TopNotch wrote on 07/13/20 at 20:49:53:


I'm seeing basically zero interaction from Gustafsson in the discussions so I wonder if I'm missing something here. The update (one variation?) must have happened quite a while ago, before I bought the course, or their notification thing broke, because it doesn't show any new lines.

For the money you can spend on this course (one of the most expensive ones on the site), let alone the time (1400 variations!), then I think I'd at least want a better feeling it's going to be kept up to date. I don't play e5 right now so I don't have a good feeling how quickly the theory moves here or how sharp most of this is, but surely there's been some more movement. Granted, the more solid and mainline the variations, the less likely any major problems arise.

It looks like Shankland, Sielecki and Barrish at least do some effort to keep their repertoires up to date (even if sometimes with very large delays), and I had some back and forth with L'Ami as well. I just don't see that in the Gustafsson repertoire.

(Let's not even talk about the Simon Williams repertoires...)

LeeRoth wrote on 07/06/20 at 20:33:31:


Despite the claim of "Support Level: High" (a common Chessable lie), it doesn't appear the course has had any updates at all, and I'm not sure if you should ever expect some.

For those who purchased Gustafsson’s course and have now had some time with it, would you say that it’s still worth getting or has the novelty worn off?  Would appreciate all comments.

I wouldn’t mind re-visiting the Marshall, but, in trying out the short/sweet sample, I found the move trainer annoying.  Is there anyway to turn it off and just play through the recommended moves?

For me the main attraction of the Marshall is, ironically, not getting the Marshall on the board. I'd rather face Anti-Marshalls or some other sidelines than have to remember long forcing lines, some of which White can draw right out of the opening by repetition if he so wishes.

TopNotch wrote on 12/28/19 at 02:11:30:

False dichotomy. There are more than two options. Theres'a lot between the Marshall Gambit and the Elephant Gambit.

Seeley wrote on 12/13/19 at 18:16:33:


When an opening system has an excellent reputation, chances of getting it on the board is less likely and that really is not a good enough reason to give up an opening, it just means you have to make the sidelines less appealing to opponents. The other option is to study and play both the Latvian and Elephant gambits as I'm pretty sure that few players would try to stop you from getting these on the board. 

nocteus wrote on 12/17/19 at 20:46:06:

Yes I want to know this too.

I am of the opinion that if Gustafsson wrote a book on 1. e4 e5 as a complete Black repertoire in paper form, it would be a massive best seller. Especially paired with a publishing house like Quality Chess or Chess Stars.

BobbyDigital80 wrote on 12/15/19 at 19:36:19:

There is no way that I am aware of to download a course as a PGN. The best substitute I can think of is to view a variation and just copy-paste the text, but this will only give you one variation at a time.

Anyone interested in this new course should be aware that the (free) Short and Sweet version has now been released, which provides a decent guide to the lines he is recommending. One highlight I will mention is his recommendation of the line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 h6 9. Ne4 cxb5!? (I believe this may even be a novelty) intending 10. Nxf6+ gxf6 11. Qxa8 Qd7.
In general my impression is that Gustafsson's recommendations aim to new ideas as early as possible, with most of the new ideas coming from LC0. Consider for example the following quote from his text accompanying the aforementioned 15... Ra7 in the Marshall: "There is nothing wrong with the old main lines starting with 15... Bg4, but they do require Black to learn quite some theory in order to hold. Let's get our surprise in first!" Of course the downside of choosing innovation over the tried and tested is that you do take greater risk of having your analysis overturned by later developments, but with computers as good as they are now that risk is lower than ever before. Furthermore, having these lines exposed to the light of day in such a high-profile course will help ensure that they get the further practical and theoretical testing that one might hope for.
On a side note, is it time to start a new thread for this course? The original thread was about the old Chessbase DVD, and the new course covers a lot more than just the Marshall.

TopNotch wrote on 12/13/19 at 18:19:41:


The Breyer would probably be my first choice since there is no real well-known forced draw, at least to my knowledge.

Another choice would, very ironically, be Berlin. The endgame is actually very good for Black players to try to win this endgame. The 4. d3 line and the other line with the rook on e1 are not as dry as people think it is.

A third choice is the Smyslow. Quite combative and not well-analysed. Especially the KID-style positions that can arrive from this variation.

IsaVulpes wrote on 12/12/19 at 23:15:02:


He gives 8.a4 Bb7? After 9.d3 doesn't that just transpose to a 7.d3 Archangel (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3 Bb7 7.d3), making the bishop on b7 look "silly"?

LordChaos21 wrote on 12/13/19 at 15:13:23:

I think it's perhaps the case that people are not so much scared off from playing lines such as the Marshall, as disincentivised from learning them in the first place. This is because you're faced with having to spend a lot of time memorising all the sharp and theory-heavy main lines, while knowing that – at club level at least – you're only very rarely going to have a chance to play them, because, as you say, players of White tend to avoid them.

I did consider learning the Marshall a while ago, but was put off by my experience with the Sveshnikov Sicilian a number of years back. During the course of around twelve months of playing  the opening – or trying to – against 2000-2200ish Elo players, I didn't get the mainline Sveshnikov on the board even once, instead finding myself confronted with various anti-Sicilians and early deviations before the mainline was reached. This pretty much echoes the experience you describe with the Marshall. So there's a practical case to be made for not bothering with all the work involved in learning such sharp theoretical lines, and instead concentrating your efforts on studying a line that you're more likely to get on the board.

A lot of the forcing Marshall accepted lines and some of the Anti-Marshall lines had put me off this system for a long time, but after years of experimenting with various defenses to the Ruy Lopez I am starting to warm to the Marshall a bit. The reason for this change of heart is partly due to some of the exciting discoveries found for Black in the Anti-Marshall lines, namely that d5!? is still viable against many of them, in particular the popular 8.a4.

As an aside for those shopping around for another reliable counter to the Spanish torture, I think the Steintz Deferred is an underrated and less theory heavy option.

IsaVulpes wrote on 12/12/19 at 23:15:02:

I can't give a reason. That's just the way it is.

IsaVulpes wrote on 12/12/19 at 15:54:34:


How would this work at 2300+ and playing in norm tournaments.

Leon_Trotsky wrote on 12/11/19 at 22:19:04:

I don't know what level you are playing at, but at mine (2000-2100 FIDE), playing the Marshall generally means one of three things:
a) The opponent sorta stumbles into it, and doesn't know much in the way of theory: You get to start a mating attack, where Black has a much easier time playing, even if he knows nothing
b) The opponent knows it exists, and that it's scary, so he plays a very early Bxd5 to take some danger out of the position: The positions turn very safe for Black, even if he knows nothing
c) The opponent knows that the Marshall is a forest of theory, objectively equal, dangerous for White, and thus not really something you should enter in the first place: He will play 8.a4 or 8.d3 (8.h3 on occasion, but it's become rare recently; 8.d4 very infrequently), and try to get a calmer game.

I've never met anyone who even considered the Radjabov-Ding path, of going for the Marshall Accepted with d3, & then playing some 0.00 novelty on move 30, in hopes the opponent steps wrong.
I don't expect that "never" to change anytime soon.

If the opponent does go for 8.a4 (or one of the other Antis) you just get a typical closed Spanish game, except in a slightly better version for Black - which means a highly complicated position, with all the pieces on the board, and a boatload of positional maneuvering to follow.
Naturally, playing this for a win is no problem whatsoever.

My take (and indeed, my approach thus far) is: You can play the Marshall without knowing any concrete theory whatsoever (at least until FM or w/e level).
You need to know some typical attacking plans in the d4 Re1 line, the g5 trick after d4 Re4, general Spanish knowledge so you can handle the Anti-Marshalls, and just "hope" the d3 Accepted doesn't appear on the board (else go Bf5 and improvise from there); you'll do fine in 99% of your games.

TopNotch wrote on 12/11/19 at 20:23:26:

Quite a mysterious remark.

Van Foreest,J (2614) - Ragger,M (2687) [C53]
World Rapid St Petersburg (12.33), 28.12.2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Re1 Bg4 9.h3 Bh5 10.Nbd2 Nb6 11.Bb3 Qxd3 12.Nxe5 Bxd1 13.Nxd3 Bxb3 14.axb3 Be7 15.b4 Rfe8 16.Nb3 Rad8 17.b5 Rxd3 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Rxa7 Kf8 20.Kf1 Bd6 21.Nd4 c5 22.Rxe8+ Kxe8 23.Ke2 c4 24.Bd2 Be5 25.Nc6 Bd6 26.Ra5 Rd5 27.Rxd5 Nxd5 28.Be3 Bf4 29.Bd4 Bc1 30.Kd1 Bxb2 31.Kc2 Ba1 32.Na5 c5 33.Bxg7 f6 34.Nxc4 Bxc3 35.Bh6 Bd4 36.f3 Kd7 37.Bd2 f5 38.g4 Ke6 39.Kd3 ½-½

Giri,A (2797) - Harikrishna,P (2723) [C53]
3rd Du Te Cup 2019 Shenzhen CHN (2.2), 18.04.2019

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 0-0 6.0-0 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.Re1 Bg4 9.Nbd2 Nb6 10.h3 Bh5 11.Bb3 Qxd3 12.Nxe5 Bxd1 13.Nxd3 Bxb3 14.axb3 Be7 15.b4 a6 16.Ne4 Nd7 17.Bf4 Rac8 18.Rad1 Rfd8 19.g4 Bf8 20.Kg2 Re8 21.Bg3 f6 22.f4 Re7 23.f5 Rce8 24.Nf4 Nd8 25.Rxd7 Rxd7 26.Nxf6+ gxf6 27.Rxe8 Kf7 28.Re3 Rd2+ 29.Re2 Rd1 30.Ne6 Nxe6 31.fxe6+ Ke8 32.Bxc7 Rd3 33.Bf4 Rd5 34.Kf3 Ke7 35.Re4 Bg7 36.Be3 f5 37.Bg5+ Bf6 38.Bxf6+ Kxf6 39.g5+ Kxg5 40.Re3 1-0

as it was Black who deviated (and hence found "something"). As exchanging queens has done badly in general, what about 12...Qf5 instead? After 13.Nef3 Rfe8 14.g4 Bxg4 15.hxg4 Qxg4+ 16.Kh1 Nxe5 Black held the draw in Rohs-Larsson, corr DEU-SVE, ICCF 2016.
White can try 11.b4 instead, In several lines with ...d5 this is a reason to prefer 4...Be7.

Then  we have

Van Foreest,L (2500) - Navara,D (2736) [C50]
European Rapid 2018 Skopje MKD (10.21), 09.12.2018

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d3 0-0 6.c3 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.a4 a6 9.Re1 Nb6 10.Bb3 Bg4 11.h3 Bh5 12.Nbd2 Qxd3 13.a5 Nc8 14.Nxe5 Qg3 15.Qxh5 Bxf2+ 16.Kh1 g6 17.Qe2 Bxe1 18.Nxf7 Qf2 19.Qxf2 Bxf2 20.Ne4 Rxf7 21.Bh6 Bh4 22.Rf1 Ne5 23.Bf4 Kf8 24.Bxf7 Nxf7 25.Bxc7 Be7 26.b4 Na7 27.Bd6 Nb5 28.Bxe7+ Kxe7 29.Re1 Kf8 30.Rf1 Kg7 31.Nc5 Nxc3 32.Re1 Nd5 33.Nxb7 Nxb4 34.Nc5 Rc8 35.Ne6+ Kf6 36.Nf4 Ne5 37.Re4 Rc4 0-1

Again 14...Qf5 looks better.
Of course these three games confirm Pantu's comment.

TopNotch wrote on 12/11/19 at 20:23:26:


Thanks, I never really agreed with the ...d7-d5 variations as it seemed to be very much move heavy while going with a6/d6/Ba7 seems a bit more like "here is the setup to aim for".

I'll debate with myself a bit more as to whether I'll pick this up while the offer is valid.

Quote:


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 Bc5 is part of the repertoire. But I don't think there are many variations with d5. The repertoire mostly uses a6, d6 and Ba7.

I wouldn't buy the videos, just get the course.

Theory is beyond a doubt excellent, coverage is of everything, 1..e5 vs Non-Ruy is contained, and in all spots where multiple variations are possible, he uses the rarest/freshest one to keep your opponents surprised. Tons of ideas I've never seen, and I trust him blindly - as a 2nd for Carlsen, we can be positive he is checking his lines properly 

So eg in the old Marshall mainline, after 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3, he picked 15...Ra7!?

Most of the new lines he recommends are Lc0 discoveries, and thus didn't exist at all during the time of his chessbase/chess24 videos.

There is no problem in the 8. h3 lines, you can go ahead and play 8.....d5.  It gives black the same amount of play that the standard marshall gives.  After white takes the pawn you can simply play 11.....Nf6 or 11......Nf4 either one of those moves will give you great chances against someone that will not be comfortable in the positions that follow.

The line with 8 h3  has become popular as an anti-Marshall. One reason is that the attempt to play a Marshall regardless with 8. .. d5 runs into tactical and positional problems deeper into the variation.

Black's popular reply is 8. .. Bb7, after which White can still provoke the pawn sacrifice by 9. c3. Playing the Bishop to b7  improves matters for Black since on 9. .. d5 10. exd5 Nxd5, the replies 11. d3 or 11. d4 seem to be necessary. On 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Rxe5, the reply 12. .. Nf4 sets a few problems. That's more accurate than an immediate 12. .. Bf6 as White could flick in 13. Bxd5.

In a regular Marshall, playing Nf4 instead of defending the square with . .. c6 lacks point as there's no threat and White can hit the f4 Knight with d4.

I wouldn't call move 24 terribly early

I found this DVD quite instructive ....The lines are deeply analysed... The only problem is that they have given lines too lengthy which might be not the stuff for amateurs players...Recommended for advance serious players

Certainly. Thanks. My interest has been raised. All those Anti-Marshalls never have worried me that much either, because Black always has a fairly wide choice.
The idea that the Marshall proper demands detailed preparation seems to be just another prejudice then (compare my comments on the off beat Open Sicilian).

ghenghisclown wrote on 12/09/10 at 19:21:15:

That was intentionally. As I am an oldfashioned book guy and chess DVD's definitely aren't for me I am not interested in "judging by the video contents", but in your own personal opinion. That still may be influenced by the DVD of course.
So do you generally agree with Alias? The variations in the Marshall are deep and not wide? There are only few types of positions? I am asking because I have an awful memory and find it a lot easier to remember a couple of ideas and connect them with concrete moves than just learning by heart.

ghenghisclown wrote on 12/09/10 at 19:21:15:

Now this sounds good. This is the kind of argument that makes me wanting to take up a variation.

MNb wrote on 12/09/10 at 16:11:32:


Sometimes opening branches are long but not wide. Types of positions don't vary much, ie ideas are the same in most lines.  The Sveshnikov has long theoretical lines but is still called the easiest sicilian in a recent book.

I just got Gustafsson's DVD on the Marshall. My preliminary impression is that its very organized and useful, but only if you're willing to do the work. Every video segment comes with an analysis file which investigates a line more deeply and summarizes the theory as he sees it as well.

He does go fast in some parts and doesn't mention things that, say, Martin might mention because he skips over a few things that are obvious to experts and up. So if you miss something you have to go over it...

Its very complete though and has everything you could face against strong players in a club or weekend tournament setting.

What might be worth discussing here is Gustafsson admitting that there's a lot of theory to know. Judging by the video contents, it doesn't seem that way to me. Maybe you guys have a different opinion?

Basically it looks like a system of spaced repetition for a limited set of "units" of knowledge.

The system presented in the Chessedelic link runs 23 days; is Bouwmeester's idea after that to keep on expanding the same way or start over from day 1?

As presented the lower numbered units (1,2,3...) are trained more, so I assume the order of units is determined by importance (how critical and likely to turn up in games the various lines are).

trw wrote on 11/09/10 at 00:36:21:

That's nothing to apologize for, as Bouwmeester explained his method in a book of 30 years ago - in Dutch.

Mortal Games wrote on 11/08/10 at 23:02:06:


I am sorry but could you enlighten me on what this Bouwmeester method is? I haven't heard of it.

In fact this DVD has a new feaute. Gus does not present all the material but just guides as and offers the conclusions from his analysis and after that he offers his analysis. His lines seem way disorganised which leads me to believe that they are actually the files he used himself!

Pleas don't get me wrong, i don't work for Chessbase. Many of it's products are very low on quality but this DVD does not fit in this category.

Gus says in the introduction that there will be another one by him that will cover anaything else. These two DVDs combined together will offer a complete defence to 1.e5 with 1...e5.

Excellent and honest. Gus thinks that Black cannot easy equalise in the Qe2 variation. The material is very well presented but the thing that the DVD offers ways to avoid the forced draws is not exactly accurate.

According to GM Hedinn Steingrimsson review of the DVD, Gustafsson is a true expert in the variation and his presentation is very good. He manages to use the multimedia format very well. He explains Black's plans and long term ideas. The files that are presented with the DVD are probably the best that he had seen with an opening DVD. Gustafsson interprets the opening in a more aggressive way, preferring to avoid queens exchanges and playing for compensation for the sacrificed pawn in the form of an attack on the white king (bye bye professional level draws reputation?).

Any views on this DVD? Is this the best Chessbase DVD so far?