Now let's look how the 'big guys' in correspondent chess treat this pawn sac variation:


Very impressive!.. 

TonyRo wrote on 02/02/12 at 14:46:06:

... and more importantly by IM John Bartholomew in his January 2012 Flank Openings Update!

MNb wrote on 02/05/12 at 11:57:00:


This is Avrukh's recommendation, right? ..Alterman in his new book, recommends 11...Qa5 follow by the natural Rfb8 and looking at his analysis I thought this looks OK (probably slightly better for White). Can you be more specific which line you believe to be bad for Black!?

True, the Grünfeld, QGD and Slav are all first tier openings and highly topical at the moment but like you I was under the impression that the Benko is playable enough. If my memory serves me correctly, I think Ivanchuk used the Benko in the recent Tata Wijk an Zee to draw Radjabov.

I dont know. I thought the Benko was theoretically okay, have I been missing something?

I doubt the Benkö Gambit will be repopularised at top level due to computers. If grandmasters prepare past move 30, surely they will prepare enough to hold a position up a pawn and win by material. Certainly as computers get stronger, the only valid "gambit" that grandmasters will play would be the Queen's Gambit...

Vass wrote on 02/03/12 at 08:46:14:


I would think that the positional pawn sacs are good in correspondence chess because computers may have problems evaluating them correctly.

Anyway, to me, the positions get a kinda Benko feeling, even after the queens come of. 

As a follow-up, OT-question, how is the Benko doing in correspondence?

TonyRo wrote on 02/02/12 at 14:46:06:


sensible move b4, though not the only one I suppose, but I like it. I presumed we were talking about 8.b3!? instead of 8.Ne1!?

not a novelty surely, but agree White has interesting compensation

Edward_Dearing wrote on 11/08/10 at 14:54:23:


I am a bit of a tourist in this flank opening stuff but I was very impressed by the recent game Timman-Ernst where Timman played the straightforward 8.b3!?

If anyone is interested there is a video on youtube of Timman explaining the game which is well worth a look if you are into this stuff:

I think I have seen a post about a line in the Keres, but can't find it right now.

I found a game with a move that is not mentioned at all by Marin, but the move played seems like something Black should play whenever he/she can, or else why play ...Na6 in the first place? This looks like a clean equaliser.



Does anyone have an improvement for White, or maybe this line really is nothing for White? When I started reading this chapter, e3 seemed a bit slow. My impression still stands. There are other improvement in several of the lines, as far as I can tell. I actually think I will start to meet 1.c4 with ...e5 more often.

EDIT: Well, I checked the updates (which I maybe should've done before posting, sorry). Nigel Davies has of course addressed this game. Nothing particular for White in the comments either.

Thanks for the informative replies, certainly food for thought. I think I would force a Tarrasch or Catalan next time, the Benoni does not appeal to me that much, even with an extra tempo.

Hmm; I’d say that b3 has potential drawbacks for White (such as possible issues with his queenside dark squares/ a-pawn if it goes to a3 and the inability to play Qa4), and that the flip side of Black’s e-pawn not having made it to e5 is that White can’t use it as a target yet (thinking of a line like 10. d3 e5 11. a3 a5 12. Bg5 h6 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 14. Nbd2 Qd8 15. c5, Black might prefer to wait with perhaps 10...Re8).  Ba3 indeed seems the most natural way to make use of the early b3 (and of course Black has been known to play like that in some Benoni lines), but it doesn’t strike me as much of a way to play for advantage ...

After writing the above I noticed that ECO offers this:  1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. b3 d5 4. g3 c5 5. Bg2 d4 6. e3 Nc6 7. exd4 cxd4 8. d3 Bd6 9. O-O O-O 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12. Nbd2 Qe7 (Sadvakasov-Sakaev, Dubai 1999) 13. Ne1 unclear according to Sakaev.

BPaulsen wrote on 05/25/11 at 16:09:59:


As I understood it, black should wait with ...d5-d4 until white has played Bb2 as the bishop is misplaced there and the subsequent tempo loss moving it cancels out the e7-e6-e5 stuff.  Generally in the Benoni black wants to exchange his queen's bishop for something else, so here even Bc1-Ba3 is possible.

If I was playing White I would play 6.cd5 and meet both 6...ed5 and 6...Nd5 with 7.d4. That said, many English Opening exponents aren't willing to enter 1.d4 openings. Someone with the Catalan in their White repertoire could even play the immediate 6.d4.

White has a Reversed Benoni where black is going to spend an extra tempo on achieving that ...e5.

I see no reason for white to avoid that position. I'd even prefer white. It sounds like you don't have any experience with Benoni positions/structures, so you may want to start studyin' it.

Markovich wrote on 04/21/11 at 13:03:40:
  When the pieces remain on the board, it simply means more attacking/defending capability for both sides.  This is a neutral thing between equal opponents, but it can be decisive between players with understanding disparities.

Schaakhamster wrote on 04/21/11 at 09:01:37:


I completely agree that the number of remaining pieces play an important role, but also other factors such as long term king security, mutual weaknesses etc. If no such "inbalancers" exist it is very difficult to create them anew to steer the game away from a draw. Then again, a draw is not always such a bad result, but not being a professional player I don't see the merit in striving for a draw from the outset, even with black.

Markovich wrote on 04/21/11 at 01:46:49:

Couldn't agree more. There are also very different kinds of "equality". If the position is equal, but still contains a fighting element it can be a good choice irrespectively of the "objective" evaluation. 
One other question is if blacks ability to achieve equal chances is significantly easier in, say, the Reti or 1.c4 e5 lines compared to Petroff, QGD (Especially TMB and Lasker), Berlin wall and similar typical equalizers in the 1.e4 and 1.d4 space. I'm not so sure. One advantage with the flank approach is that theory still is clearly less developed and thus there is more room for creativity.

I had to remove a "N" from the Tarrasch analysis of the GM Rep book a few days ago because a friend GM followed my advice and released a novelty we had for the book against a 2650 player ("our" GM was "only" 2530) in the so-called Avrukh line (see GM-Rep 1) against the Tarrasch. The result was a comfortable draw. In the meantime Jacob keeps his unbeaten record with the Tarrasch in the Danish Championship. He drew against GM Shandorff who unleashed against him Marin's proposal from his Vol 3 of the English Books. 

Mark, it's not that we are "trying" to find novelties. The whole idea is to expand known theory. You have to make it clear that this is the state of theory so far (that mainly has to do with the games played) to the reader and then propose an improvement that you like the most. So, seeing a "N" sign, you know that this is where theory goes, so you can also start your own investigations. 

In my opinion, the Reti lines in Marin's book are suffering from the fact that there is no real advantage to look for if Black knows what he is doing. But, trying those lines in practice is another, completely different matter! I know a lot of players that have fantastic results! The nice thing is that these lines are also very "safe", and by knowing the nuances in the position as Marin points to them many times, makes you feel more comfortable. Maybe at 2400+ level a well prepared Black player will be comfortable in facing those lines, but below that these lines kill! BUT, the problem in the level i am reffering to, is that 1.c4 e5! is easy to play for Black. It all sounds complicated, i know....but life is, and it is known that life imitates chess! (Kasparov)

Neric wrote on 04/18/11 at 07:35:58:

Having worked a good way through Marin's vol. 1, I feel comfortable adding some commentary on his writing style.  There are times when his lines and way of instruction are top notch, but there are also times when his explanation is rather brief because the target audience is assumed to be either Grandmaster or those who have a real shot to eventually become one.  

For example:
1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nc6 3. d3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Bc5 5. Nf3 O-O 6. O-O h6 7. a3 a5 8. e3 d6 9. Nc3  where 9...Bg4  is said to be no good because of 10. h3.  That is the entire explanation.  Well, in a practical game, black sometimes may (and sometimes does) maintain the pin with 10...Bh5 when White has to completely work out over the board the solution to the annoying pin.  Moves like 11.g4 are tempting, but when you play it you are playing a position which you have not studied, and it seems to me that two kingside pawns are worth the destruction of the king's cover though many may retreat the black bishop to g6.  I would play it 11.g4 at my club, but the resulting positions can become rather uncomfortable rather fast if not played quite well.  It is clear that Marin feels the explanation satisfactory, but this is my point.  Despite all that you can and will learn from these books as a weaker player (below 2000- which makes every player at my local club weak), there are times when following the repertoire can land you in new and dangerous play.  I suspect that worries about stretching a 3 volume work into a 4 volume work may have also played a hand in keeping such a line as handling attempts at maintaining the pin from being covered.  I still think the work is great, but it is worth noting that White must have ideas in mind not mentioned in the book at natural branching points that are not covered.

Ok, I went out and bought Vol. 2 on the Slav/Reti stuff.

First of all, it has to be mentioned that it is not just a book on variations. He goes into detail on his thought process and I have to admit that I like that style a lot. This description of trial and error while searching for the "truth" is quite appealing.

On the other hand, we must not forget that there is a common theme on every single variation. He will analyse a game or variation and make a suggestion and this will always be a !N novelity. Sometimes it is a combination found by Rybka at move 38. Since every game leads to a novelity at some point (unless you copy a known game) it is not surprising, that this book contains hundreds of novelities.

Personally I don't really like his suggested line against the Reti Gambit. In my opinion (just mine), the critical test is the line with a4 as played in Radjabov-Smeets: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1531986

Marin's mainline leads to a similar position (without a4/a5). The problem is that without the lever white can't continue with queenside pressure/complications, like Radjabov did with 12.b4, so Marin wants to answer Bg4 with f3. That line looks rather equal to me (and Rybka) and it seems that black can even chose amongst various equal continuations. 

The other critical tabiya in the book is the Botvinnik setup with b3 against e6/d5 lines (QGD-setup). Unfortunately one of the most important lines is missing: 1.c4 e6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 b6 7.Bb2 Bb7 8.e3 c5 9.Nc3 a6!? (p.294)

This line is important, because it can arise from the Hedgehog also: 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.g3 b6 5.Bg2 Bb7 6. 0-0 a6! 7.b3 Be7 8.Bb2 0-0 9.e3 d5

Since black keeps the option of taking on d5 with the bishop, white has to make a useful move. It is a zugzwang position in a higher sense. At least, the forced lines from chapter 25 cannot be reached in an optimal way.

So what is my conclusion? Well, this book is by far the deepest research on these Reti lines on the market. Still, tons of analysis cannot cover up the fact, that the main lines are equal after all. Maybe it is more complicated than expected, but overall these setups seem to be rather harmless.

After reading this book I still can't decide if Marin knows something that 2700+ GMs don't know or if it is the other way around. Nevertheless it is a good book on the subject and it certainly doesn't hurt to have it in your library.

Like I said, you don't have to be a Slav player to play 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 c6!.  The Slav has very little to do with it; it's more of a very traditional anti-Reti setup.  Maybe some English players are happy to face c6 after g2-g3, but that's taste, not theory.  

Fwiw, I would advocate 2.Nf3.  With the greatest respect, I wonder why Marin decided to base his entire repertoire on 2.g3.  Well he's the GM, so maybe he will explain.  Or perhaps he already has; I only have his 1...e5 and 1...c5 volumes.

Well, I hope you didn't take that as criticism.  It was your name which interested me enough to purchase the DW book.  What would you say to Markovich's claim that 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 c6 is full equality?

Markovich wrote on 04/12/11 at 14:16:36:

I think Marin's point is white should play Nf3 in many instances prior to deciding on Bg2 or Bh3 which is a small consolation against g2 broadcasting your plans.

Markovich wrote on 04/11/11 at 20:34:28:

The hidden point about Kosten's move order in DW is that White is playing in a way which continually suggests that he may transpose at any moment to a mainline by playing d4, but white has the possibility to play g4, Rg4, 0-0-0 and in an instant change the entire nature of the position.  Whether it promises advantage, I really cannot say, but it is shocking to the unprepared.

TN wrote on 04/11/11 at 05:40:25:
  It seems to me that the slav is solid but somewhat passive.  It is probably this passivity which accounts for its lower usage, but Kosten claimed that its usage was surging with the chess elite though he does not specify who those elite are.

I find it peculiar that in the only two >2700 games from the position after 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 c6, both Leko and Morozevich played the rare 3.b3. 

There's always 3.Bg2/Nf3 d5 4.Qc2 if White doesn't want to gambit a pawn, though this doesn't constitute a real attempt at an advantage. 4.d4 transposes to a Catalanesque position, after which 4...Bf5 is probably Black's answer.

Maybe somebody can explain how Black can be forced to take on an iqp. That would seem to take some doing.

I don't know about Marin thinking White has an edge; I recall observing earlier that, going by the .pdf sample, Marin's best-play line is the same as in ECO, ending in "compensation for the material."

1. c4 Nf6 2. g3 c6 3. Bg2 d5 4. Nf3 transposes to a line advocated by Marin, with White gambitting the c-pawn (there has been some discussion of it here).

Say, I apologize if someone has already asked this, but what does Marin say about 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 c6!  I'll eat my hat if White has a valid claim of advantage after that.

As some have observed in this forum, not necessarily on this thread, 1...Nf6 with the intention of 2.g3 c6 or 2.Nc3 e5 is a decent idea against the English.

TN wrote on 04/07/11 at 04:54:20:


Is this really in YB98? I don't have it, but the list of surveys on the NiC website does not show any survey by Marin.
However it seems a survey in YB95 could be what you're mentioning?

It just occurred to me that this is the most viewed thread on the entire ChessPublishing Forum.

Returning to the topic, Marin just published a survey on 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.d3 d6 6.Bg5 in Yearbook 98. I'm quite tempted to replace the Botvinnik setup against the King's Indian with this line, which appears trickier than what initial impressions would suggest. White's basic idea is that after ...h6 Bd2 he can gain a tempo on the h6-pawn with Qc1 in some lines.

Markovich wrote on 03/07/11 at 16:31:11:


I am always suspicious when repertoire books contain lines that look like black is losing tempi. Here we have to ask ourselves why black plays h6 before white has even played d3 and we also have to ask why black plays Kh7 while the h6-pawn is still safe.

It seems to me that black is better off by playing Rb8, Qd7 and b6 (or Bh3) right away.

BabySnake wrote on 03/07/11 at 14:45:51:


Ludde is right when he says Palliser's work on this subject is more lightweight.  The one purports to be a GM repertoire; the other is a handbook aimed, I judge, mostly at midlevel players.  Also since Palliser's work preceded Marin's and no doubt was taken into account by him, it's hardly surprising that Marin's analysis trumps, or appears to trump, Palliser's. But I'll have to look at Marin's work much more closely before I agree with his conclusion that White better against 1...c5.  That would be a big change in chess theory.

Last evening for example I looked at Marin's discussion of Marin-Gonzalez, Manressa 2004, which is the basis of one of his main lines:

1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 e5 (according to Marin this is a big faut pas) 6.O-O Nge7 7.a3 O-O 8.Rb1 a5 9.Ne1 d6 10.Nc2 Be6 11.Ne3 f5 12.Ned5 h6 13.d3 Kh7 14.Bd2 Rb8 15.b4 axb4 16.axb4 Nxb4 17.Nxb4 cxb4 18.Nb5 Nc6 and here Marin recommends 19.Qb3!, suggesting that 19.Bxb4 probably should not have been enough to win in the game as played.  There is no continuation, so what should Black do?  I came up with the idea of transferring the f8 rook to d7: 19...Rf7 20.Bxb4 (20.Bd5 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Nd5 22.Nxd5 exd5 is satisfactory to Black, I think, in spite of White's bishop being a little better) 20...Rd7.  Black plays passively for the time being, reinforcing the defense of b7 and preparing for ...d5.  After 20.Bxb4 Black should spurn the two bishops and preserve his knight, I opine. In particular situations, ...f4 and even ...e4 may become playable.  A stronger player than I will have to judge whether White's advantage, which appears to consist almost entirely of his pressure against b7, is significant.  By my own uncertain lights, Black's game looks playable enough.  Some examples of play that I worked out:

21.Nc3 Qg8 with ideas of ...e4.

21.Rfc1 d5 22.cxd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Bc5 Rc8 25.Bb6 Qg8.

21.Bd2 d5 22.cxd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Be3 Rd7.

21.Bc3 d5 (Black can also consider 21...Qg8, 21...Rc8 and 21...f5) 22.cxd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Nc7 Rd7 25.Ne6 Qe7 26.Nxg7 (26.Qc4 Bh8) 26...Kxg7 27.Qc4 Kh7.

I don't mean this to be an exhaustive analysis, nor do I think that an exhaustive analysis by a player of my mere strength would be particularly useful here.  But I'm just saying, when I look at this book as a player of 1...c5, I'm not terrified, and not only because of this particular idea.  Not yet, at least.

Ludde wrote on 03/07/11 at 07:52:30:


Really? i always thought Palliser was one of the deepest authors around. I know quality chess goes into openings deeply as i have several of their books, but there u go. I was just wondering where his and Palliser's analysis conflicts rather, and i was wondering if it is worth buying the book for just this!?

OK, after reading through these posts i don't think anyone has actually commented 1.c4 c5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 e5!? as given by Palliser here. 
I thought almost everyone uses this line as Black since Palliser's 'Beating Unusual Chess Openings'. Palliser also recommends 5...d6 and 5...a6!? 
I am curious about this and should i buy the book for the analysis? it was given some attention by Davies in November's update if i remember correctly but i Don't think this was mainline.
Palliser's work is like, 4 years old so (even though he is a good analyst) technology and practice must have improved upon his work.   
Any help anyone? I was curious mainly which lines Marin recommends against the Botvinnik 5...e5

Although by the standards of more or less every repitoire book for white.....

I appreciate Marin's work but sometimes he really ask for it ... For exemple in volume 2 about the variation : 1.c4 e6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 c5 7.Bb2 Nc6 8.e3 Qa5 9.Qe2 Rd8 10.Rd1 Bd7 11.Nc3 d4 12.exd TN Nxd4 13.NxN cxd 14.Ne4 NxN 15.Bxe4 Bc6 16.d3 he says White has a slight edge ...

I have a problem with this variation given by Marin in his chapter Anti-QG System : 1.c4 e6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.Na3 BxN do you believe that white has a chance for an advantage with a bad structure and a pawn down ? But maybe i am too much a dogmatic player ...

topandkas wrote on 12/20/10 at 08:39:11:

That is actually true, I noticed it - but supposed it was a question about a simple transposition of moves, which does not seem to be the case. In general Marin recommends this setup for white, but the delayed castling makes a big difference.

Just noticed that in this months update by Davies he quotes the game Almasi - Felgaer in the symmetrical with e5. In several other places in the text Davies points to Marins recent books, but here he forgets to mention that Marin recommends 19.Bf4 instead of 19.Nxe5. To me Marins line looks very convincing, clearly more challenging for black than the line played in the game. This raises the question whether Davies deliberately ommits this line out of respect for Marins "copyright" (this is an untested suggestion from Marin) or if he is genuinely unaware of what's in the book? The first alternative is doubtful as a policy to me - once a suggestion is published, it is "out there". The second explanation is maybe a bit surprising given the how topical these books are right now, but I know how easy it is to miss a cross-reference, so I wouldn't hold it against Davies.

http://zibbit64.blogspot.com/2010/12/marin-vs-slav.html

Some funny things have happened in online games when I play the Anti-Slav line after 4...Bg4 5.Ne5!

So far most of the games I get Barcza but not many players take on c4 which is the line I really want to test. I'll keep posting some good games when they happen and some trouble lines.

The third Marin book starts with the move order 1. c4 c5 2.g3, and in all of the chapters White plays Nf3 in move 4 or 5. In other words, Marin has not any Nge2 line in the symmetrical English. Hope this helps.

FYI and for those who have Marin's Volume 3, there is an interesting ongoing discussion in this thread:
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1292017017
about a position which can arise in both Marin's book and the Queen's Indian opening. Marin 3 ch.12 has the move order 1. c4 c5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nf3 b6 5. d4 Bb7 6. d5 exd5 7. Nh4 g6 8. Nc3 Bg7 9. O-O, and the linked diskussion focusses on the benifits of the new/rare move 9...d6! Enjoy.

McShane vs Carlsen was a Symmetrical English.

Did McShane have a look at Marin's work before this tournament? Magnus played the novelty 9...Ne5. To me the line looks nice for white.  I have tried ...Nh6 myself in blitz games and tend to get a good position if white doesn't know about the answer d4!

The game with brief notes and also some notes about this line as well as my game with GM Arnason in 9...Nxd4 on my blog:
http://zibbit64.blogspot.com/2010/12/mcshane-vs-carlsen.html

Marin FTW!

Also interesting to see such a recent game by Marin. I will have to have a look at this game before commenting.

Alias wrote on 12/08/10 at 09:32:12:


In a classic Barcza-Smyslov game, e4 was played after Rac1 and ...0-0 had been played.  I think I noticed a similar game played not long ago by the young Danish IM Jakob Vang Glud, but I can't find it at the moment.

I am quite sure that 11.Nc3!? is an interesting idea, and most likely better than the line Marin gave. I am not sure Black has fully solved his problems after 15...c5, but when I looked at it back when the book came out and someone mentioned it, I also did not find a great advantage for White. However, it was a subnote and I doubt anyone would have been able to remember it at the board anyway, so it did not affect my reading experience. However, I am heavily biased, mostly because I am a Marin fan - besides his editor...

Jacob Aagaard wrote on 11/30/10 at 08:39:12:


If you are talking to me then yes it's ok.