Markovich wrote on 06/02/09 at 12:59:06:
Schaakhamster,
I don't think it applies to just any opening. My point was that in the Mar del Plata, the board is sliced in two, and Black is able to devote most or all of his thinking to developing a stock attack. Though BPaulsen disagrees, I think this isn't a terribly difficult problem for your typical KID player. When you are the stronger player, why give him the luxury of playing A, B, C when you can test him instead across the whole board?
Before this gets to the level of a Monroe doctrine I would like to give some points as to why I disagree.
-I dont think the kingside attack is that easy to play. Sure there are some standard ideas, but they dont always work and the defense has similar standard ideas.
-White's queenside pressure is very dangerous and allows for more flexibility. To put the point in a very nuanced way: Black has to mate white as otherwise he is completely lost.
-Patzers arent patzers because they can deliver an attack in the style of Kasparov, Radjabov or Fischer. Meaning black has the pressure to deliver an attack (see above) but has less ability to do so. Imo it isnt easier to play the KID attack than it is to play against the Averbakh.
-If space and closed structures is your thing, there is even less need to switch to another line.
Lastly can someone tell this to my opponents? I never seem to get my kingside attack going in the way that is advocated in the books and I would appreciate them switching to easier stuff such as an exchange or Samisch.
I was thinking alongside the same lines although in practice I do follow the Markovich Doctrine. From a theoretical (not chesswise) viewpoint I'm with Willempie.
Pages: 
The Markovich Doctine (Read 49123 times)
