Article: 4405 of rec.games.chess.analysis
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis
Path: info!dregis
From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis)
Subject: Re: English Slav?
Message-ID: <E19y6y.H1y@exeter.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Exeter, UK.
References: <56uddv$ooq@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:44:58 GMT

In article <56uddv$ooq@news4.snfc21.pacbell.net> bradleej@pacbell.net (Bradlee Johnson) writes:
>I have been playing the English for the last few months and have done well 
>against CM400. I picked up Ribli's book which explains the main concepts 
>fairly well but doesn't mention this fairly obvious continuation.
>
>1 c4  c6
>
>I don't want to play the Slav from the White side (not that it's bad, I just 
>don't want to have to book up on the Slav.) So the question is this, is there 
>an 'English' way of playing this debut?
>
>Andy Soltis in Winning with the English Opening mentions playing 
>
>1 c4  c6
>2.b3  ...
>
>This seems to leave black with a pretty free game as white's second move 
>doesn't seem to do much for him.

The trouble with ...c6 is that ...d5 ...d5xc4 and ...b5 is a real
threat.  The most sensible plans involve either playing b3, or you
have to go for one of the gambit or a2-a4 lines of the Slav.  The
other ways to cover c4 (2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 or 2.e3) probably involve you
playing b2-b3 someday, but might be worth a punt. 

2. b3 is OK, I don't think 2...e5 is much of a threat, but it's
something you can slow up if you want.  I think the whole English
Opening, though, leaves Black with a pretty free game, or at least a
game in which Black is free to choose a set-up that they prefer.  If
you don't really like moves like 2.b3, why do you want to play the
English? 

The only other determinedly non-QP approach might be:

 1. c4 c6 2. b4!?

This transposes into (wait for it) the Outflank Defence to the
Sokolsky (Polish) Opening, 1. b4 c6 2. c4.  There is some analysis on
this somewhere: I think it copes well against 2...Qb6 [3. a3 a5 4.
c5!] but not so well against other second moves (maybe 2...a5!?).

The move order I play usually leads essentially to the same system as
given by Soltis:

 1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. b3

There is a 'pure' English line:

 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c6 3. e4

 ...which is given in some books: I remember an old Shatskes/Cafferty
title with a couple of games by Polugaevsky in. (1. c4 c6 2. e4 d5 is
the Caro-Kann, 2..e5 keeps it special). 

Lastly, there is a novel unclear line:

Kurajica [A13] Agincourt Defence (French-English), 1995 

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. g3 c6 

offering to transpose into standard QP lines 

4. b3

insisting on independent lines 

 [4. d4 transposes to the QG]
 [4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Qc2 b5 6. a4 Bb7 -/+ Carls-Nimzovitch 1925]
 [4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Bg2 a5 6. O-O Na6 7. a3 Be7 8. d4 
   [or 8. b3]
  8... O-O 9. Nbd2 b6 Naranja-Larsen 1973]

4... b5!? 

"Black intends to bite the c-pawn until it screams in pain" Benjamin/Schiller 

5. Bg2 Ba6 6. cxd5 
 [6. d3 Qb6 != Kurajica]
6... cxd5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bb2 Be7 9. d3 O-O

Now 10. e4

White could also try: 

 [10. Nbd2 Nc6 11. a3 
   [11. Rc1 Qb6 =+ Masic-Kurajica 1972]
  11... b4 12. axb4 Nxb4 13. Ne5 Qb6 = Romanishin-Kurajica 1977]
 [10. Ne5!? is a suggestion of Watson]

-- 
Dave Regis   &8^D*   a dry, fruity red





From info!dregis Fri Nov 22 14:01:32 GMT 1996