Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Markovich Doctine (Read 40643 times)
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #85 - 04/09/10 at 01:34:18
Post Tools
Yes, the Mar del Plata is a variation of the Classical King's Indian.  The Classical is quite a large umbrella.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4707
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #84 - 04/08/10 at 23:24:49
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 04/08/10 at 22:08:01:
Regarding nomenclature:  If it's good enough for John Nunn and almost everyone else I can think of to call the Mar del Plata a Classical King's Indian, it's good enough for me! Nunn defined the Classical by:1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5.


As far as I know, the "Mar del Plata" is 7. 0-0 Nc6 8. d5 Ne7, so that even if you exclude 6...Bg4, 6...c5 etc., the "Classical" takes in a lot more stuff.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #83 - 04/08/10 at 22:08:01
Post Tools
Back in the late 1980s, I had a discussion with a few strong players. An expert said that he hated the Classical King's Indian because it resulted in pure races and reduced the advantage of the stronger player. This is basically, the Markovich Doctrine 25 years before Markovich, or more aptly, one of Blumenfeld's precepts. 

Another player, rated +2450 (USCF) at the time, said he liked playing the Black side of the King's Indian and he used his greater knowledge to win those races.  A few agreed with the expert, but most were persuaded by the SM. Perhaps it had to do with ratings.

Later, I (about 2100 at the time) had white against this SM in two games and we played the KID.  I drew the first and won the second.  I don't know if he changed his mind about the wisdom of the King's Indian. He did get several games published in the 1990s playing the Black side of the KID, so I know he didn't give it up.

Generally, I would recommend the White side for the lower rated player, but I'd also recommend it for the higher rated player!  The Black side of the KID seems best suited for players of equivalent strength.

If the stronger player has the Saemisch in his repertoire, it would make sense to prefer that to the Mar del Plata/Classical. But if the stronger player is a specialist in the Classical, there should be no reason to avoid it.

Regarding nomenclature:  If it's good enough for John Nunn and almost everyone else I can think of to call the Mar del Plata a Classical King's Indian, it's good enough for me! Nunn defined the Classical by:1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 149
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #82 - 04/08/10 at 16:27:58
Post Tools
I'm not so sure about the whole Marcovich Doctrine thing.
I wouldn't say that sharp, unbalanced situations don't require chess understanding and chess skills.

I would also say, one of the most important chess skills is calculation, and weaker players should also be weaker in that field.

In my games I often observe that I outplay weaker players in complicated situations, while they often hang on in simple positions.
For me this is a question of the difficulty of the problems you pose your opponent.

Of course it also has something to do with a player's style.
So for me, I'd rather face the Four Pawns Attack against a "patzer" (safe in the knowledge the game won't last for 30 moves) than the exchange, where he might hold a draw because the position is too simple.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ruhroh
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: 12/25/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Reverse Markovich Doctrine
Reply #81 - 04/06/10 at 15:57:18
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 04/06/10 at 07:45:59:
Do we assume c4 has to be played? If not, the Torre and the London are candidates too.

Yes. Typically 1.Nf3 2.c4 against KIDs. I like to play Symmetrical English with early d4 and dislike really slow Englishes and Reverse Closed Sicilian.  I can play up in the endgame ("one of the rare underdogs") so I considered the Exchange but I wanted to get some kind of feel for the actual KID after avoiding it forever, but without getting crushed.

I'm sure I'm not the only patzer on the forum, so thanks for the FPA advice too on their behalf.
« Last Edit: 04/06/10 at 20:14:44 by ruhroh »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10607
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #80 - 04/06/10 at 14:04:49
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 04/06/10 at 12:21:53:
The suggestions of the Fianchetto, the Torre and the London are a nod to BPaulsen's notion that stronger player needs to create at least some (preferably strategic) imbalance and subtlety in order to win.


And I maintain that a stronger player almost always will be capable of doing that. Playing for a draw by avoiding imbalances is one of the hardest things to do against a determined and stronger opponent.
I agree with your criticism of the Krasenkow. But it is not really relevant. If there was an ideal system to play against stronger opponents there would not be something like stronger opponents.
In other words, the relevant question is what kind of play and which openings maximize the chances of the weaker player.  Obviously there is no guarantee.
The first (what kind of play) has been established by empirical research: create a tactical mess with as few positional subtleties as possible; preferably one that aims to seize the initiative. After x.Nf3 I would not know any setup for White that improves on the Krasenkow in these respects.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #79 - 04/06/10 at 12:21:53
Post Tools
The suggestions of the Fianchetto, the Torre and the London are a nod to BPaulsen's notion that stronger player needs to create at least some (preferably strategic) imbalance and subtlety in order to win. For what it's worth these systems can also have a psychological effect since Black playes often find them boring.

I'm not sure the h3 system is ideal either; if you don't time stuff like when to play g4, where to put the light-squared bishop, queenside expansion etc. just right, black will just break with ...f5 or ...c6 and start exploiting the weaknesses. While attacking down the g-file is one of White's main goals, the h3 system demands a lot of prophylactic thinking.

But again, with the 4PA ruled out it's a really tough question.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10607
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #78 - 04/06/10 at 11:42:07
Post Tools
If I were the weaker player I would never play the Fianchetto, the Exchange, the London or the Torre. It's asking for getting outplayed exactly because of the better manoeuvring skills of the stronger opponent.
White should play the Krasenkow (6.h3),  try to castle queenside (or at least prepare it) followed by a pawn storm and hope that he/she will mate before getting mated.
The reverse Markovich doctrine says: keep it strategically simple (then the weaker player doesn't have to worry about positional subtleties) and try to create a tactical mess. Then wait for the stronger opponent to get lost in the complications or go down in flames.

(Of course the Four Pawns would be even a better choice, but an early Nf3 was assumed).
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Reverse Markovich Doctrine
Reply #77 - 04/06/10 at 07:45:59
Post Tools
ruhroh wrote on 04/06/10 at 04:11:49:
Ok, so this is a patzer bashing post, but the obvious converse question is this: If you are the weaker player as White, what KID line do you play?


The Four pawns' attack. No doubt in my mind.

ruhroh wrote on 04/06/10 at 04:11:49:
And more particularly, what do you play if you have to assume an early Nf3 (not counting the reverse closed Sicilian)?


Actually, this is a really difficult question. It's no coincidence that the King's Indian is often (rightly) played when Black wants to unbalance and play for the win. But the Bayonet and the Mar del Plata are candidates. The Fianchetto can be difficult for Black to get winning chances against, so it should be an option too. Or the Exchange if one is one of the rare underdogs that have their greatest strength in the endgame.

Do we assume c4 has to be played? If not, the Torre and the London are candidates too.
« Last Edit: 04/06/10 at 11:03:52 by Stigma »  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ruhroh
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: 12/25/08
Gender: Male
The Reverse Markovich Doctrine
Reply #76 - 04/06/10 at 04:11:49
Post Tools
Ok, so this is a patzer bashing post, but the obvious converse question is this: If you are the weaker player as White, what KID line do you play?

And more particularly, what do you play if you have to assume an early Nf3 (not counting the reverse closed Sicilian)?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #75 - 03/28/10 at 00:56:52
Post Tools
I'd argue that positions devoid of subtle tactical, or positional nuances benefit the lower rated player. It's not hard to find obvious moves, but it is hard to appreciate, and correctly respond to subtle ones.

Some positions (Mar del Plata KID) don't require require the type of subtlety from black that, for example, the Fianchetto KID does.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10607
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #74 - 03/27/10 at 21:40:57
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 03/27/10 at 16:13:02:
random positions generally benefit the lower-rated player.


This is in fact backed up by empirical data, to be found in chapter 2 of Przewoznik's 1991 book on the Blumenfeld. He therefor specifically recommends the Blumenfeld as a weapon against clearly stronger players.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #73 - 03/27/10 at 16:13:02
Post Tools
@mimamisharks: The original "doctrine" was mainly about the Mar del Plata, not the Bayonet.

Markovich wrote on 06/01/09 at 12:28:27:
All right, dear chessfriends, I am now going to promulgate the Markovich Doctrine:  Never let the weaker player have his standard kingside attack in the King's Indian, but instead make him play a fluid game of chess.  In particular never let him have the Mar del Plata variation or anything that resembles it.

Markovich mentioned the Averbakh, Gligoric and Fianchetto as good, fluid options. The Bayonet is something in-between: Many people choose it to get away from the mutual race situations while still trying for an edge, but it can get very tactical and theoretical in some lines. I think it's an acceptable choice even against weaker opponents, if you're sure about your theoretical knowledge.

Your other arguments are all simply wrong:

- There is such a thing as positional understanding, linked to how memory works by recognizing patterns built up by study and previous experience. The concrete nature of modern chess is an enhancement of positional chess, not a replacement.

- The point of don't playing sharp main line theory against patzers is that you don't want to start thinking for yourself in a position where it's easy to make game-losing mistakes, particluarly if your opponent happens to know the line better.

- Differences in endgame skill frequently decide games on every level from 1000 to 2800.

The main point you don't seem to grasp is that random positions generally benefit the lower-rated player. If nothing special happens in a game, the stronger player is likely to win or at worst draw. If something special (i.e. a blunder) is allowed to happen that already increases the chances of a seriously outrated player. This is true even if the (lower-rated) rabbit is more likely to blunder than the (higher-rated) tiger.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
miamisharks
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/15/08
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #72 - 03/27/10 at 15:17:57
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 03/26/10 at 18:57:11:
miamisharks wrote on 03/26/10 at 18:14:55:
I think this is such weak thinking. [...]


No, Markovich is right. There are at least three good arguments for the Markovich doctrine:

- The weaker player's chances increase with the randomness of the position. If it comes down to an attacing race, any advantage in positional uderstanding matters less, and the chance of blunders increases on both sides.

This idea of positional understanding being something separate from calculation/tactical chess barely exists; chess is a pretty concrete game. To the extent that positional understanding exists, it applies to so called "random" positions as well.

- If the game becomes a theory duel, it may be fought for a long time between the players' engines rather than their brains. And who knows who has the strongest engine, or has worked more on the specific line? Obviously the stronger player welcomes an early switch to carbon-based thinking.

Theoretical duels are quite uncommon in games between nontitled players. Eventually one of the two players will play a perfectly decent move that isn't "theory" and the players will be on their own.

- Often a big part of the difference in strength is due to different appreciation for, and strength in, endgames. This advantage is nullified if the game ends in an early checkmate.

Very rarely true regarding games between nontitled players

These observations are only true on average of course; and a player should also strive to reach the types of positions he plays best most of the time. For someone who clearly excels in complicated, tactical play it may be right to go for that even against weaker players. But this is the exception, not the rule.

Personally, when I lose to weaker players, very often some tactical oversight is involved. The same is true for the games where I beat much stronger players (In my sole tournament win against a GM he blundered a rook in the endgame!). So it makes sense to play positionally against weaker players, and sharply against stronger players. Which was precisely Simon Webb's advice in the classic "Chess for Tigers".


Like what I said, this is just an anecdote. This is really an empirical question, and I'm sure the mainline Bayonet (for example) scores perfectly well for white against lower rated players.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3195
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #71 - 03/26/10 at 19:16:25
Post Tools
That's what I was trying to say. Even OTB games can be fought for a long time between engines - via the players' memories (and en passant I would rather not have to consider the 'Fritz in the bathroom' problem).
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo