1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 is the standard orthodox

7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 is the standard Bd3 line

10. Bxd7 Qxd7 11. 0-0 is the usual continuation but at this point if thought of something a bit unusual (which seems good positonally for me)

11. ...N7b6!? was my opinion of it. it gains some tempo by hitting the bishop and making it retreat to b3(obviously whites good bishop isn't gonna trade of and neither is the knight at c3; if so then just exd5) and linking the knights: if needed(ie. e4) then just Nf3 followed by Re8 and there is a very strong position that is just WAITING for white to overextend itself

Its never been refuted and at best white advantage is marginal…yes blacks winning chances are also marginal but thats the trade off due to its solidness. It is great for punishing an aggresive opponent. And it's also good for dealing with unorthodox play seen at the club level.

Few players under 2200 USCF really understand the subtleties of the Orthodox (heck I seen games where even modern GM’s got lost) In today’s age where the Indians are all the rage, few know the subtleties of the Orthodox. for example who knows the theory of the Rubinstien attack? Usually my opponents seem to guess at the opening theory and I equalize easliy.

One get really good at the exchange variation …after opening with 1…d5 I see a lot of Exchange variations. and I don’t ever see the Tromp… because natural QGD moves (i.e.in a classical fashion) practically refute it.

I believe the main a reason why the exchange variation is so popular over the QGD is White hasn’t found a decent way of dealing with it and avoids it.

Finally..... There are a lot ofpublications easily obtainable featuring the Orthodox defense with high-level play from Lasker to Kramnik and everyone in between.

But a lot of it depends on if you look at the glass being half full or half empty.

For example, your perspective on the Exchange Variation and how it keeps the pieces on the board longer. As one who likes the Orthodox, my perspective is the Exchange breaks the tension in the center and gives black time to construct a defense.

Both of us like it for different reasons.

On the Orthodox
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0–0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0–0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 e5 “The Rubinstien” variation is about as complex as it gets despite the pieces removed from the board.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0–0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Qc2 c5 Positions arising from 7. Qc2 and c5 variations I don’t find stogy or drawish

The Exchange Variation you mentioned 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Nge2 0–0 9.Qc2 I see this all the time and like it too. Although, I feel the classical line offers more challenges to Black.

Generally the two variations below or variants of them are what I play.

I like to defer castling until the position somewhat clarifies so I play this line.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2 Be7 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 Nh5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nge2 and then I blunt the bishop with 10... g6 etc...

I think as long as black doesn’t panic and start moving his pawns he is ok as statistics show.

On Queenside castling I play something like this

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2 Be7 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 Nh5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.0–0–0 g6 11.Kb1 Nb6 12.Nge2 Bd7 13.Ka1 Ng7 14.h4 Bf5 15.Nf4 0–0–0 = and white has no real thunder!!

In my experience in variations where white’s knight goes to e2 it’s hard for him to rip off a minority attack that is actually a real threat or advantage. He really has only play up the middle and on the kingside in my humble opinion. In the classical variation where the knight goes to f3, I think white has more options.

Statistically it a lot sounder than most Exchange lines In my CA Database I got the line performing at: draws at 45% 1-0 at 31.94% and 0-1 at 22.09%