Talk:Slav Defense

old talk
I did the best I could in creating this page, but it could use some help from someone who knows the theory. (I don't play the Slav.) The Slav is so large that I intend that the Semi-Slav variations be treated separately, but there's still a lot missing here, such as the Slav Gambit. Quale 03:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Replying to my own talk entry is lame, but I added the Slav Gambit and fixed some other errors I had made, most importantly some bad evaluations of variations. (The original assessment of the Slav Gambit was too negative.)  Fashions in openings change, so unless a move is a well known mistake I think it's best to provide only general evaluations.  Now we need a daring soul to create the Semi-Slav Defense article, either including the Meran or making that a separate article.  Quale 23:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Undertaking a quest to make a decent article on the Semi-Slav is indeed daring. The Meran is extremely complex, and the Botvinnik attack is one of the most hairraising lines I know of, though it's fun to play it in blitz. I think those two lines should go in the same article though. In the meantime I have initiated the Queen's Gambit Declined article. Sjakkalle 14:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

.Qb3 doesn't win a pawn because of 5...Nc6. However, Bf5 isn't a good move

Czech V. 6.Nh4
The article includes 6.Nh4 in the list of variations but doesn't comment in the text. Does this variation have a name? Now that Topalov used it in the 2006 World Championship match we should say something about it. Clearly White wants the bishop pair after 6...Bg6 7.Nxg6. 165.189.91.148 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Language
The section dealing with the Exchange Variation starts with the sentence "The Slav Exchange Variation takes most of the fun out of the Slav for Black." That definitely sounds unencyclopedic and seems like a matter of opinion. Certainly, I could understand that it might be desireable to include language which states that the Exchange Variation wouldn't suit the tastes of many Slav players (myself included, frankly), but it seems that there must be a better way of phrasing it. ScottM84 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - it needs to be changed. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 05:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's an almost exact quote from at least one source, and probably more.  We should cite it. Quale (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is a quote from a source then it should be cited. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. 91.107.137.18 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Argentinean Defence missing
James Vigus names the variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4 Argentinean Defense. He gives three main choices for white (4.a4, 4.e4, 4.e3) and gives in his book about the mainline slav the opinion of equality. (I don't share this, but I'm a far lesser player.) At least it's a system in current discussion and GM games. Last ist Onischuk,A. (USA) - Yilmaz,M (TUR), WTCC, Bursa, 05.01.2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupp53 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

One possible error with the Slav Declined ?
Dear Editors of the Slav Defence :-)

Maybe I have found an error or an unclear wording in the section of the Slav Declined variation:

a6 (Chebanenko) Slav: 4...a6

The a6 Slav occurs after 4...a6. Black seeks an early b5, either before or after capturing at c4.

5.c5 This try sees an important space advantage for white. Both e5 and b6 become important pawn breaks for black. White will often play his bishop to f4, controlling the important dark squares e5, d6, c7, and b8 (this last square reduces black's control over the b-file should it open) Bf5 6.Bf4 Nbd7 7. h3 e6 8.e3

---

The last sentence with the continuation states white plays 6.Bf4. However, at this point white cannot play Bf4 because he has his own pawn in the way on e3. White moved 4.e3 if I understand correctly. Maybe you wish to have a look at this?

I understand that if white had played the Slav main line with 4.Nc3 and Black 4...a6 then of course on move 6, 6.Bf4 was possible for white.

I am hesitant to edit the line myself as I am too ill informed about this opening line, and I don't have no proper literature about it.

Thank you and kind greetings

Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haegint (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that this section is currently in error. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nf3 introduction, error in 3..Bf5 refutation
"Black usually plays 3...Nf6. 3...e6 may lead to various possibilities, such as the Noteboom Variation, Semi-Slav Defense or Stonewall Dutch. 3...Bf5? 4. Nc3 Bf5? is a mistake for black due to 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3 5. cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3, where black must play 5 6...Bc8 to avoid losing the b-pawn. Attempts such as 5 6...b6? fail due to e.g 6.Bg5 e6 7.e4! dxe4 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 9. Ne5 with 10.Bxf6 7.Bg5 e6 8.e4! dxe4 9.Bb5+ Nbd7 10. Ne5 with 11.Bxf6 to follow. [citation needed] "

There are several errors in this line. The move 6..e6 after 5..d6 6. Bg5 would lead to losing a Queen in one move and is not a practical line for refutation. I do not know the full theory of the refutation, but I suspect that the actual line intended for ...Bf5 being a mistake occurs on the fourth move, not the third. The move 8...Nd7 would not be ambiguous without a black knight on c6 and the move 9. Ne5 is completely impossible in the supposed variation above. However, I reconstructed this potential line with Stockfish, and do not have a citation or a grounding in the theory of the Slav defense. 141.214.17.120 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)