In his June/July column on Chessville, Nigel Davies addresses a question
about the Zukertort variation beginning 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3.

http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Ask_the_Tiger.htm

In his reply, Mr. Davies says, "after [1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6] 3.e3 it no longer
makes sense for Black to play 3...e6."

My question is, "Why not?"

My best guess is that it makes sense for Black to delay pushing his e-pawn
until White declares his intentions for his KB with either e3 or g3. Thus,
after 3.e3, White has indicated that he is not going to fianchetto his KB,
but put it on the b1-h7 diagonal eventually, against which Black's best
setup is to fianchetto his own KB and avoid undue weakening of the light
squares by pushing his e-pawn.

But this is not quite the same thing that Mr Davies said. Instead, he seems
to be saying that there is some logical flaw in 3...e6 after 3.e3, and I
don't really see that. It may not be the most precise or the most flexible
move order, but I don't see it as being organically flawed.

Maybe I'm just trying to read too much into what Davies said.

3...e6 seems to be a fairly popular move in the database, actually, although
not currently at the highest levels. A couple of oldies a

Steinitz - Chigorin (20)1892
Janowsky - Lasker (2) 1910

Although 3...e6 might be just the kind of move people talk about when they
say Lasker sometimes played 2nd-rate moves.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 12:15:59 -0500, "edwood"
wrote:

In his June/July column on Chessville, Nigel Davies addresses a question
about the Zukertort variation beginning 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3.

http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Ask_the_Tiger.htm

In his reply, Mr. Davies says, "after [1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6] 3.e3 it no longer
makes sense for Black to play 3...e6."

My question is, "Why not?"

My best guess is that it makes sense for Black to delay pushing his e-pawn
until White declares his intentions for his KB with either e3 or g3. Thus,
after 3.e3, White has indicated that he is not going to fianchetto his KB,
but put it on the b1-h7 diagonal eventually, against which Black's best
setup is to fianchetto his own KB and avoid undue weakening of the light
squares by pushing his e-pawn.

But this is not quite the same thing that Mr Davies said. Instead, he seems
to be saying that there is some logical flaw in 3...e6 after 3.e3, and I
don't really see that. It may not be the most precise or the most flexible
move order, but I don't see it as being organically flawed.

Maybe I'm just trying to read too much into what Davies said.

3...e6 seems to be a fairly popular move in the database, actually, although
not currently at the highest levels. A couple of oldies a

Steinitz - Chigorin (20)1892
Janowsky - Lasker (2) 1910

Although 3...e6 might be just the kind of move people talk about when they
say Lasker sometimes played 2nd-rate moves.




After 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3, certainly 3...e6 has to be playable
(after all, the QGD and Semi-Slav are playable). But 3...e6 doesn't
really address the position at all. 3. e3 temporarily locks in the
c1-bishop, so White is actually playing for Bd3, c3, Qc2, and e4.
This is a rather slow plan, though, and Black, being offered the
opportunity to inconvenience White immediately, shouldn't really
decline the opportunity to just play a solid move which doesn't really
have much of a point other than to block in Black's own light-squared
bishop (where is White's pressure on d5 that warrants such a move?).
Thus 3...Bf5 is logical, preventing White's e4-push idea and
developing the bishop outside the pawn chain should White later force
Black to play ...e6. Alternatively, Black can try to play against d4
instead of e4 with 3...c5, intending more pressure against d4 by
....Nc6 and ...Bg4. These attacks against d4 or e4 are much more than
a defending a pawn which, quite honestly, doesn't even need defending
in the position at hand.

-Frank

"These attacks against d4 or e4 are much more ACTIVE than defending a
pawn which, quite honestly, doesn't even need defending in the
position at hand."

Nigel Davies has a website and mailing list. Why dont you talk to Nigel on
his mailing list?



"edwood" wrote in message
...
In his June/July column on Chessville, Nigel Davies addresses a question
about the Zukertort variation beginning 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3.

http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Ask_the_Tiger.htm

In his reply, Mr. Davies says, "after [1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6] 3.e3 it no
longer
makes sense for Black to play 3...e6."

My question is, "Why not?"

My best guess is that it makes sense for Black to delay pushing his e-pawn
until White declares his intentions for his KB with either e3 or g3.
Thus,
after 3.e3, White has indicated that he is not going to fianchetto his KB,
but put it on the b1-h7 diagonal eventually, against which Black's best
setup is to fianchetto his own KB and avoid undue weakening of the light
squares by pushing his e-pawn.

But this is not quite the same thing that Mr Davies said. Instead, he
seems
to be saying that there is some logical flaw in 3...e6 after 3.e3, and I
don't really see that. It may not be the most precise or the most
flexible
move order, but I don't see it as being organically flawed.

Maybe I'm just trying to read too much into what Davies said.

3...e6 seems to be a fairly popular move in the database, actually,
although
not currently at the highest levels. A couple of oldies a

Steinitz - Chigorin (20)1892
Janowsky - Lasker (2) 1910

Although 3...e6 might be just the kind of move people talk about when they
say Lasker sometimes played 2nd-rate moves.

In his June/July column on Chessville, Nigel Davies addresses a question
about the Zukertort variation beginning 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3.

I play 1...Nf6 against 1. d4 and 2...c5 against 2. Nf3 so I'd never see this
line.

"edwood" wrote
In his June/July column on Chessville, Nigel Davies addresses a question
about the Zukertort variation beginning 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3.

http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Ask_the_Tiger.htm

In his reply, Mr. Davies says, "after [1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6] 3.e3 it no
longer
makes sense for Black to play 3...e6."

My question is, "Why not?"


Because Black can equalise on the spot with 3...Bf5! This solves his main
opening problem, the development of his QB, which is normally such a
headache after 2.c4! Black shouldn't deny himself this possibility with the
unimaginative 3...e6?

After 1.d4 d5, 2.Nf3 Nf6, 3.e3, not only does ...Bf5 equalize (as
pointed out by Tiscali Benelux) but also ...Bg4 and ...c6 and even...c5
or ...e6. (Probably...a6 does too or ...g6.)

This doesn't mean that there is no play. After 3...Bf5 or ...Bg4, White
has 4.c4 and can try Qb3 later. Normally this leads to some type of Slav
defence.

In this type of position, the Hypermoderns were generally correct: the
d4+d5 ram should be attacked with c4.

"Ted" wrote in message ...
"edwood" wrote
In his June/July column on Chessville, Nigel Davies addresses a question
about the Zukertort variation beginning 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3.

http://www.chessville.com/instruction/Ask_the_Tiger.htm

In his reply, Mr. Davies says, "after [1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6] 3.e3 it no
longer
makes sense for Black to play 3...e6."

My question is, "Why not?"


Because Black can equalise on the spot with 3...Bf5! This solves his main
opening problem, the development of his QB, which is normally such a
headache after 2.c4! Black shouldn't deny himself this possibility with the
unimaginative 3...e6?

Very good point! And besides this, 3...Bf5 breaks the heart of the
White player who wants to play the Colle System!!! warm regards,
GreyHipster