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