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.