In Playing 1.e4 e5 – A Classical Repertoire, Nikolaos Ntirlis offers the best of both worlds: a complete repertoire against 1.e4, built on sound positional principles, which does not require excessive memorization. Against the Spanish the author recommends the Breyer System, one of the most stable, computer-proof options at Black’s disposal. The Scotch, Italian, Four Knights and various other sidelines and gambits are handled with the same clarity and efficiency.Nikolaos Ntirlis is an opening expert and adviser to numerous GMs. He is an avid researcher, and in this book he draws on masterly insights from chess legends such as Capablanca and Smyslov, as well as the latest analytical tools that modern technology has to offer.Praise for the author’s previous work:“I thought I knew a fair amount about the Tarrasch, but after reading this book, I was amazed/aghast at how much I didn’t know!” GM Matthew Sadler, New in ChessISBN: 978-1-78483-014-4 - 384 pages - Published 3 February 2016 Reviews.
In Playing 1.d4 d5 – A Classical Repertoire, Nikolaos Ntirlis provides a top-class repertoire for Black after 1.d4 d5 with the Queen's Gambit Declined. This is truly the Rolls Royce of chess openings, having been played with both colors by most World Champions and world-class players for more than a century.
Thriller fan's answer is highly inaccurate(not a surprise of course). Tartakower defense not only doesn't avoid structural problems, it actually invites them. The whole line is based on structural problems.At your rating the opening choice must be relevant with your goals. So what do you want to do? Better short term results at the cost of long term improvement or investing in long term improvement? With Tartakower defense you will learn to play very important pawn structures(isolated pawns and hanging pawns) that are the heart and the soul of middlegame strategy.
Learning to play these have a huge value since you will acquire the ability to know how to take advantage of these pawns either yOu play with them or against them. I can't promise you better results but I can promise you positions that have a lot to teach you assuming that you will spend some time analysing them.If though all you care is improve your on line blitz rating then I would say that it doesn't matter what you will choose.Highly inaccurate?Not surprising?SHUT UP MORON! You have no clue what you are talking about.Hanging pawns is a dynamic structure, not a weakness like the two isolated pawns (isolated a- and c-pawns that result in certain lines recommended by Ntrilis).
The main lines of the Tartakower results in hanging pawns for Black.The other book by Ntrilis, on the Tarrasch defense, results in an isolated d-pawn for Black, again a weakness.I know a lot more than you think. Two isolated pawns are weaker than a pair of isolated pawns, but the piece play is different in the isolated pawns.
You are using the open files and diagonal for piece activity. With hanging pawns, you are using the pieces to cover the pawns and trying to avoid advancing them until ready. Advance one too early and a color complex becomes weak (which complex depends on which pawn you advance).Don't go around backstabbing other posters until you go back and learn the basics of chess! Hey, ive been playing both e4 e5 and d4 d5 repertoire by ntirlis, but I noticed many players prefer the tartakower, Is it worth it to study that more deeply, I like the breyer against spanish, but yeah against higher rated opponent I got a winning position with the kramnik line of the orthodox, but after playing them I also got many draws against players I maybe could beat, and maybe the tartakower is more in line with the breyer, the nature of the position not the strategic ideasWhat is the Kramnik line of the orthodox?
Thriller fan's answer is highly inaccurate(not a surprise of course). Tartakower defense not only doesn't avoid structural problems, it actually invites them. The whole line is based on structural problems.At your rating the opening choice must be relevant with your goals. So what do you want to do? Better short term results at the cost of long term improvement or investing in long term improvement? With Tartakower defense you will learn to play very important pawn structures(isolated pawns and hanging pawns) that are the heart and the soul of middlegame strategy. Learning to play these have a huge value since you will acquire the ability to know how to take advantage of these pawns either yOu play with them or against them.
I can't promise you better results but I can promise you positions that have a lot to teach you assuming that you will spend some time analysing them.If though all you care is improve your on line blitz rating then I would say that it doesn't matter what you will choose.Highly inaccurate?Not surprising?SHUT UP MORON! You have no clue what you are talking about.Hanging pawns is a dynamic structure, not a weakness like the two isolated pawns (isolated a- and c-pawns that result in certain lines recommended by Ntrilis). The main lines of the Tartakower results in hanging pawns for Black.The other book by Ntrilis, on the Tarrasch defense, results in an isolated d-pawn for Black, again a weakness.I know a lot more than you think.
Two isolated pawns are weaker than a pair of isolated pawns, but the piece play is different in the isolated pawns. You are using the open files and diagonal for piece activity. With hanging pawns, you are using the pieces to cover the pawns and trying to avoid advancing them until ready. Advance one too early and a color complex becomes weak (which complex depends on which pawn you advance).Don't go around backstabbing other posters until you go back and learn the basics of chess!Hanging pawns, isolated pawn and backward pawn are the definition of weak pawns.In all cases the side with the weaknesses gets compensation assuming he hasn't done something terribly wrong.
You are seriously confusing things though. The compensation for the weakness in the form of dynamic play doesn't cancel the weakness.The side with the weakness is the one forced to find active play or the weakness of the pawns will become relevant or even decisive.
Find someone that has studied chess more than you(it's very easy,it's everyone that has study chess more than 2 hours seriously) and he will tell you that hanging pawns is a structural weakness.You have no God da.n mother f.cking clue how much anybody other than you own lousy self has studied, and I guarantee you that if I played a 12-game classic time control match over the board against your lousy a$s, you would be slapped silly! No way it takes me more than 10 games to reach 6.5. Calm down Thriller.
I get that his intentional provocation enrages you but this is definetly not the way to handle things as a chess player and a human in general.Can we get back to the original question? I am highly interested in this and would love to see an up to date discussion about the QGD lines. My vote goes for the Tartakower. I believe that it's one of the best openings to actually improve as a chess player as you have to find the best of many ways to solve the complex pawn tensions in the center. Doing so really improves your understanding of pawn structures. Hey, ive been playing both e4 e5 and d4 d5 repertoire by ntirlis, but I noticed many players prefer the tartakower, Is it worth it to study that more deeply, I like the breyer against spanish, but yeah against higher rated opponent I got a winning position with the kramnik line of the orthodox, but after playing them I also got many draws against players I maybe could beat, and maybe the tartakower is more in line with the breyer, the nature of the position not the strategic ideasWhat is the Kramnik line of the orthodox? Ah thanks, and I should note my rating is around 1700, but I got some draws and wins against 1900 players so im improving.
Ive played ntirlis repertoire for some while, but never any other line of the qgd, played nimzo before that, but ive enjoyed the more classical playstyle more, at least I like to fight for my space with pawns. I just wanna play the best moves and dont mind drawing, but I was wondering is it worth to play tartakower as it is more winning/losing chances for a qgd and to learn different structures. (i dont really like the c6 fighting choices he gives) I also have cox book on declinong the queens gambit.
Liked ntirlis options at any other variation more b6 against and nh5 idea against exchange, but I think I should now try the tartakower for the next games I play at my club/tournaments. As I dont have much experience in these structures. IMO it's just a matter of taste.The 'modern Capablanca' suggested by Ntirlis, Kornev and Colovic is surely enough a great choice, and the same goes for the Lasker, the Tartakower, and the Cambridge Springs variations.I do not suggest ANY of the above. Just search the mainlines a little bit, and pick the one which feels more natural to you.Considering the lack of recent books (as far as I know) about the Tartakower, how hard would you think it would be to learn the theory of the opening by the means of using a database? IMO it's just a matter of taste.The 'modern Capablanca' suggested by Ntirlis, Kornev and Colovic is surely enough a great choice, and the same goes for the Lasker, the Tartakower, and the Cambridge Springs variations.I do not suggest ANY of the above.
Just search the mainlines a little bit, and pick the one which feels more natural to you.Considering the lack of recent books (as far as I know) about the Tartakower, how hard would you think it would be to learn the theory of the opening by the means of using a database?I can easily recall Sokolov's 'winning chess middlegames' which is not an openings book, but it does offer terrific insight of the stock Tartakower plans and structures. Needless to say, such books are way more valuable than any openings' manual. IMO it's just a matter of taste.The 'modern Capablanca' suggested by Ntirlis, Kornev and Colovic is surely enough a great choice, and the same goes for the Lasker, the Tartakower, and the Cambridge Springs variations.I do not suggest ANY of the above. Just search the mainlines a little bit, and pick the one which feels more natural to you.Considering the lack of recent books (as far as I know) about the Tartakower, how hard would you think it would be to learn the theory of the opening by the means of using a database?I can easily recall Sokolov's 'winning chess middlegames' which is not an openings book, but it does offer terrific insight of the stock Tartakower plans and structures.
Needless to say, such books are way more valuable than any openings' manual.Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check that book. Besides that, do you think it would be worthwhile to do a diachronical study of this opening, or would it be better to check recent games?