Interesting but Black may play 10.Rb1 a5!?. Marin says that after 4.Nc3 0-0 it's a good moment to transpose to 1.d4 ...

Let's discuss some concrete lines ! In the variation given by Marin 1.c4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 0-0 (most flexible move order in my opinion) 5.e4!? d6 6.Nge2 c5! 7.0-0 Nc6 8.d3 Ne8 (Rb8!?) 9.Be3 Nd4 10.Qd2 Nc7 11.Bh6!? and here A/e5 B/Rb8 C/Nce6 D/Bxh6 E/Nxe2 seems at least equal. From a positionnal point of view there is a risk to finish with a dead Bg2 ... What do you think ? Maybe 9.f4 is an interesting try just to play f5 and avoid the c7 knight to reach e6 ...

Ta! Will try to snap up a copy.

Very interesting, Tony -- thanks! Great that a grandmaster can comment here and be so upfront, that's really appreciated! I look forward to looking at the games. Meanwhile if Black's natural defence can easily land him in trouble this can't be a bad practical try!

Interesting too your verdict on the d4 line. I'd liked this myself but been a bit put off by Golubev's notes on E61 where he says the only function of the Ne2 is to be "very, very solid". To be precise he was talking about a position where White has d4 in (and Black ...d6) but ...c5 hadn't been played, but I imagine that's not a critical difference?

Thanks for these Phil! That's as good a positional trap as 5 a3 a5?! 6 Nf3 Nf6?! 7 d4! (or 6 ...e6? 7 d4!). Meanwhile will take another look at the anti-...c5 Botvinnik. Tim Spanton helpfully sent me an article on this some years back ...

I guess we could mention some other minor options against specific defences that are not necessarily without sting, e.g. against the Symmetrical a quick b3/Bb2 (memorably coupled in Larsen-Betancort with Bxc6!), and also a quick h4 + Nh3.

Confusing, indeed, but also fascinating! I'm sure it's far more important just to play some games/play through GM games and so develop a feel for which White systems feel more congenial in which circumstances than it is to agonise endlessly over the theory, but I'm still fascinated by the 'reasoning' behind different players' choices, even if in the end they boil down to style. One of my favourite 'role models' is the Latvian GM Normunds Miezis, whose interpretation of the English is often v. dynamic and exciting -- he's obviously a very tactically alert guy and from move one he gives his opponents no peace! It's noteworthy perhaps that he and other strong exponents frequently get the potentially 'dynamic' moves like Rb1 and a3/b4 in early, delaying the straightforward developing moves like 0-0 and -- even -- d2-d3.  His example also calls to mind another confusion: the received wisdom is that the Botvinnik works best against ...e5 and that if ...c5 is in but not ...e5 it's better to choose something else, but Miezis frequently plays the Botvinnik anyway and has a huge score with it! Just taste? Who knows?!

Foolishly, I never did snap up [i]A Strategic Opening Repertoire[/i]. Could you tell me the line where Nxd4 occurs, Paddy (and what Black's error is)?

[quote author=3F3C3630510 link=1278109744/10#10 date=1279639314]Back to chess after some time away ... Thanks for all replies -- particularly thanks to Paddy, whose posts are always an inspiration!

I'm not sure much of an argument can be made from the stats here. Maybe it might if the sample were extended to include games with Rb1/a3 before/as well as e3, but it's tricky getting one's head around all the possible move orders! Gurevich's games are fascinating, but I'm not entirely sure what the conditions are under which he thinks e2-e3 is optimum: if ...e5 or ...e6 have occurred, perhaps, but then he's not always consistent in what he plays, which is scarcely surprising.

I'm interested that Davies recommends the Staunton against ...c5. The opposite point of view to Gurevich's? -- I'm confused! I'd thought this had a rather drawish reputation -- anyone know what line(s) D. recommends?
[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words Michael. 

Well, we ARE talking Flank Openings here, so delayed contact and immense flexibility for both sides figure prominently. This sounds good, but in fact for most of us non-masters it's a recipe for confusion! 

In the English, against practically any non-d5 set-up by Black, White can choose from three main set-ups: a) Nf3, keeping the e-pawn on e2; b) the Staunton with e3 and Nge2; and c) the Botvinnik with e4 and Nge2. All three are very playable and it's probably a matter of taste. In his recent little book in German, Jonathan Carlstedt goes to great lengths to explain his choices, but not everyone would agree with him.

Playing the Staunton against the Symmetrical does have a drawish reputation, but White risks little and there are some lines where Black has to be very careful - see for instance pages 124-128 of the second edition of A Strategic Opening Repertoire (where the key lines are reached by transposition from 1 Nf3 - after a Nxd4 capture by White it's the same line).

On his DVD Nigel Davies gives five illustrative games with the Staunton vs the Symmetrical. His recommeded move order is 1 c4 c5 2 g3 g6 3 Bg2 Bg7 4 e3, since he wants to avoid the weird and wonderful line where Black answers 4 Nc3 with 4...Bxc3 and even greater confusion ensues.

If we poor patzers must play this stuff, all we can do is read the books,  play through games by "role models" and hope that it all begins to make sense.

After playing 1 e4 for years, I've been alternating 1 c4 with 1 Nf3 for the past season, and although I've enjoyed the games and had decent results I can't say I've always felt that I really knew what I was doing!

Your partner in confusion,

Paddy

[quote author=5F5C5650310 link=1278109744/0#0 date=1278109744]We've debated this position -- 1 c4 Nf6 2 g3 g6 3 Bg2 Bg7 4 Nc3 d6 -- before on here. What's White's strongest move? Many, if not most, would say 5 d4. As for English lines, given that ...e5 allowing the mainline Botvinnik System can't be forced out of Black [i]The Dynamic English[/i] recommends 5 d3 0-0 6 Bg5!?. But what about [b]5 e3 0-0 6 Nge2[/b]? I've been getting interested in the positions after (a) 6 ...e5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d3 or (b) 6 ...c5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d3 (not the only options, of course). In general terms these positions appeal to me. Many similar themes to the Botvinnik -- queenside play, use of d5 as a springboard square, f2--f4 blockade. So why, I'm wondering, should the e3/Nge2 setup be theoretically weaker than the Botvinnik, if it is? Anyone got thoughts on this, or know of any interesting sources/writing? Is the Staunton setup better in some situations than in others? (Of course, in line (a) e3-e4 sometimes gets played despite the tempo loss, and I guess if Black plays a less than planful move White can be in with this like a shot.)
[/quote]

Some background on the Staunton system

The so-called (aptly, for once, it seems) Staunton system was Botvinnik's first choice both as White and Black, before he developed the Botvinnik system in the early 1950s. It promises a flexible position with options of playing a later ...f5 (to prevent the advance of White's f-pawn to f5), as well as advancing in the centre with ...d5 or setting up a delayed Botvinnik system with ….e5. Having been the most popular system for Black against the Closed Sicilian in master play for many years, the Staunton  has declined in popularity somewhat in the last couple of decades, following the introduction of the e4-e5 pawn sacrifice, which requires Black to play very accurately rather than just play “system” moves. Nevertheless, it remains very playable as Black. Playing the Staunton with White,  there is less reason to fear a e5-e4 pawn sac, but it seems many players have been put off by Black's plan of an early ...h5-h4.

The Botvinnik system for Black remained quite popular during this period, particularly with American players, since it promised Black space and equal chances, as long as he didn't allow White to play f4-f5 in favourable circumstances. 

It is notable that in his later years Kasparov generally preferred the simple development with ...Nf6 against the Closed Sicilian, allowing White to build up a Spassky-style attack but avoiding the weaknesses created by the Staunton (dark squares) or the Botvinnik (d5).

One of the main Staunton experts with White is Mikhail Gurevich, whose favourite move order is the very flexible 1.c4 g6 2.Nc3 Bg7 3.g3 e5 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.Rb1 a5 6.d3 d6 and only now 7.e3, with  a typical continuation being 7... f5 8.Nge2 Nf6 9.b3 0-0 10.Bb2 g5 11.Qd2 Ne7 12.f4! as in Gurevich,Mikhail (2656) - Paragua,Mark (2500) [A25] Corsica Masters op Bastia (8), 31.10.2000. Notice that Gurevich played b3; of course, there is an alternative plan based on b4-b5 which has been played by many strong GMs.

I know of no repertoire book that completely covers the Staunton system for White, but there is some very good material on it in Dvoretsky's book Opening Preparation and, more recently, in Watson's 3rd volume of Mastering the Chess Openings. It is also the recommendation of FM Jonathan Carlstedt in his recent booklet on the English  - in German - when Black plays an early ...f5. Finally, Nigel Davies's DVD on the English recommends the Staunton against the Symmetrical.