Yes, the Mar del Plata is a variation of the Classical King's Indian.  The Classical is quite a large umbrella.

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.

Stigma wrote on 04/06/10 at 07:45:59:

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.

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.

ruhroh wrote on 04/06/10 at 04:11:49:


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

ruhroh wrote on 04/06/10 at 04:11:49:


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.

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.

@mimamisharks: The original "doctrine" was mainly about the Mar del Plata, not the Bayonet.

Markovich wrote on 06/01/09 at 12:28:27:

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.

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).