Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Markovich Doctine (Read 40637 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
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #70 - 03/26/10 at 19:13:51
Post Tools
I was thinking of OTB chess when I set forth my immortal doctrine though, so I wouldn't join in that bit about computers.  But I do think that stronger players should avoid theoretical duels with weaker players, and since the Mar del Plata has become rather theoretical, that would tend to support the Markovich doctrine.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
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 #69 - 03/26/10 at 18:57:11
Post Tools
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.

- 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".
  

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 #68 - 03/26/10 at 18:14:55
Post Tools
I think this is such weak thinking. Even in very sharp lines, chess is not reduced to some sort of crapshoot where the underdog will stumble his way on a winning attack. There are many ways for a strong player to beat his weaker opponent. One of them is play better in "race of attacks" situations.

This whole idea of the better player relying on his superior "understanding" and playing "just a game of chess" is also misguided I think. The better player is better because he tends to play better moves, regardless of the type of position.

Of course this is not serious evidence, but I imagine other people on this board have similar experiences. ELO 2300 players beat me the vast majority of the time, just like I tend to beat up on ELO 1900 players - regardless of the nature of the position/opening.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
OldGrizzly
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 61
Joined: 07/16/08
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #67 - 02/05/10 at 19:18:48
Post Tools
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #66 - 02/05/10 at 18:36:16
Post Tools
TopNotch wrote on 01/19/10 at 01:19:36:
OldGrizzly wrote on 06/18/09 at 11:30:37:
I enjoy to see the discussion coming up to that variation again, after TopNotch has shown his win, similar to Charbonneau, a few weeks ago.
I also think that 17.Kh1 is the critical test for the whole variation. Everyone who want to play that variation must have an answer to 17.Kh1!
Perhaps Toppy is generous to give some of his ideas…  Smiley


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. Wink

Stay tuned.

Tops Smiley   


Say, would someone be good enough to point me to TopNotch's post of his nice win with 9...Ne8?  I'll be darned if I can find it.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TopNotch
God Member
*****
Offline


I only look 1 move ahead,
but its always the best

Posts: 2130
Joined: 01/04/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #65 - 01/19/10 at 01:19:36
Post Tools
OldGrizzly wrote on 06/18/09 at 11:30:37:
I enjoy to see the discussion coming up to that variation again, after TopNotch has shown his win, similar to Charbonneau, a few weeks ago.
I also think that 17.Kh1 is the critical test for the whole variation. Everyone who want to play that variation must have an answer to 17.Kh1!
Perhaps Toppy is generous to give some of his ideas…  Smiley


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. Wink

Stay tuned.

Tops Smiley
  

The man who tries to do something and fails is infinitely better than he who tries to do nothing and succeeds - Lloyd Jones Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
OldGrizzly
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 61
Joined: 07/16/08
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #64 - 06/18/09 at 11:30:37
Post Tools
I enjoy to see the discussion coming up to that variation again, after TopNotch has shown his win, similar to Charbonneau, a few weeks ago.
I also think that 17.Kh1 is the critical test for the whole variation. Everyone who want to play that variation must have an answer to 17.Kh1!
Perhaps Toppy is generous to give some of his ideas…  Smiley
  
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 #63 - 06/17/09 at 20:30:01
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/17/09 at 20:24:34:
Yeah you're right. I don't have the book, but I found the games by Bohmann and Beliavsky. The Beliavsky game is nothing to write home about, and I think Black was fine until about move 23 or so, but the Bohmann game with Qa4 was a stronger idea, and it looks like Black is probably going to end up worse here. Thanks for the info....back to the main lines!  Grin


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #62 - 06/17/09 at 20:24:34
Post Tools
Yeah you're right. I don't have the book, but I found the games by Bohmann and Beliavsky. The Beliavsky game is nothing to write home about, and I think Black was fine until about move 23 or so, but the Bohmann game with Qa4 was a stronger idea, and it looks like Black is probably going to end up worse here. Thanks for the info....back to the main lines!  Grin
  
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 #61 - 06/17/09 at 20:01:17
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/17/09 at 19:58:39:
So what is the actual line then that you're talking about, since in my line 15. Ba3 is the move, and since that's the line in Khalifman as well. You'd like to play 14. Ba3 Ng6 15. b5, is that it? And then if Black continues like in my line, 15...dxc5 16. Bxc5 Rf7 17. Kh1. The point is just to deal a5?


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #60 - 06/17/09 at 19:58:39
Post Tools
So what is the actual line then that you're talking about, since in my line 15. Ba3 is the move, and since that's the line in Khalifman as well. You'd like to play 14. Ba3 Ng6 15. b5, is that it? And then if Black continues like in my line, 15...dxc5 16. Bxc5 Rf7 17. Kh1. The point is just to deal a5?
  
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 #59 - 06/17/09 at 19:54:02
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/17/09 at 14:51:45:
Well I've tracked down a copy of OFWAK 1b (hopefully this is the book in question) and I have to say, he doesn't even cover my intended variation! He gives the line:

10. c5 f5 11. Nd2 Nf6 12. f3 f4 13. Nc4 g5 14. a4 Ng6 15. Ba3 Rf7 16. b5 dxc5 17. Bxc5 h5 18. a5 g4 19. b6 g3 20. Kh1! but now only covers 20...Ne8 and 20...Nh7. That's all fine and dandy, but what about 20...Bf8? This move was suggested by Golubev in Understanding the King's Indian and used successully in the posted game above by Charbonneau in 2008. After 20. Bg1 Nh4!? I'm not sure that White is that much better.


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #58 - 06/17/09 at 14:51:45
Post Tools
Well I've tracked down a copy of OFWAK 1b (hopefully this is the book in question) and I have to say, he doesn't even cover my intended variation! He gives the line:

10. c5 f5 11. Nd2 Nf6 12. f3 f4 13. Nc4 g5 14. a4 Ng6 15. Ba3 Rf7 16. b5 dxc5 17. Bxc5 h5 18. a5 g4 19. b6 g3 20. Kh1! but now only covers 20...Ne8 and 20...Nh7. That's all fine and dandy, but what about 20...Bf8? This move was suggested by Golubev in Understanding the King's Indian and used successully in the posted game above by Charbonneau in 2008. After 20. Bg1 Nh4!? I'm not sure that White is that much better.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #57 - 06/16/09 at 19:10:50
Post Tools
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!
  
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 #56 - 06/16/09 at 19:04:25
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/16/09 at 18:58:25:
Ah crap I don't have that book! Leave it to Khalifman to screw it up....I will get it and get back to you on this one.  Grin


He definitely takes the line seriously, and has white walking a tight-rope. He continually points out why white can't deviate, or black gets a huge attack. His variation ends on move 28(!) with +=.

He doesn't mention 17. Kh1, but I find it interesting since:

A) White plays the move later anyway in Khalifman's variation.

B) It's been played recently by 2500+ players with a good score for white.

Either way, it's an extra option for white.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #55 - 06/16/09 at 18:58:25
Post Tools
Ah crap I don't have that book! Leave it to Khalifman to screw it up....I will get it and get back to you on this one.  Grin
  
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 #54 - 06/16/09 at 18:53:27
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/16/09 at 18:36:22:
I'd be curious to see what you think is best play for White after 9...Ne8, just so I can give this variation up and play the "real" lines. I'd certainly agree that it looks fishy, but I don't know what the best line is. Do you do away with a4 and play Ba3 and cxd6?


14. Ba3 (! is given in OFWAK)

White can elect 17. a4 and continue as given in OFWAK (admittedly after a ridiculous amount of analysis to consume), or 17. Kh1 which has been the favorite of late amongst white players 2500+.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #53 - 06/16/09 at 18:36:22
Post Tools
I'd be curious to see what you think is best play for White after 9...Ne8, just so I can give this variation up and play the "real" lines. I'd certainly agree that it looks fishy, but I don't know what the best line is. Do you do away with a4 and play Ba3 and cxd6?
  
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 #52 - 06/16/09 at 18:15:39
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/16/09 at 16:55:42:
It's not clear to me that it's easier than the main lines. Sure, White gets something that he's not supposed to get, namely the c4-c5, Nd2-c4 combo, when he has all of his pieces where he wants. But Black doesn't waste time with all the crazy moves he plays in the main line 9...a5 stuff either. All that said, Black scores positively in the variation on my database:

After 13...g5 - 53% out of 77 games.

After 18...g4 - 64% out of 14 games.

Yes, I know that doesn't mean White's losing or that theoretically he's not better off here than he is after the main moves after 9. Nd2 (9...a5 and 9...c5), but it's a little worrying, and shows that practically Black's plan is quite dangerous!


White gets things he's not supposed to get, and to that end if this were objectively black's best variation then every white player in the world would immediately take up the Bayonet. And yes - as someone that has played the white side of the KID 9. Nd2 for years now, I can definitively say it is easier than the the main line.

The statistics just show black has practical chances. The theoretical stance of 9...Ne8 isn't as good as its performance, a lot of its success coming from the surprise value the move has since white spends more time prepping the more critical variations.

9. Nd2 is = after 9...a5 (assuming the ...Bd7 lines are chosen). There's a reason that move is the preference among GMs, and not 9...Ne8 which transposes to 9. b4 Ne8 anyway. You would think if it were all that great 9...Ne8 would be the universal answer to both 9. b4 and 9. Nd2, instead of 9...Nh5 and 9...a5, respectively.

9...Ne8 is great for showing thematic KID play, but there's a reason it has never been considered the correct response after either 9. Nd2 or 9. b4. If it were the most testing response it would've been made the main line a long time ago with numerous games at the super-GM level.

White should be very happy to see 9. b4 Ne8, even if black has some practical chances.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #51 - 06/16/09 at 16:55:42
Post Tools
It's not clear to me that it's easier than the main lines. Sure, White gets something that he's not supposed to get, namely the c4-c5, Nd2-c4 combo, when he has all of his pieces where he wants. But Black doesn't waste time with all the crazy moves he plays in the main line 9...a5 stuff either. All that said, Black scores positively in the variation on my database:

After 13...g5 - 53% out of 77 games.

After 18...g4 - 64% out of 14 games.

Yes, I know that doesn't mean White's losing or that theoretically he's not better off here than he is after the main moves after 9. Nd2 (9...a5 and 9...c5), but it's a little worrying, and shows that practically Black's plan is quite dangerous!
  
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 #50 - 06/16/09 at 16:30:33
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/16/09 at 15:10:43:
TicklyTim wrote on 06/16/09 at 14:38:40:
Yesterdays match Gelfand - Nisipeanu was a Bayonet Attack in which Nisipeanu got the blocked structure (f3 ..f4;) and went for the 'typical' knight sac with ..Nxe4 followed by ..f3. He however missed an opportunity , and white went on to win.
I had planned the Bayonet to avoid these types of positions.
Does anyone think that 15.Bf3 is more likely to avoid this blocked type of position than 15.f3 (as played in the game).
If this main line results in the typical kingside assault I may have to rethink playing the Bayonet in order to follow "The Markovich Doctine".

Tickly.


If you wanted to play the Bayonet strickly to avoid these types of things, you've probably picked the wrong line. Most games in the Bayonet don't look like this, but it can happen. One line that you should look out for, however rare, is 9. b4 Ne8!?, a line covered by Golubev in Understanding the King's Indian. Here the main line runs 10. c5 f5 11. Nd2 (Maybe 11. Ng5 is a try to steer the game back into normal Bayonet lines...)Nf6 12. f3 f4 13. Nc4 g5 14. a4 (14. Ba3!?) Ng6 15. Ba3 Rf7 16. b5 dxc5 17. Bxc5 h5 18. a5 g4-> when Black has done fine. Pascal Charbonneau won a nice game not too long ago (see link below), and if my opponent in one of my ICCF games would resign already, I'd have a nice rout to show as well.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1503607


11. Nd2 is perfectly fine and correct. There's no reason to steer that towards "normal" Bayonet lines. White is playing an easier variation of 9. Nd2 than he'd otherwise get, so there's no reason to fear it.

If white has low tolerance for the lines which are better for him, but give black some practical chances, then he shouldn't even be playing the Bayonet. Black will always have practical chances regardless of variation.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #49 - 06/16/09 at 16:25:47
Post Tools
Mark's point is not that he can't win these games, it's that by giving a lower rated player a position that is easy to play and the plan is obvious, you're effectively closing the rating gap between the two players and elevating your lower rated opponents chances to beat you. If you play a position where the plans are more subtle, original or unfamiliar, it might even expand the rating gap because of your lower rated opponents inability to understand the fluidity.

It strikes me as similar to Mixed Martial Arts fights. Occasionally fights are created where one fighter is a known underdog, but also well known for his knockout power. Even though he's outclassed and likely to lose, he still has what we martial artists call a "puncher's chance" since at any moment he could knock you out with a stray blow. Markovich is just simply proposing to take this chance away.

I guess it's just a different mindset...your opinion that you should just be able to play the position regardless also has it's practical points.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Zatox
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 175
Joined: 03/11/08
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #48 - 06/16/09 at 16:13:19
Post Tools
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.

Why on earth would you gamble with your king against someone that you'll very likely outplay in an ordinary game of chess?  Why would you offer him the chance to concentrate, to the exclusion of all else, on devising ways to blast open your castled position?  So play the Gligoric, the Fianchetto, or the Averbach and take away his chances, along with his fun.  


You're not the first one who says this. But next time I teach my students this I will say: á la markovich. On the other hand, shouldn't you be able to win these games also? If you can't win with your regular repetoire against much weaker players, how can you against stronger players?
  

'Experts vs The Sicilian' is a great book, but it is not the Bible. - TopNotch
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #47 - 06/16/09 at 15:10:43
Post Tools
TicklyTim wrote on 06/16/09 at 14:38:40:
Yesterdays match Gelfand - Nisipeanu was a Bayonet Attack in which Nisipeanu got the blocked structure (f3 ..f4;) and went for the 'typical' knight sac with ..Nxe4 followed by ..f3. He however missed an opportunity , and white went on to win.
I had planned the Bayonet to avoid these types of positions.
Does anyone think that 15.Bf3 is more likely to avoid this blocked type of position than 15.f3 (as played in the game).
If this main line results in the typical kingside assault I may have to rethink playing the Bayonet in order to follow "The Markovich Doctine".

Tickly.


If you wanted to play the Bayonet strickly to avoid these types of things, you've probably picked the wrong line. Most games in the Bayonet don't look like this, but it can happen. One line that you should look out for, however rare, is 9. b4 Ne8!?, a line covered by Golubev in Understanding the King's Indian. Here the main line runs 10. c5 f5 11. Nd2 (Maybe 11. Ng5 is a try to steer the game back into normal Bayonet lines...)Nf6 12. f3 f4 13. Nc4 g5 14. a4 (14. Ba3!?) Ng6 15. Ba3 Rf7 16. b5 dxc5 17. Bxc5 h5 18. a5 g4-> when Black has done fine. Pascal Charbonneau won a nice game not too long ago (see link below), and if my opponent in one of my ICCF games would resign already, I'd have a nice rout to show as well.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1503607
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #46 - 06/16/09 at 14:50:39
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/15/09 at 17:34:34:
Having said all that, I agree with Markovich's Doctrine that The superior player should seek positions that are fluid and don't rely on rote play. I apply it (perhaps erroneously) to the white side of the Benko in much the same way that Yermolinsky writes about in his Road to Chess Improvement.

Then you should play 1.a3. No clearcut plan for black and the position is fluid Wink
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TicklyTim
Senior Member
****
Offline


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #45 - 06/16/09 at 14:38:40
Post Tools
Yesterdays match Gelfand - Nisipeanu was a Bayonet Attack in which Nisipeanu got the blocked structure (f3 ..f4;) and went for the 'typical' knight sac with ..Nxe4 followed by ..f3. He however missed an opportunity , and white went on to win.
I had planned the Bayonet to avoid these types of positions.
Does anyone think that 15.Bf3 is more likely to avoid this blocked type of position than 15.f3 (as played in the game).
If this main line results in the typical kingside assault I may have to rethink playing the Bayonet in order to follow "The Markovich Doctine".

Tickly.
  
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 #44 - 06/15/09 at 17:34:34
Post Tools
(Markovich "Doctine"?)

I'm going to defend the Mar Del Plata variation for White against lower rated players.  The Mar del Plata Variation has become increasingly subtle over time.  If you had made this statement in the early 1980s, I probably would have agreed with you, but now Black needs to know where to place his pieces, and how to keep the light squared Bishop active.  

Meanwhile, White has several different plans with subtly distinct piece placements.  For instance, the Ne1, Nd2, and the Bayonet lines are quite different beasts.

Beyond that, I have played several lower rated players who trade down their heavy pieces and light squared bishop thinking the game would be at least equal.  They then discover to their dismay that, by sheer luck, White finds some winning plan.  It must seem like luck to these players because I have used the same idea to beat the same opponents repeatedly.  Some of these are +2000 USCF.

In fact, the very reputation of the Mar Del Plata means helps the stronger player in that once Black's attacking resources are dried up, Black often flounders about like .... ummm ... a flounder on a pier.

Having said all that, I agree with Markovich's Doctrine that The superior player should seek positions that are fluid and don't rely on rote play. I apply it (perhaps erroneously) to the white side of the Benko in much the same way that Yermolinsky writes about in his Road to Chess Improvement.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mortal Games
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 587
Joined: 07/24/04
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #43 - 06/15/09 at 15:54:01
Post Tools
I agree with Markovich doctrine. Flexible play.  Smiley

Onischuk,Alexander - Inarkiev,Ernesto [E92]
10th Karpov Int'l tourney Poikovsky/Russia (9), 12.06.2009


1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.Be3 Ng4 8.Bg5 f6 9.Bh4 g5 10.Bg3 Nh6 11.c5 g4 12.Nh4 Nc6 13.cxd6 cxd6 14.dxe5 fxe5 15.Bc4+ Kh8 16.Qd2 Nd4 17.Ne2 Nxe2 18.Bxe2 Be6 19.0-0 Qe7 20.b3 Rad8 21.Rad1 a6 22.Bc4 Bc8 23.f4 b5 24.Bd5 Ng8 25.Qe1 Nf6 26.fxe5 Nxd5 27.Rxf8+ Qxf8 28.exd5 dxe5 29.Qe4 Qf6 30.Re1 Rf8 31.Qxe5 Qf7 32.Qe4 Bb7 33.Qxg4 Bxd5 34.h3 Rg8 35.Qf5 Qxf5 36.Nxf5 Bf6 37.Kh2 h5 38.Rd1 Be4 39.Rd6 Rg6 40.Rxf6 Rxf6 41.Be5 1/2-1/2
  

It has been said that chess players are good at two things, Chess and Excuses.  It has also been said that Chess is where all excuses fail! In order to win you must dare to fail!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #42 - 06/03/09 at 18:09:00
Post Tools
Yeah, agreed. The Mar Del Plata would actually be a great variation for either side to play in CC. If you're Black and you know how to play, you can find many improvements over computer analysis, and as White if you know how to play, you can hope your opponent plays like a computer!  Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #41 - 06/03/09 at 18:07:12
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/03/09 at 17:50:01:
Does this Doctrine have a Correspondence Caveat?


Well for one thing, I don't assume in CC that my opponent's rating necessarily means very much.  But in any case CC games are often tests of theory in this line or that, much less about relative playing strength (especially in view of so much silicon assistance being used).  In CC if you really want to win, it's either about catching your opponent in a theoretical error or obtaining a position that you understand much better than the chess engines.  An example of that would be the Botvinnik Variation of the Nimzo (the kingside pawn-roller).  The machines just don't see Black's danger there, and it seems that quite a few players don't either, and I've been able to grind out a lot of wins with it in CC.  I have heard it said that Black's side of the Winawer Poisened Pawn is good against machines, but I wouldn't know.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #40 - 06/03/09 at 17:50:01
Post Tools
Does this Doctrine have a Correspondence Caveat?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #39 - 06/03/09 at 17:39:55
Post Tools
Paddy wrote on 06/03/09 at 13:24:44:
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.



There you have it exactly!
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #38 - 06/03/09 at 14:53:36
Post Tools
Antillian wrote on 06/03/09 at 12:27:23:
Willempie wrote on 06/02/09 at 13:57:45:
-Patzers arent patzers because they can deliver an attack in the style of Kasparov, Radjabov or Fischer.


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.

Patzer is shorter Wink

Sure your opponent can be great at KID attacks, but the odds are that he isnt and that he plays the KID for other reasons. He may have been inspired by Kasparov or books, he may want to play a universal defense or he may think that he is great at attacking or that he has an attacking style (whatever that may be). Anyway I dont see a reason to avoid your standard lines, because your opponent is weaker. Imo if you feel this way you shouldnt play this line at all, as clearly you miss the confidence in it.

Btw you should check what Korchnoi did to lower rated players who dared to play the KID against him Smiley
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paddy
God Member
*****
Offline


The truth will out!

Posts: 935
Location: Manchester
Joined: 01/10/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #37 - 06/03/09 at 13:24:44
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 06/03/09 at 07:09:16:
Then I dont understand it at all. You dont wanna allow an easy plan (not according to me btw) against a weaker opponent, but have no qualms about it when played against a stronger player?


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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1756
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #36 - 06/03/09 at 13:21:46
Post Tools
Markovish,

Avrukh will recommend 3. g3 after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6. He actually mentions this in Volume 1 in the Introduction.

I should rephrase what i said. White cannot be forced into playing a finachetto Benoni after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 no more than he can be forced into it after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 c5. In both cases he does not have to play 5. d5 or 4. d5 respectively,  but the alternatives are  5. Nf3  and 4. Nf3 respectively which is a Symmetrical English opening. However, in both cases 5. d5  and 4. d5 lead to a Modern Benoni.


  

"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #35 - 06/03/09 at 13:06:46
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 06/03/09 at 07:09:16:
Then I dont understand it at all. You dont wanna allow an easy plan (not according to me btw) against a weaker opponent, but have no qualms about it when played against a stronger player?


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.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #34 - 06/03/09 at 12:57:38
Post Tools
Well, one thing we know for certain about Avrukh's Volume 2 is that it will not advocate 3.Nc3 against 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6. Therefore, we can also conclude that he won't advocate an early f4 system against the Benoni.  The big question is whether after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6, he will advocate 3.Nf3 or 3.g3.  

@Antillian:  Is it true that if you play the Fianchetto verus the KID, you can't avoid the Fianchetto Benoni?  I wasn't aware of that.

P.S. How dare you claim authorship of my entirely new and profoundly original doctrine?!
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1756
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #33 - 06/03/09 at 12:27:23
Post Tools
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:
-Patzers arent patzers because they can deliver an attack in the style of Kasparov, Radjabov or Fischer.


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


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

"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Holbox
Senior Member
****
Offline


Saigón Café

Posts: 369
Joined: 02/08/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #32 - 06/03/09 at 12:01:21
Post Tools
Quote:
I dont even get to execute my mating combination wrongly


Grin

This was my case too. Usually a stronger white player will play prophilaxically avoiding at all cost ...g5-g4. Meanwhile will develop his queen's side play as usual and finally will kill you. This is my own experience.

Recently, I have come back to the KID and I have found that I'm a better player now  Roll Eyes because my attacks, sometimes and only sometimes, arrives first  Grin

Anyway when playing against someone stronger than me I prefer something more solid as the QGD-Lasker Variation. I love to see the face of my opponent  Shocked when my knight to jumps into e4. Lasker, what a player!!



  

"Ladran, luego cabalgamos", NN
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 #31 - 06/03/09 at 07:51:03
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/02/09 at 20:39:16:
We'll find out soon, the book isn't out yet. All anyone knows is that he's recommending Fianchetto Systems against most everything.


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.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #30 - 06/03/09 at 07:09:16
Post Tools
Then I dont understand it at all. You dont wanna allow an easy plan (not according to me btw) against a weaker opponent, but have no qualms about it when played against a stronger player?
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #29 - 06/03/09 at 00:03:23
Post Tools
TN wrote on 06/02/09 at 22:05:17:
.
Come to think of it, this doctrine makes some sense in relation to the Modern Benoni as well - why head for the crazy complications of the 8...Nfd7 Taimanov Attack against a weaker player when you could secure a small edge with the Modern Main Line (where Black will probably avoid 9...b5 because then he will have no possibilities to play for a win), or even the Fianchetto variation.


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.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #28 - 06/02/09 at 22:05:17
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 06/02/09 at 15:04:40:
Dink Heckler wrote on 06/02/09 at 14:38:34:
I tend to agree with Markovich. It's a bit like monkeys on a typewriter; give them long enough, and they'll type out Shakespeare. Well, guess what? In these lines, the typewriter has very few keys, and Black only needs to type one (longish) word. Also, as Black is lower rated, he probably won't have any issues with going all in (if he has any sense), so perhaps, when we get over the horizon, that optimistic sac will turn out to have been inspired.

Why subject yourself to this as White? make Black think...don't let him play sac, sac, errr maybe mate, who knows?

Nah not really. Unlike with openings such as the Giuoco or the King's gambit the real problem is building up the attack properly.
As a patzer I screw up the latter by not executing a winning combination (or more often I execute it wrongly), in the KID I screw up because I dont build up the attack properly, often because my opponent is not letting me have it all my way, often by demolishing my queenside. I dont even get to execute my mating combination wrongly Wink


I admit that I sometimes have a similar problem when playing the King's Indian, Mar del Plata as Black - by the time I get my kingside attack going, my opponent has virtually demolished my queenside. But I still agree with Markovich because if Black makes a couple of dubious moves, he will be much worse but will still be able to mount an attack on White's king. If White makes a couple of dubious moves, he could be lost or even mated.

Come to think of it, this doctrine makes some sense in relation to the Modern Benoni as well - why head for the crazy complications of the 8...Nfd7 Taimanov Attack against a weaker player when you could secure a small edge with the Modern Main Line (where Black will probably avoid 9...b5 because then he will have no possibilities to play for a win), or even the Fianchetto variation.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #27 - 06/02/09 at 20:39:16
Post Tools
We'll find out soon, the book isn't out yet. All anyone knows is that he's recommending Fianchetto Systems against most everything.
  
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 #26 - 06/02/09 at 20:14:43
Post Tools
ANDREW BRETT wrote on 06/02/09 at 12:47:07:
If the fiancetto was so easy for Black , I'd be surprised as Avrukh is recommnending it for white ! Go figure !


What does Avrukh recommend against the pesky Grunfeld transposition that comes up whenever g3 appears on the board? For years I've been looking for a way to get into the Fianchetto KID advantageously, but I've never been able to avoid that problem.

White can't prevent it, and it's a bone-dry equality last I checked. Granted there's some theory to know, but nothing black need fear.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #25 - 06/02/09 at 15:48:28
Post Tools
ANDREW BRETT wrote on 06/02/09 at 12:47:07:
If the fiancetto was so easy for Black , I'd be surprised as Avrukh is recommnending it for white ! Go figure !


As a quick 'aside':
Are the details of this book out yet?
I've searched, but not successfully. (a link to QualityChess seemed to go nowehere).
The fianchetto line would definitely fit the criteria for this thread!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 805
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #24 - 06/02/09 at 15:26:25
Post Tools
I don't agree with Willempie.  You don't want to be playing into positions which are quite linear, for want of a better word. Usually, your opp has to 1) choose an appropriate plan, 2) execute well. Why let him have (1) for free, with the bonus that if he does have a moment of inspiration or flat lucks out, there's no way back.

  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #23 - 06/02/09 at 15:04:40
Post Tools
Dink Heckler wrote on 06/02/09 at 14:38:34:
I tend to agree with Markovich. It's a bit like monkeys on a typewriter; give them long enough, and they'll type out Shakespeare. Well, guess what? In these lines, the typewriter has very few keys, and Black only needs to type one (longish) word. Also, as Black is lower rated, he probably won't have any issues with going all in (if he has any sense), so perhaps, when we get over the horizon, that optimistic sac will turn out to have been inspired.

Why subject yourself to this as White? make Black think...don't let him play sac, sac, errr maybe mate, who knows?

Nah not really. Unlike with openings such as the Giuoco or the King's gambit the real problem is building up the attack properly.
As a patzer I screw up the latter by not executing a winning combination (or more often I execute it wrongly), in the KID I screw up because I dont build up the attack properly, often because my opponent is not letting me have it all my way, often by demolishing my queenside. I dont even get to execute my mating combination wrongly Wink
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 805
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #22 - 06/02/09 at 14:38:34
Post Tools
I tend to agree with Markovich. It's a bit like monkeys on a typewriter; give them long enough, and they'll type out Shakespeare. Well, guess what? In these lines, the typewriter has very few keys, and Black only needs to type one (longish) word. Also, as Black is lower rated, he probably won't have any issues with going all in (if he has any sense), so perhaps, when we get over the horizon, that optimistic sac will turn out to have been inspired.

Why subject yourself to this as White? make Black think...don't let him play sac, sac, errr maybe mate, who knows?
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schaakhamster
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 650
Joined: 05/13/08
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #21 - 06/02/09 at 14:19:15
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 06/02/09 at 13:57:45:
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. Grin



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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #20 - 06/02/09 at 13:57:45
Post Tools
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. Grin
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TicklyTim
Senior Member
****
Offline


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #19 - 06/02/09 at 13:36:10
Post Tools
I think another issue with these lines is the clock.
I'm habitually in time trouble.
Having to defend against these automated king attacks is time consuming. There is little or no chance to flick out a few simple moves.
I do gain a bit of time banging out theory, but I soon slump into thought trying to deflect all the possible attacks!

A few quick (sloppy) moves can be terminal in these positions - and there is no choice on bailing out. You are committed to having to protect your king! It is managaeble, but at club level (maybe my poor defensive technique) and quick time limits I do think it's difficult to defend.

Why put yourself under the pressure in a game you don't want to lose (against a weaker player). If playing someone much stronger, the randomizing factor might help - that is, you might spot all the defences and end up with a good position!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schaakhamster
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 650
Joined: 05/13/08
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #18 - 06/02/09 at 13:26:19
Post Tools
I'm not totally convinced I must say.
Huh


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #17 - 06/02/09 at 12:59:06
Post Tools
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?

I don't think that developing Black's play in any given Sicilian is as easy as developing Black's stock KID attack.  I'm not a 1.e4 player, but if I were, I certainly would not shun the Open Sicilian against any class of player.

I probably would not criticise BPaulsen's personal preference for White's side of the Mar del Plata, however, since he appears to revel in its technicalities.  Relatedly, someone above said that a corollary of my idea (it's not really mine, of course) is that Black should not allow the Yugoslav Attack.  I'm not sure that's true, because the whole point of taking up the Dragon is to outgun your opponent in the deep complexities of that very line.  Even so, if I had both the Dragon and the Taimanov in my repertoire I would probably not play the Dragon against weaker players, just because the main antidote to it is one of those A, B, C systems.  I would play instead the more fluid Taimanov, which I would think would be a more severe test of their general chess ability. 
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Schaakhamster
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 650
Joined: 05/13/08
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #16 - 06/02/09 at 12:50:11
Post Tools
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.

Why on earth would you gamble with your king against someone that you'll very likely outplay in an ordinary game of chess?  Why would you offer him the chance to concentrate, to the exclusion of all else, on devising ways to blast open your castled position?  So play the Gligoric, the Fianchetto, or the Averbach and take away his chances, along with his fun.  




Couldn't this Doctrine also apply to other openings? Almost every opening has it strong points and against almost every opening there are variations that aim to restrict these strong points.

Take for instance the Sicilian:
Main idea: black exchanges his c-pawn for white d-pawn and thus positional superiority in exchange for some pressure.
Counter: white plays 2 c3 with the idea of d4 cxd4 cxd4


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ANDREW BRETT
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 622
Joined: 07/07/06
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #15 - 06/02/09 at 12:47:07
Post Tools
If the fiancetto was so easy for Black , I'd be surprised as Avrukh is recommnending it for white ! Go figure !
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Meat
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 184
Joined: 06/27/06
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #14 - 06/02/09 at 12:29:00
Post Tools
This is interesting, because of course you wouldn't want to allow such an attack against a higher rated player as well, so essentially this means that the main line of the KID is not playable for white.
Great news for black!  Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #13 - 06/02/09 at 11:58:09
Post Tools
TicklyTim wrote on 06/02/09 at 10:46:59:
(My first post!!)

The thing is that the weaker (or level) player can play at a much higher level by following standard rountines.


Welcome to Chesspub, all the more since you make my point exactly.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #12 - 06/02/09 at 11:56:42
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/02/09 at 02:43:17:
Markovich wrote on 06/02/09 at 01:16:21:
GMTonyKosten wrote on 06/01/09 at 21:16:09:
BPaulsen wrote on 06/01/09 at 19:51:08:
The Fianchetto is =,

Really? Please tell me how Black equalizes and I will play the KID myself as Black! Smiley


Yeah, I wondered about that myself.  

But BPaulsen, without meaning to be argumentative, I would be happy to know what you think Black's equalizing idea is against Averbach's.  Since I play this line with las Blancas, I could prepare better if I knew what strong Blacks thought about it.


I've thought Radjabov's 6...Na6 is okay, as well as his other preference 6...c5 7. d5 a6.

Since you've probably done more work on this system than me, if you have lines leading to a white edge after both lines I'll gladly alter my statement.

Regarding the Fianchetto KID, I only view that as equal because black has an easy equalizer in a Grunfeld transposition. If black sticks to the KID I think white is better.

I'm not a strong black, I'm not strong, nor am I a KID advocate, I would love nothing more than a variation leading to a nice white plus.


No, I haven't done so much work on Averbach's, and I fully respect your judgement about it.  I was really just curious to know what you thought about how Black should equalize.  I certainly wasn't out to challenge your view of it, and I am grateful for your reply.

I do plan to put in some serious study time on this system, because I've been able to get good games in a series of cc experiments.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TicklyTim
Senior Member
****
Offline


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #11 - 06/02/09 at 10:46:59
Post Tools
(My first post!!)

I tire of these easy attacks for black!

The thing is that the weaker (or level) player can play at a much higher level by following standard rountines. It's similar to the English attacks in the sicilian, and Fischers little quote on the Dragon.
The attacks and sacrifices aren't original thought and the weaker player can copy motifs they've seen before.

By playing a variation vs the KID that plays all over the board (rather than being focused on the white king) the weaker player has to think for themselves, and the difference in grade should then tell.
For these reason I'm thinking of either the Bayonet, the Fianchetto or the h3 systems.
What does anyone think of the h3 systems in this respect?
  
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 #10 - 06/02/09 at 02:43:17
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 06/02/09 at 01:16:21:
GMTonyKosten wrote on 06/01/09 at 21:16:09:
BPaulsen wrote on 06/01/09 at 19:51:08:
The Fianchetto is =,

Really? Please tell me how Black equalizes and I will play the KID myself as Black! Smiley


Yeah, I wondered about that myself.  

But BPaulsen, without meaning to be argumentative, I would be happy to know what you think Black's equalizing idea is against Averbach's.  Since I play this line with las Blancas, I could prepare better if I knew what strong Blacks thought about it.


I've thought Radjabov's 6...Na6 is okay, as well as his other preference 6...c5 7. d5 a6.

Since you've probably done more work on this system than me, if you have lines leading to a white edge after both lines I'll gladly alter my statement.

Regarding the Fianchetto KID, I only view that as equal because black has an easy equalizer in a Grunfeld transposition. If black sticks to the KID I think white is better.

I'm not a strong black, I'm not strong, nor am I a KID advocate, I would love nothing more than a variation leading to a nice white plus.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #9 - 06/02/09 at 01:16:21
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 06/01/09 at 21:16:09:
BPaulsen wrote on 06/01/09 at 19:51:08:
The Fianchetto is =,

Really? Please tell me how Black equalizes and I will play the KID myself as Black! Smiley


Yeah, I wondered about that myself.  

But BPaulsen, without meaning to be argumentative, I would be happy to know what you think Black's equalizing idea is against Averbach's.  Since I play this line with las Blancas, I could prepare better if I knew what strong Blacks thought about it.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
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 #8 - 06/01/09 at 21:18:06
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 06/01/09 at 21:16:09:
BPaulsen wrote on 06/01/09 at 19:51:08:
The Fianchetto is =,

Really? Please tell me how Black equalizes and I will play the KID myself as Black! Smiley


I only meant = because black can just turn it into an easy Grunfeld after g3 appears on the board.  Cheesy I would gladly play the g3 KID otherwise, but I know a number of players that only use the Grunfeld in case of g3.

What I thought, and what I typed are two different things.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3117
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #7 - 06/01/09 at 21:16:09
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/01/09 at 19:51:08:
The Fianchetto is =,

Really? Please tell me how Black equalizes and I will play the KID myself as Black! Smiley
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #6 - 06/01/09 at 20:39:08
Post Tools
If you are higher rated there must be some reason for it. I doubt that it is because he is such a killer in standard KID positions.

Btw since when are we going to adapt our openings because we are scared of weaker players? Wink
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
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 #5 - 06/01/09 at 19:51:08
Post Tools
The reason you'd allow it is simple - winning chances.

The Averbach is =, the Fianchetto is =, the Gligoric is the only one you mentioned that might be += (even then I'm not totally sure of that lately). I'm not going to learn a bunch of new theory just to get an equal position against some club player.

The Bayonet attack doesn't even let black have his standard kingside attack fun, so putting that aside...

I've been a long-time player of 9. Ne1, and knowing the defensive themes for white makes life a lot easier. Even then white can play the early g4 variations.

The theory in the Mar Del Plata KID is easy to remember for both sides. I have a plus score against the KID in games against titled players (+3 -1 =1, most of the games against IM Rogelio Barcenilla), so why on Earth would I fear playing the same things I'm successful with against non-titled?
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

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


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #4 - 06/01/09 at 17:08:02
Post Tools
Quote:
This discussion reminds me of a weird occurrence lately - it seems like every time I play 6. Bg5 in the Najdorf lately on ICC I get the Polugaevsky variation, to which I can never remember all the theory. Then 10 moves later I've screwed up the attack somehow and I'm losing!

You need a backup line in that case - eg 10.Qe2 - you avoid the theoretical main line but still get something to play for. The same in the KI - if not prepared to play Mar del Plata play something different...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1778
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #3 - 06/01/09 at 15:58:08
Post Tools
I think you could go back and forth about this one all day, since both sides of this argument could conjure up wonderful hypotheticals favoring their side. One thing I will say is that sometimes I think people overestimate the "attacking advantage". What I mean by that is people think for some reason  it's always harder to defend than it is to attack. But when the pressure is on Black to time ...g4 right, or play the most precise moves to maintain an attack, it's not so easy. In a lot of positions it's easier to defend in my opinion, since you can quickly eliminate losing options and just play the best move you can find that doesn't lose. Anyway, if I was well versed in all of the Classical theory, having played it as Black quite a bit, I wouldn't hesitate to play it as White either, knowing that a couple of inaccuracies by a lower rated Black player could leave him attackless with his queenside in shambles.

This discussion reminds me of a weird occurrence lately - it seems like every time I play 6. Bg5 in the Najdorf lately on ICC I get the Polugaevsky variation, to which I can never remember all the theory. Then 10 moves later I've screwed up the attack somehow and I'm losing!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #2 - 06/01/09 at 13:23:50
Post Tools
I agree with Markovich's hypothesis "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", but my opinion is that a similar argument could be made for the lower-rated player as White, provided that he is well prepared for the Mar del Plata or an alternate kingside-hack variation.

Black's attack is quite dangerous, but if the attack doesn't checkmate White, then White will usually win, and the resultant complications provide the lower-rated player with a greater chance of achieving a 'lucky' win if neither player is entirely sure of what is occuring on the board.

Against lower-rated players, I usually meet the King's Indian with the Samisch, Classical (with a Bayonet) or the Fianchetto Variation, with very good results because my opponents usually don't achieve their usual kingside counterplay.

Alternatively, Markovich's hypothesis also applies to the Four Pawns Attack, where one mistake by Black will often lead to an immediate defeat, but a mistake by White will only lead to an inferior position. In other words, openings such as the Four Pawns Attack for White and the Mar Del Plata for Black have a high 'caltrop coefficient', to quote the 'opening traps at the club level' thread.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ANDREW BRETT
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 622
Joined: 07/07/06
Re: The Markovich Doctine
Reply #1 - 06/01/09 at 13:02:28
Post Tools
It's an interesting idea but i would counter that you do need a decent idea v KID otherwise black just has a good game. Some lines of the mel de plata white chucks his pawns forward f3 and g4. Much of the Bayonet avoids your dreaded automatic attack. If we took your argument and applied it to other openings, there would be no Yugoslav attack v dragon.

I think that your advice is sound though notwithstanding the above and have used it myself. I'd also suggest that the FPA and Samisch are pretty reasonable tries .

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
The Markovich Doctine
06/01/09 at 12:28:27
Post Tools
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.

Why on earth would you gamble with your king against someone that you'll very likely outplay in an ordinary game of chess?  Why would you offer him the chance to concentrate, to the exclusion of all else, on devising ways to blast open your castled position?  So play the Gligoric, the Fianchetto, or the Averbach and take away his chances, along with his fun.  

  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo