miamisharks wrote on 03/26/10 at 18:14:55:


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.

- 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.

- 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.

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".

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1233681470

OldGrizzly wrote on 06/18/09 at 11:30:37:


I have one or two ideas currently under development in the lab , and if Golubev fails to address this line directly in his February 2010 update I will explore some of those ideas here. To be honest I think black is ok in Buhmann's line, but not being satisfied with that I've since been preoccupied with finding ways to mate White by force, and not always unsuccessfully.

Stay tuned.

Tops

TonyRo wrote on 06/17/09 at 20:24:34:


Just noting that the Khalifman series recommends the same line via transposition (the position on move 20 transposes) so Bf8 may bust the entire line.

The problem is 14. Ba3 with 17. Kh1 has black needing improvements. I haven't found them, but perhaps some GM/engine might.

TonyRo wrote on 06/17/09 at 19:58:39:


The approach in the original OFWAK 1 is better for this line.

14. Ba3 with b5, Bxc5, then Kh1.

The point is the break d6 comes much sooner. It was chosen by Buhmann and Beliavsky fairly recently with good success.

TonyRo wrote on 06/17/09 at 14:51:45:


Regardless of if 20...Bf8 is any good, 17. Kh1 (in the 14. Ba3 variation) is a more prominent problem for black right now anyway.

I appreciate the reference and comments. I sincerely doubt I'll improve over Khalifman, but at the very least I'll learn a lot more about the variation. It's no big deal, since I don't mind playing the normal lines against 9. Nd2 or 9. b4, it was just nice to not only have a dangerous surprise weapon, but to be able to consolidate two major tries for White into one move for Black!