I fail to understand how it could be a bad thing to get more books by Marin on the English? More is better, IMHO. 

(The cost being higher? Are you joking. Are you interested in chess or not!?).

About the engines claiming equality in certain positions; I think it is surprising how often they disagree with GM evaluations in all kinds of lines and openings. Although I will NEVER beat Rybka, I still consider its evaluation as an mathematical approximation of he truth (which, in fact, it is, assuming that the truth exists; and, by the way, shouldn't there (in truth) only exist 3 possible assessments of any given position, hence making continuous values almost impossible to interpret? What are they estimates of, exactly? They are not frequentistic statements, for sure. In fact, they are 'intelligent guesses', in a sense proportional to how likely it is to win the game, in the machine's opinion. Logistic regression..?). 

So, Rybka telling me that I have +0.45 in an English position isn't going to help me if I a few moves later end up with a bad bishop, or a weak isolated pawn. I agree with those who conceived Marin's book[s] as a way of getting a playable interesting position, where you know pretty well how to navigate. Or, reversed, ending up in a position being 0.10... maybe not such a serious thing, compared to if you like the position or not.

Clearly Marin is not infallible. Any like any other writer, many of his evaluations will be overturned as theory moves on or when subjected to more analysis. But this is stating the obvious. 

Zoo could well be right that some of the positions that Marin evaluates as better for White are actually equal. However, one of they key differences between grandmasters and amateurs is the ability of the former to better evaluate a position. So, if a position looks equal to me and a grandmaster thinks differently, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the grandmaster's evaluation.

Maybe he doesn't use the phrase "White is better" often but in the book's preface he at least indirectly claims that he mangaged to prove an advantage for White in every line, wishful thinking IMO. 

One of the most important lines that needs new ideas badly is the one that was played between Carlsen and Kramink in London: 

[Event "London Classic"]
[Date "2009.12.08"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "M Carlsen"]
[Black "V Kramnik"]
[ECO "A29"]
[WhiteElo "2801"]
[BlackElo "2772"]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Nb6 7.O-O Be7 8.a3 O-O 9.b4 Be6 10.Rb1 f6 11.d3 a5 12.b5 Nd4 13.Nd2 Qc8 
14.e3 Nf5 15.Qc2 Rd8 16.Bb2 a4 17.Rfc1 Nd6 18.Nde4 Ne8 19.Qe2 Bf8 20.f4 exf4 21.gxf4 Qd7 22.d4 c6 23.Nc5 Bxc5 24.dxc5 Nc4 
25.Rd1 Qc7 26.Bc1 Na5 27.bxc6 bxc6 28.Nxa4 Rxd1+ 29.Qxd1 Rd8 30.Qc2 Qf7 31.Nc3 Qh5 32.Ne2 Bf5 33.e4 Bg4 34.Ng3 Qf7 35.Bf1 Be6 
36.Qc3 Ra8 37.Rb4 Qd7 38.f5 Bf7 39.Bf4 Qd1 40.Kf2 Nb3 41.Be2 Qb1 42.Bc4 Rxa3 43.Ne2 1-0 

Instead of Carlsen's 17.Rfc1 Marin recommends only 17.Rfd1 which works very well against 17...Ra5 but yields less than nothing after 17...Nd6! as pointed out by Papageno in another thread: 

"There is one issue I see with Marin's treatment of this line. After 17. Rfd1 he only discusses 17... Ra5, but leaves the reader guessing what might happen after 17... Nd6 (a move Kramnik also played). White now cannot play 18. Nc4 or 18. Nde4 (the latter in view of Bb3), and 18. Ba1 Nf7 19. Bb2 Nd6 20. Ba1 Nf7 21. Bb2 Nd6 22. Ba1 1/2-1/2 Qin Kanying (2472)-Ruan,L (2345)/Beijing 2005 also fails to impress. – So I like Magnus Carlsen's decision better." 

The problem with Carlsen's 17.Rfc1 is that he has to play very exactly to achieve equality after 17...Ra5! and the same is true for 17.Rac1, which also has been tried in this position. 

Maybe 14.a4 or 15.a4 as mentioned by Mr Davies is a remedy sufficient for easy equality. I think Uhlmann once played 14.a4 or 15.a4 in a Wordchampionship for Seniors. 

Instead of 13.Nd2 13.e3 is solid option and 13.Ne1?! has been played by very good players. 

Quote:


Two things:

1. My impression is that one book will be entirely devoted to 1...c5, which in my opinion is a great idea. The way the coverage is divided up is optimal in my view, with the two most theoretical and broad openings getting an entire book, with the rest of the stuff, mostly 1...c6 and 1...e6 I would imagine, getting a second. Should be great!

2. Are you more qualified to judge whether or not a position is better for White than Marin? Yes, Rybka might say it's equal, but what do computers know about slow, positional chess? Probably not as much as a 2600 English expert known for his smoothness. Just my opinion. I'm not saying he's always right, and he certainly can't be expected to be, but I'd bet on him most of the time.

what is the intended coverage for vol2 and vol 3? it would be a real treat for readers if vol2 covered e6 & c6 systems, since English players usually know what to do against e5 & c5. Somebody spoke of a "narrow repertoire" but in fact 1.c4 e5 2.g3 opens more options than 2.Nc3 : no more e3-d4, and ...e5 can arise at several points in the opening. The book is fine but the author is eager to file equal positions under "White is better", especially at chapter endings. Perhaps it's good for placebo effect though?

I am somewhat perplexed myself too by the complaints about the extra volume. One person even decided to not vote for it for Book of the Year because  Quality Chess announced a third volume. 

But I got to say, that is one reason I love chesspub - full of colourful people and passionate opinions - even when those opinions are totally contrary to mine.

moahunter wrote on 02/22/10 at 04:38:36:


From the QC blog: "We decided to expand the English to three volumes when we saw how many pages Mihail Marin sent us. The original plan was a complete repertoire in one book, but then Mihail sent a “chapter” that ran to several hundred pages, all of it good enough that we could not force ourselves to delete anything. The switch from 2 to 3 was the same situation, and a little painful commercially. Twice the work, more than twice the expense, probably not twice the return. Also, various people we do business with really do not like it when we announce one book and deliver two. 

So, the short version is that Marin had so much to say about the English that it physically would not fit in fewer than three books. Excessive? I don’t think so. More Marin is a good thing."