It is an "inaccuracy" to accept the Queen's Gambit???

I was analyzing one of my recent games in the engine and noticed that in the Queen's Gambit, the engine currently flags Black's second move of dxc4 as an inaccuracy. Why would this be?

I could understand it perhaps not being the MOST highly recommended move, according to the engine's analysis. But QGA is one of Black's oldest soundest, stodgiest defenses against the Queen's Gambit that has a rich theoretical foundation after generations of regular top-level play...and it is considered inaccurate now? Has QGA been "refuted"?

Certainly not. I played last year in Vienna and had some problems against the QGA accepted, my opponent sacrificed a pawn and had strong compensation. He followed some super GMs, as you can see it is very much alive...

Nice game. White has a strong centre and open g-file. Interesting is refusing to take on c6, keep the bishop pair, and going for 0-0-0 and attack blacks king.

Just so you guys know, I was joking when I asked if QGA had been refuted. It obviously has not. I was more interested in why the engine would flag it as an inaccuracy. But as has been said and as I have noticed in games I have analyzed since, the engine doesn't always do so.

Thanks for posting this cool games!

Siegbert Tarrasch considered it a mistake. His argument went that after move order 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 e3 e6 4 c4 no master would take 4...dxc4 as it gives white a free tempo to develop 5 Bxc4 and as it cedes the centre to white.

They Praeceptor Germaniae considered nearly EVERYTHING as not correct. French defence as well - but he played it himself...

Magnus Carlsen also considers the French defence as incorrect, though he has played it himself.

#6 #7
Well, of course the only correct reply to the Queens Gambit is the Tarrasch defense!
And sometimes when SF is plagued by nightmares it awards other responses to the Queens Gambit, like the QGA with a question mark. :-)

You just caught the engine on a bad day, more or less.

With any decent depth, there's nothing like a 0.5 CP difference between 2...e6 and 2...dxc4

Probably just an exceptionally shallow or otherwise aberrant search (at higher search depths, dxc4 sometimes even briefly jumps above e6 as the top move).

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.