And, I have no idea what we're in now. I know that if 1...d5 had been played, we'd be in the Grunfeld Defense. But, seeing what you note below, I now realized that we're transposing into just that.

Heard of it. But, I'm glad that I've never had to play it, and yet, I know that this is a bad attitude. As one day, it might happen and may have to be prepared for something that I'm not used to, as Ken once pointed out. That's why, the last thing he told me is that, as with the Nizovich-Larsen Attack, I need to get used to openings that I'm not used to. As otherwise, this would continue to be a problem for me. And, that's especially true here because, if I never heard of the Catalan, and a student of mine were to play it, I'd be critical. I'd be so wrong but would say that GM's don't analyze it and, therefore, is ill advised. That's why I'm glad when I see things that I'm not used or am still learning played and annotated by Charles.

I wouldn't allow it because if e2-e4, I'd be worried about white then playing e5 to attack the Nf6 and get a pawn chain which I'd be determined to stop. The reason being is that in a variation of the French Defense, GM Susan Polgar said that the setup gives white a small advantage.

This is an example of what I posted earlier of getting used to something that I've not seen before. As I've never heard of the New-Grunfeld Defense, until just now.

Having said that, I didn't realize that this was the main continuation of the Neo-Grunfeld Defense. I would've been hesitant to do that and would've, therefore, continued with 5.c5. And, I reckon that this would not be so good for white, since I forgot the name but believe Scottish attack. So, after 1.e4 d5, I continued with 2.e5?! because of what Coach Stockel said happens after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5, being of course, 3.Nc3 where black's Q is harassed so he loses time. But, this can, easily be dealt with, if instead, black plays 2...Nxd5 which is how I handle it, just to avoid the loss of time which I'd, instead, use to develop.

As would I.

I admit to a strong liking for the 'natural' looking 6.e4, myself. Unfortunately, the nice fine centre one obtains is hard to maintain.

I don't know what's considered in book here. But, when I've known before, I used to try to go out of book to take them off guard. The thinking, in it of itself, did not work out for me. And, that's because, as you previously saw in the KOH club, it led to me continuously changing my openings since the opponent could study the opening that I always use against me. Except that the opponent also has knowledge of different openings. And, likewise, with what I know today, I assume that they know how to handle things, if I were to go out of books to take them off guard. In addition, I don't have nearly as much experience with that which was the complete opposite of Susan Polgar's advise in her lecture about the London System. As my thinking, until then, was that there's an opening that automatically wins. And, Susan in that lecture accurately noted that there's no, "won opening", or opening that automatically wins.

As do I.

I agree with them.

I like this more.