Paddy wrote on 06/03/09 at 13:24:44:


There you have it exactly!

Willempie wrote on 06/03/09 at 07:09:16:


I guess that the corollary of the Markovich doctrine goes something like this:

"When playing against a much stronger player, choose an opening line which leads to a middlegame where you can follow a clear, easy and unsubtle plan, thus reducing the superior player's advantage in positional understanding."

Note that this takes priority; it is irrelevant whether this means that your stronger opponent also has a "clear, easy and unsubtle plan". The important thing is that YOU know what you're doing.

PS Call me crazy if you like, but this prioritising reminds me strangely of the hierarchy for arranging your pawns in bishop endings.

Precept 1: arrange your pawns to increase the scope of your own bishop.
Precept 2: arrange your pawns to decrease the scope of the enemy bishop.

However, when the position is such that these precepts are in conflict, Precept 1) should normally be given priority, since the scope of your own pieces is paramount.

Willempie wrote on 06/03/09 at 07:09:16:


I myself would be very happy to play White's side of the Mar del Plata against a stronger player.  It would probably join BPaulsen with Ne1.  I would please me to know that if my superior opponent failed to mate me, I would most likely win.  But I doubt that a much stronger player would elect the Mar del Plata against me.  I would think that he would play the more fluid ...Na6 or ...Nbd7, the better to expose my relative weakness.

Hmm...funny. For some reason, all along I thought this was called the Antillian Doctrine. 

Other good choices are the Makagonov System and the Petrosian System. 

Willempie wrote on 06/02/09 at 13:57:45:


Does "weaker player" = "patzer" ?  Not necessarily, me thinks. Although, I suppose all us non master are patzers anyway. But your opponent can be a "good" decent player relative to your strength who is great at playing King's Indain type kingside assualts. Yes, he may not be a Kaparov, Rodjabov or Fischer, but oddly enough I have found myself occasionally beaten by many a player who can't quite play like one of these three. 

TonyRo wrote on 06/02/09 at 20:39:16:


The issue is transpositions. You can't avoid the Fianchetto Grunfeld or Benoni if you are going to play the Fianchetto KID as White. 

TonyRo wrote on 06/02/09 at 20:39:16:


I would be really depressed to see a repetoire recommending the Fianchetto Grunfeld, so I hope he has something in mind.

Only English repetoires can get away with that, because they get a slightly better version of the Fianchetto Grunfeld (if white elects 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. g3), but even then black equalizes easily.

TN wrote on 06/02/09 at 22:05:17:


No!  This is about avoiding a particular stock attack, not avoiding demanding but promising lines in general.  The last thing I would want to be associated with would be a recommendation to avoid critical lines.  Against the Modern Benoni I would play the Taimanov in a flash.  When the blood is in the water, by all means, become a shark.

We'll find out soon, the book isn't out yet. All anyone knows is that he's recommending Fianchetto Systems against most everything.