Hi all! I've been thinking a lot recently about differences between 1. Nf3 and 1. d4, and it occurred to me that learning to tackle the Indians is probably a lesser evil for White than playing KIA/Catalan with a small edge. The problem is that of course that it's much easier to be outprepared in the Indians.
One approach that works best vs a someone who's
known to choose the Grünfeld (or KID) vs 1. d4 2. c4 that has caught my eye is the Alekhine Anti-Grünfeld - 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3. (I'm not sure if I'm ready to play 1. d4 2. c4 vs a specialist in Queen's/Bogo Indian.)
Its most known appearance was in the
third game of the 2012 championship match between Anand (White) and Gelfand, where Boris played 3... d5 and, by doing so, allowed the clear main idea of the variation to work - after 4. cxd5 Nxd5, there's no knight on c3 to be captured, so it's an improved version of the Exchange Grünfeld.
Back in 2010, RoundTower referred to this variation as an annoyance for a Grünfeld specialist:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundTower
the exchange variation includes sub-variations which are bigger than some of those other lines put together -- there could easily be books on Bb5, Bc4 and Be2 (not necessarily on move 7), and there's also 4. Nf3 5. Bg5 which used to be much more popular than 4. Bg5 and leads to quite different positions. There's also 3. f3, 4. f3, and a few anti-KID lines where you wish you played the KID instead.
I play the Gruenfeld as Black and I'm definitely thinking of giving it up because there are too many different options for White and I'm not interested in learning all the theory, though I suspect Dire can handle more theory than I can. I'd highly recommend Rowson's book on it though, it's not theory-heavy (so it's not too out of date) but it gives a consistent repertoire and explains a lot of the plans in all the systems.
In 2013, a
book 'The Ultimate Anti-Grünfeld – A Sämisch Repertoire' was released by GM Dmitry Svetushkin.
I don't know any videos dedicated to the variation, apart from coverage of the above Anand-Gelfand game.
Of course, Black isn't obliged to reply 3... d5. It seems that 3... Bg7 and 3... c5 don't require additional prep because they just transpose to normal Sämisch KID/Benoni lines. Even in the Benko gambit, White looks fine with a huge centre after 3... c5 4. d5 b5 5. cxb5 a6 6. e4 axb5?! 7. e5 Nh5 8. f4, as in
Palencia vs Lopez Grana (2006).
Black's critical response is 3... e5 aka the Leko Gambit. The game typically proceeds: 4. dxe5 Nh5 5. Nh3 Nc6 (with a Ng1-h3-f2 manoeuvre that is a reversed copy of what Black does in the Basman System of the Leningrad Dutch) and here it's bad for White to hold on to the e5 pawn because Black can play Qh4+ at some point.
Stockfish prefers 6. Nc3 f5 7. f4 Nc6 8. g3 d6 9. Bg2 Bg7 10. O-O O-O, arriving at a curious position where the pawn structure for both sides is like Black's in the Leningrad (hence this discussion, to an extent, continues
the Bird thread):
The difference in king's knights' placement alone earns White a +0.4 edge. That looks like fun, especially because I want to try out the Basman Leningrad (Ng8-h6-f7) with Black as well
Let me know what you think on this Anti-Grünfeld (scoring the same 58% of points in databases as 3. g3, fwiw). Do you find it an easy 'profitable' way out of Black's book? Thanks!
Last edited by coon74; 11-30-2014 at 10:02 AM.
Reason: insignificant corrections