Since last week I studied Brunello's book on the Marshall and examined the main line and the variations starting with 12.d3, Bd6 13.Re1, Bf5.
(Brunello doesnt cover 13...Qh4).
One important position that can arise after 13....Bf5 14.Qf3,Re8
(Brunello and Pavlovic also cover 14...Qh4).
is the following
Now play continues:
19....Nf6
And here Brunello uncorks his 'Novelty'
20.Qxc6 (Previously 20.Bd1 was played in Stellwagen-Gustaffson, 2008)
By coincidence I had come to the same conclusion at the beginning of this year when I send my comments on this game to Viktor Mikhalevski (who runs the e4e5 subscribers section) in reaction to his november update. I gave the following analysis:
20....Rd8 21.Qb6,Rd7 22.Bc2,Ng4 23.Rb1,Qe2 24.Bd2,Ne5 25.Qe3 Here my analysis stopped, concluding that white is better.
Viktor Mikhalevski was kind enough to reply to my mail, and confirm my analyses.
Brunello continues:
25....Qh5! 26.Bd1,Qf5 27.Be2,f6However neither Brunello nor I can claim this novelty.
The honours go to the strong corr. player
J.Novak.The correspondence game
Novak-Chopin 2008 reached this position (and the analysis provided above duplicates their moves from move 20 up till move 27). The game ended in a draw after 40 moves.
In this case I really cant blame Brunello for not having noticed this game. It entered my database around april this year, clearly too late to include in the manuscript.
Brunello's analysis of this game illustrates both the strength and the weaknesses of his treatment.
StrengthHis treatment is much more comprehensive than Pavlovic. He spends no less than three pages of (reasonably fine printed) analysis on this game. And he makes very few errors i his analysis.
WeaknessThe dense analyses trees are void of verbal explanations, which will make it hard for less experienced players to appreciate what is going on.
Also in several end positions of analytic lines I do not agree with his judgement on the endgame positions.
Finally he seems to prefer complicated lines a bit over more simple positional solutions.
Still I can fully recommend his book and his treatment on the Marshall. In general it is excellent, and very much better than I expected.However for those taking up the Marshall for the first time, with a view to playing this OTB I would recommend Pavlovic, because of the instructional value of his verbal comments, and his better explanation of the anti-Marshall. In OTB it is hardly practical to try to remember tropical forests of variations running far beyond the 30th move-------------------------------------------------------------------
One example where I dont agree with Brunello's endgame judgement:
We are allready at move 34 in one of the sidelines of the above mentioned variation:
Brunello stops here and gives
34...Kf8 as equal.
I disagree:
After
35.h6! Black still has to work very hard to reach a draw.
If Black plays
35....gxh 36.b3+=White can reach a rook endgame with a free b-pawn, where Black has no counter play on the king-side. On top of that his shattered king-side is suddenly vulnerable to infiltration by white's pieces (using the b-pawn as a decoy)
If Black plays
35...g6 then 36 Rc8+,Ke7 37.Rh8 spells trouble.
The right move is 34...h6 with a typical draw, as now Black threatens to restore material equality picking up the h-pawn.
Then he is ready to commence counter-play with g5/Kg6 etc..A sample variation:
34...h6! 35.Rh4,Rd2 36.Ra4, Rd5=