recollection, maybe there are some relevant details I've abstracted away.

Hahahaha. Indeed.

Here's the thread you were referencing. I had forgotten too, I had to go look it up.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/14...treat-1281961/

Similar position but slightly different in that the original game was QGD, so the piece arrangement isn't quite the same. Here's a link to my full game from tonight.

TexAg06 vs NN, 1-0

I didn't know much theory past the voluntary bishop retreat (7.Bb3, idea is to be able to meet ...b5 with d5 at some point), and the first real deviation was 10.Nc4. It has been played by GMs, but the far and away most common, and best move, is 10.e4 (like you suggested) played by a bunch of 2600 and 2700 guys. Here's a fantastic game where Kasparov shows Piket how it's done.

Kasparov-Piket 1997, 1-0

That got sort of rambly, but my point was I screwed up the opening and messed up my chance to play e4 earlier. Playing e4 now would require quite a few moves of prep and I didn't know if it was best or would give black time to get something going. Turns out what I played was ok and worked out well, but it was tougher to find something constructive since I misplayed the opening a bit.

Thanks for posting both games.

Hmm. Does it matter (QGD v QGA)? (Not rhetorical...the ideas just seem similar.) You end up playing Bc2 in the game.

Actually, since you mention 10.e4, I think I see the point of Bb3, which is to prepare e4 tactically (Bxe6). The idea is e5; the game you give is a good example of what success looks like.

You went with e4 in the game; I guess a follow-up question is Qe2/Rd1 or Re1 as you played.

(Random aside -- Do it Right in the other thread/Kaufman remind dxc5 with the idea of Be2/Ne5/Bf3 is another option for an entirely different opening plan. As would getting in e4 a little earlier...on move 3.)

You're right, the QGA and QGD ideas are very similar. I'm trying to learn the subtle differences between the two, but I'm struggling. I'm not good with the move order intricacies of either, yet. One of the main differences is in the QGD, white's DSB is usually on g5, whereas in the QGA it is usually on c1 and only gets active after the e4 push at some point.

You're right again, the idea of Bb3 is pretty much tactical. After 10.e4, if 10...Nxe4, then 11.Nxe4 Bxe4 12.Re1 and white wants to push d5. If the bishop retreats to b7, d5 comes and black is in trouble. So the bishop comes to d5 and white plays Bg5 with a nice game for the pawn. Easy develop and black has trouble untangling. So black pretty much never takes the pawn with 10...Nxe4, and white gets in e5 and is happy.

And good question. In the game I debated between Qe2->Rd1 and Re1. Ultimately I decided on Re1 because I was preparing for black to capture on d4 at some point, and I wanted my rook on the open e-file like a typical IQP position. But I still don't know if that was better or if Qe2 was, or if they're both playable. I'd be curious to hear a stronger player's thoughts on the position.

I actually blacked out a little reading that sentence. Subtleties are boring. e4 smash!

Nice, thanks for the explanation. I was lazy and stopped at "pressure on e6/open e-file", but this is very forcing.

Could someone help me try to understand a move? In the diagrammed position below, black just played 16...a4. White, a very strong player, responded with 17.Rab1. I don't quite understand it. If black captures with 17...axb3, is white responding with 18.Rxb3? That looks strange to me. But if not, why is white putting the rook on the closed b-file? I feel like I'm overlooking something easy here.

Maybe to have b4 available in reply to Black's Ba5?

Also it prevents Bb6 by Black since bxa4 Bxe3 Kxe3 bxa4 Nc1 gives White a big positional advantage.

But of course Black can play axb3 axb3 Bb6 or Ba5 b4 Bb6 and I think Black is fine in both cases.

In generally I guess White doesn't have any real constructive plan in this position other than Nc1-d3, but on the immediate Nc1 Ba5 is annoying. So Rb1 is just a constructive move to follow an active plan while giving Black a chance to go wrong.

It's interesting that you posted this position since I would probably just race through Rab1 without thinking much about it, but if you actually look at the position you see that it contains some nuances.

TexAg06: Rxb3 drops the exchange--that's definitely not in the cards after ...axb3.

John_Douglas: But in that case, why not just bxa4/Rb1 (which also prevents Bb6)?

Only rationale that comes to mind is that White wanted to play Nc1 but also axb3 if needed, so Rb1 prepares this. Given that White doesn't have a lot of obvious candidate moves, maybe this isn't so bad, but, personally, I'd keep thinking...

If immediately bxa4, Black has b4 followed by Rxa4.

Interesting thoughts from both of y'all, I appreciate the help. That's one of those positions that I think separates the men from the boys. Even though the position is quiet, playing a move like Rb1 shows the ability to understand the position, and also to quietly improve without trying too hard to force the action. If I was in white's spot, I could easily see myself trying something too radical and creating more weaknesses. Like John_Douglas said, the position seems pretty boring at first, but there are some interesting nuances.

And Sholar, thanks for pointing out that I missed simply blundering the exchange

Great point.

Black also gets a move, and Be7 or c5...I don't know, maybe White doesn't have anything better to do (that Ne2 is annoying, and Rb1 at least starts to solve that).

I think a big part of Rb1 is improving white's position while trying to provoke black into making a mistake. The most natural idea in the position, to me, is simply 1. bxa4 bxa4 2. Rab1. The congested nature of black's pieces even makes it a bit threatening. eg - 2. .. O-O 3. Rb7 and black actually has to start making some really awkward moves just to hold things together.

Rb1 just looks like a slightly trickier version of the same idea as it lets black make more mistakes. For instance I think a very interesting idea for white is the super unorthodox: 1. Rb1 axb3 2. cxb3!? and black's position doesn't look so pleasant. a4 is coming along with pressure down the c file, to say nothing of the juicy c4 square. And similarly if black plays 1. Rb1 a3. White will be able to organize c4 in the near future and is going to have a large space advantage all over the board. I'm actually not really sure what black should do after Rb1 other than transposing to the above line with O-O but that's obviously not very desirable either!

EDIT: And that was obviously a grunch. I also missed 1. bxa4 b4 at first which makes Rb1 even easier to understand!

DiR, I didn't think about capturing with the c-pawn and then playing for a4. That's a great idea too. This position is a lot more entertaining than it appears on the surface. Here's how the game finished for those that are curious.

17. Rab1 Be7 18. Nc1 a3 19. Nd3 Na6 20. Rd2 Ndc5 21. Nxc5 Nxc5 22. Kf3 g6 23. Nxb5 cxb5 24. Bxb5+ Kf8 25. Bh6+ Kg8 26. g4 Bf8 27. Bxf8 Kxf8 28. c4 Kg7 29. b4 Na4 30. Rb3 Nb2 31. Rc3 h5 32. Rd7 hxg4+ 33. Kxg4 Rhd8 34. Rxd8 Rxd8 35. c5 Nd1 36. Rxa3 Rd4 37. Bc6 Rxb4 38. fxg6 Bxg6 39. Kf3 Rc4 40. Bd5 Rxc5 41. Ra7+ Kh6 42. Ra6 Nc3 43. Ba8 Rc8 44. Bb7 Rb8 45. Bc6 Rb4 0-1

Interesting. Black was really going for it with his pawn push to a3 and it paid off nicely.

Who were the players?

The game was Xiong-Zherebukh from UTD's recent Spring FIDE Open. Here is a link to the final standings.

Final crosstable

The game can be found on Chessbomb.com. It took place in round 7 if you're trying to find it.

The Dallas Chess Club has a host of young NM's, and Jeffery is the strongest of that bunch. He's 2483 USCF at 12 years old, which is ridiculous. He and Sam Sevian are sort of the USA's best hopes for the next Nakamura.

Am I missing something or is 23...Qd6 a better defensive try for black?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012985

This was still bothering me when I got home from work, so I put it into Houdini and sure enough 23...Qd6 does look better for black. You can all sleep easy now haha.

Yet another Alekhine man-crush post from me. I really love this game and how one slip from the opponent in a quiet position was all it took for Alekhine to grab the initiative and finish the game off. After 10...e6, I wouldn't have imagined that such a symmetrical, seemingly boring position would have developed the way it did.

I think Alekhine is my new favorite player. Seriously. His games are so much fun and so instructive.

Alekhine-Hromadka 1922, 1-0

Well, Black's next move was Qa7.

Even that might be survivable with 14...b4 first? Black's position is pretty suspect, though.

Agree that Qa7 was a mistake, but it still takes very energetic accurate play to exploit it the way Alekhine did.

And also agree that 14...b4 looks like a much better idea.

when you guys look at openings, I typically just run through the main line, but my opponents often deviate really early on and I'm like...uhhh I guess I'm still playing the French Defense?

Is there a way to figure out optimal replies to these deviations? Like, for some openings, the main line is the main line because it's white or black's best response...so in theory, if your opponent deviates you should be able to take advantage, right?

Some moves are not opening theory because they are downright bad. They either blunder material or give up control of key squares, etc. Let's skip over those moves and assume we know how to take advantage of such an egregious error.

Main lines are typically thought to be the most critically testing of a particular opening. But in nearly every opening, there are multiple playable moves in almost any position. The moves might be neglected by GMs because, for example, white will end up with an equal position instead of a slight advantage. But at amateur levels of play, the non-mainline move works fine. This is why people recommend not trying to just memorize opening theory but instead learn the ideas behind your openings, as well as just learn chess better in general to outplay the opponent in an equal position you haven't played before.

Something I used to do a lot and still do from time to time is try too hard to punish an opponent's move that isn't main line. I'd caution against doing this. Often times their move is playable and you risk spending too much time or pressing too hard trying to refute their idea, when in fact it could very well be sound, just not optimal. Of course, it goes without saying that if they are hanging material or ignoring basic opening principles (moving the queen repeatedly, not castling, etc), then by all means try to blow them off the board. But if you can't find a fairly obvious win or way to take advantage, just play good, sound chess as best you can and try to outplay them in the middle game. In a position like that you can be confident that your position is fine and focus on playing good chess from there.

As for concrete help, my thought process when confronted with a move I know is not main line goes something like this.

1) What was the correct move? What was the idea behind the correct move?
2) What is the point of this move? What does it threaten? What's the idea?
3) What are the differences in the position between the main line move and the move played?
4) Can I immediately take advantage of that difference, knowing what I know about what each side should be aiming for?
5) If I can't find a concrete refutation or clear way to take an advantage, I'll just play the best I can and then try to learn a little more about the position after the game. Just try to get a little better, game by game.