^That is intersting. I don't know Watson's coments. My own feeling is there is a sort of "consistency" about playing Nd5, because that move is also a good option against an early Bb4. The "strange" bit is retreating the knight later on. The late Mednis, in his book "Mastering the Closed Game" gave a nice illustrative game between Korchnoi and Petrosian from 1977. This is how he starts after the move 5.Nd5:

"At the time of this game the text was still relatively infrequent, but it has been gaining adherents continually. The concept behind the move is an interesting one: White wants to stay in the sophisticated mode of an unbalanced English, but without the permanent structural problem of having unweildy doubled c-pawns. Even though moving the same piece twice so early in the game is against conventional opening principles, the slow moving and closed nature of this variation allows White such a "luxury." ". 

Mednis goes on to describe the "plans" for each side from here.

I simply want to congratulate Marin to another fantastic, almost magical book. I do have lots and lots of chess books, but I think I can safely appoint Mihail Marin to the most outstanding chess author of our time. Yesterdays news, of course; but I felt it had to be said. 

"Legends" was absolutely outstanding, and so is this volume on the English. Looking forward to the 2nd one!!

(For clarity, I can't really judge the teoretical status of the lines, but I can for sure enjoy the way Marin writes.. Keep up the good work, Mihail)

MarinFan wrote on 10/11/09 at 11:14:27:


I'm not sure which line you are referring to; do you mean the variation played in the Kosten-Das game?

I think the book is brilliant!
My review is now over on the main Flank Openings section (http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/12/reviews.htm)
Only one or two very minor quibbles, for instance on page 310 he gives 13 Nd5 two question marks, and says it 'famously loses a piece'. However, what about my game against Das, Sautron 2007?

Markovich wrote on 10/08/09 at 15:43:55:


Occasionally, I still encounter someone who plays 1. c3 1. g3. 

LOL!

Pierre.

Antillian wrote on 10/07/09 at 13:48:25:


Yeah, but when I tried that 1.c3, 2.g3 system, I found it to be a little slow.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 10/07/09 at 13:15:25:


I think a good review from you will make a definite difference since you own the 1. c3 2. g3 playing generation. You should be able to negotiate a nice fat commission from Aagaard for your review

Markovich for sure knows more about this subject than I do, but still I doubt if 1.c4, allowing 1...c5 and 1...e5 is that huge a concession for 1.d4 players. The benefit of 1.c4 is that White avoids the QGA and the NID/QID. Moreover replacing 1.d4 by 1.c4 can be done in two steps. The first one. as Moahunter implied, is refusing to play d4-d5 against the Benoni's. Nf3 instead covers a big part of the Symmetrical English.