lichess.org
Donate

d4 d5 c4 Nf6 is bad

I see alot of 1800+ blitz rated players playing d4 d5 c4 Nf6? . Its a terrible move and loses tempo after 3. cxd5 Nxd5 e4 or 3. cxd5 Qxd5 Nc3. I surprised so many people here play this.

I had to post somewhere because cant tell everyone who plays it that is bad.
Yes, it loses a tempo if you dont play the actual moves. Called the Marshall Defense the patzerian variation with Qxd5 or Nxd5 loses. But the idea of the this defense is actually to play c6.

dxc6 Nxc6 gives good compensation to black.

Usually White plays Nc3 after c6. With a little edge for white.

No one knows it is called the Marshall Defense nor that they arent supposed to take on d5.

An interesting try for black is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Bf5!? with an interesting position. 4. f3?! is met by Bxb1!

I faced this over the board once as white and while I did win, it wasn't because of the opening.
I do not see this as being too bad for black. Its not very good but can lead to Gruenfeld type positions if white wants. But if white wants to avoid that and go for something more advantageous with a large pawn centre and the ability to play e5 and chase the knight around for another tempo and space gain.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. e4

1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. Nc3 Nxc3
5. bxc3 g6 6. e4
It still seems rather dubious. But playable. I wish I could italicize playable.
Its just flat bad. Both e4 and nc3 are very desirable moves for white and he can get them for free in the opening because black will have to move the same piece again. Dont need to discuss specific lines because giving your opponent good free moves is bad.
This is a fun debate to watch. Unfortunately what's "playable" to an 1800, and what's "playable" to a 2300+ are two completely different things. I know that none of us have really reached 2300+, but you can almost consider a few of us who have commented a little close. (I know one has blitz 2300+, but lets get serious.. I know 1700 USCF players with 2200+ simply because they are aggressive.) Being that theory is theory because it is debatable also throws a loop.

Therein lies the problem with the OP. You can't expect people to just believe you, 2200 blitz or not, just because you say a line is bad. You have to supply logical proof, with admitting people to debate their side till you win them over. And you can't logically deny the debate just because you might our rank people.

If you do this then all you are doing is soap boxing. This tends to make people less responsive. And defeats the purpose of your post. Good intentions or not. On the bright side.. I agree that the Marshall defense is according to theory in favor of white in all variations. I have studied the marshall defense somewhat when I was looking at the Roman Forum's: easy opening preparation for the tournament player. It covers the defense very minimally, with having white play e4, and leaving it as white has a nominal advantage. Or something to work with. I agree with THAT assessment.

On a side note I would like to quote ClackYourBones:

"An interesting try for black is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 3. cxd5 Bf5!? with an interesting position. 4. f3?! is met by Bxb1!

I faced this over the board once as white and while I did win, it wasn't because of the opening."

Why am I quoting this one. Well because he places seemingly large emphasis on 4. .. Bxb1. I don't agree that Bxb1 is good by any means. And if you intend to do it in response to 4. f3. I think something went wrong with your opening as black. It's almost as bad as mainline marshall defense in my opinion. While I agree for the most part that for players of our level, ClackYourBones, lack the skill to beat someone in the opening. I might blame your opponent's defeat on the opening, and subsequent knowledge of chess in general. My school of chess states move sequences like that are essentially positional blunders.
I never once brought up my rating as a case for being right.

I gave logical reasons for it being bad. Its a tempo lose with white playing desirable moves.

All cases on this site have resulted in Nxd5 or Qxd5. I have given up expecting Bf5. The games just turn into white having a free hand in the centre with no real counter plan. Its as a result of an opening mistake on move 2 which I am honestly very surprised that I face.

People making the point that something is "playable" doesnt address whether it is a bad move or not. You can practically get results with alot of rubbish . This shouldnt stop people making an objective assessment of a move. You may not like the word "bad" I could have probably picked a better word .
let's frame the argument differently.
almost all the time when i see d4 d5 c4 Nf6, it's not "intended". they want to play some slav or qgd, but for some reason they play this move order.. maybe because a lot of their opponents don't take on d5 and transpose.

now well, how "bad" is it if black does play properly? i'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't compare favorably with the aforementioned openings. still, the 4 Nf3 line is more accurate than 4 e4, as achja mentions.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.