playing against the tarrasch as black

a few weeks ago i asked for help in the 3. Nc3 variation of the french. i got many answers with some people telling me to play the winawer, some people suggesting the classical and some people even suggesting 3...dxe4 to completely avoid having to deal with 3. Nc3 and the topic of this thread, 3. Nd2 separately, and to get a solid position so that i can focus most of my study in the advance variation (3. e5). i ended up choosing the winawer because i found out i was just being lazy. but now i have almost finished analysis in the winawer (only sidelines are left) and i started thinking about the next big variation i have to learn, the tarrasch (3. Nd2). the tarrasch is very solid and actually in my opinion a bit problematic for me. i will discuss why later.

firstly, i want to state is that unless i choose to become a rubenstein french player, i will not really talk about 3...dxe4 because if you are going to play 3...dxe4 against the tarrasch you might as well cut down the theory and play that against 3. Nc3 as well, and since i chose the winawer, that is mostly out of the question. so that leaves the closed system (3...Nf6) and the open system (3...c5)

3..Nf6

so the thing is from what i've seen this leads to stuff that is closer in nature to the winawer with a somewhat closed position where black plays f6 and puts pressure on the open f-file on the kingside. however, the engine thinks that white is +0.5 to +0.7 and unlike the winawer where grandmasters don't really seem to care about the computer giving white an advantage, which is shown by the fact that 3...Bb4 is the most common move after 3. Nc3 in the masters database, most masters play 3...c5 in the tarrasch and white also seems to be doing well against 3...Nf6. GM anish giri in the short & sweet version (the free sample) of his course also said that 3...Nf6 had a few tricks and was otherwise pretty meh, so he recommends 3...c5. i need the answer to why the same grandmasters who play the sharp winawer don't play these lines.

3...c5

this is considered the 'most ambitious' approach by many. against 4. Ngf3 there is this interesting move 4...Nf6, basically arguing that the Ngf3 setup in the closed system isn't really as potent, and there is also 4...cxd4. 4...cxd4 forces black to go into some of the lines after 3. Nd2 c5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 after something like 3. Nd2 c5 5. Ngf3 cxd4 5. exd5 (5. Nxd4 is also possible but i digress) where 5...exd5 for black would just let white have a blockade on black's isolated pawn, forcing 5...Qxd5.

against 4. exd5 i really am willing to give 4...exd5 a try, if it has any decent fighting chances. the modern main line is to avoid all the IQP shenanigans with 4...Qxd5, and i think it might work, but sometimes the positions feel a bit drawish although i did find one fun-looking position, but it has a 55% loss rate for black and it's not from the main line.

so overall i probably will go for either the 3...c5 with 4...Qxd5 or 3...Nf6 if i get answers to all of my questions. it would also be really helpful if you show example lines. for your information, i am looking for something where you can play for a win as black that is sound. by the way, i have also heard about some wonky 3...Nc6 lines and would like to know more about them.

thanks in advance

I always suggest 3...c5. There are 3 approaches with it.

After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5, you have:

A) 4...exd5 5.Ngf3 Nf6 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8.O-O Be7 9.dxc5 Nxc5 10.Nb3 Nce4

B) 4...exd5 5.Ngf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 and now 6...Qe7+ or 6...Bd6, the latter being known to give White a slight edge.

C) 4...Qxd5

So when White plays 4.Ngf3, what I suggest depends on what line you play against 4.exd5.

If you play line A above, I suggest 4...Nf6, where 5.e5 leads to the Universal System or Korchnoi Gambit. 5...exd5 would transpose to line A.

If you play line B above, I suggest 4...Nc6. More than half the times, it will transpose. Only line even slightly worth anything for White besides 5.exd5 is 5.Bb5.

If you play line C above, I suggest studying 4...cxd4, which may or may not transpose to the 4...Qxd5 lines, but the style, even when not transposed, is most in line with the positions after 4...Qxd5.

Honestly, I think you are looking at the situation from a bad point of view.

——————————

The reason I say above is because I play the following:

- Winawer vs. Nc3

- Rubenstein vs. Nd3

For some reason, your making it sound as if your forced to play the Rubenstein vs. both Nc3 + Nd2.

This is certainly not true!

Their is nothing wrong with playing a different line.

—————————————

Here is how I see the situation:

You ideally need 2 lines

- You need 1 line vs. Nc3.

- You need 1 line vs. Nd2.

The Rubenstein can work for both, but your not forced to play them for both.

At the end of the day, Rubenstein is giving you extra options!

You could use them for both or you could just use them for 1.

It really doesn’t change anything.

- Winawer + Closed Tarrash

- Winawer + Open Tarrash

- Winawer + Rubenstein

Its still only 2 lines your playing at end of the day.

If you don’t like the Rubenstein lines, Than that would be completely different.

Do you hate the Rubenstein lines?

———————————

Take me for example:

Originally, I didn’t want to learn tons of theory.

So I started with Rubenstein because I wanted to use only 1 line vs. both moves.

Later on, when I got better player, I added in the Winawer.

This is how I play Winawer + Rubenstein.

Obviously, If you hate Rubenstein that would be different story, I just don’t see why your choosing to reduce your options based on very strange line of reasoning.

I would not play 3...Nf6. it leads to e5, and while the advanced pawn structure is normally good for black there is an important difference in the position that being that you first have to move your Knight again and then you lose tempos (which are what make the advance variation work for black), and then you don't have a key piece (that Knight) being able to go to f5 (unless of course you fully undevelop the knight, and then waste 3 tempos to get a more proper advance set up which gives white too much time to solidify their center). I would recommend 3... c5. Here is some lines along following those moves.

I would like to point out though that since you are only 1100 you won't face the tarrasch much. This variation is much more popular at stronger levels of chess. You will face advance, exchange, and winnawer variations much more often (I also play the French these are the variations I face a lot more). Also since you are 1100 I believe that you will rarely face an opponent that plays all the correct moves in the opening especially the tarrasch variation. It is best to know why you are making the moves, and then when your opponent goes out of book then you will have a much better chance of playing the best moves in response to that. I also think that you don't need to be worried that some of these variations are drawish since no one at your level (or even remotely close to your level) will be able to draw those lines even close to regularly in a game because everyone at your level makes big mistakes in the game, and those will allow for wining chances.

Hope this helps.

this helped a lot, but i still need help. after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 cxd4 5. Nxd4, black has a choice between 5...Nf6 and 5...Nc6. both look equally sound and 5...Nf6 also has a small trap:-

however, 5...Nc6 seems to have a higher win rate (white wins:- 46% draw:- 4% black wins:- 49%)

it would also be helpful if you showed example lines

I would have to go through additional research to get down to specifics. I only played 4...Qxd5 very occasionally. I would play line A or line B with 6...Qe7+, split about 50/50, in over the board play.

Where are you getting your statistics from? A legitimate database like Megabase? Or the garbage here? This is not the place to find legit statistics.

And even if you are using megabase, I would take statistics out of the equation. What matters more is that you understand the lines you are playing.

You don't want to play an opening that is basically refuted and only scores say, 25 or 30 or 35 percent that is theoretically busted, like Dominano's Defense.

But when looking at sound openings, if the Grunfeld scores 47.1% for Black and the Semi-Slav scores 47.0% for Black, that does not make the Grunfeld a better opening, and it does not mean you should take up the Grunfeld.

What matters AMONGST SOUND OPENINGS is what makes sense to you. That goes for variations within openings as well. If the Winawer scores 47.4% for Black and the Classical scores 46.8%, but the classical makes more sense to you and you can explain Black's ideas in words and you cannot make sense out of the Winawer, FOR YOU, the Classical is better than the Winawer.

So I would not go into the statistics of 5...Nf6 vs 5...Nc6. Which line makes more sense to you when you study it? Are you able to explain in words what Black is doing on his next 10 moves after 5...Nf6? What about after 5...Nc6?.

Statistics are useless. Supposedly the Najdorf Sicilian scores the highest for Black against 1.e4. But for me, the French and 1...e5 (specifically the Petroff if 2.Nf3) make far more sense. Provided a sound opening is selected, and not some trash line like 1.e4 f5, the game is not decided by the opening, and you must know how to execute after that, and so I could care less if the Najdorf scores the highest for Black. BLEEP THE NAJDORF! I play what makes sense to ME, and you should be doing the same.

For me, against 1.e4, that is the Petroff and the French. Which specific lines of the Petroff and which specific lines of the French? The ones that make the most sense to ME, not the one that scores a few extra tenths of a percent. You need to take the same approach and bleep the database statistics.