Matemax wrote on 12/04/12 at 07:47:12:


Yes, sorry if I was unclear. That is what I meant, in a closed game, even if the bishop is on e7, Black might have time to move it somewhere else without major problems. This is also what happened in my previous aforementioned game, when I played too slowly and let Black develop a kingside initiative. The bishop got to f6, opposing my control of the long diagonal (bishop on b2). The same would also apply to the Botvinnik system to a certain degree I guess.

Although even in a closed position, the position might open up and in that case the bishop could be bad on e7.

I fully agree, it seems like d4 should be critical. This is what I will play for in my future games, after actually have met this continuation in 4 games the last two years. This is a pretty high percentage considering I play less than 10 per year...

I guess this is totally obvious to Marin, or else something could have been mentioned in GM3. In this respect, I think Khalifman's Opening for White according to Kramnik is covering more compared to Marin's work (I only have vol 3, though, which covers solely the symmetrical). Of course, this particular variation won't be covered in OFWAK, since it starts with 1. Nf3!

Kylemeister, I agree. I used the d3, a3-b4 approach in my previous game. It should be like a reversed closed Sicilian but with the bishop badly placed on e7. I just think this would be a bit better for Black since a more closed game would lessen the effect of a passively placed bishop on e7.

I see. I haven't checked ECO for a long time. Well, almost never.

Anyway, it is probably more a Philidor of some sort, because the pawn structure usually is different in the Old Indian. And this structure is what had me confused, i.e. what plan to really use.

fling wrote on 12/03/12 at 07:28:44:


That's right, no variation is given only the recommendation,

Sorry for going off-topic but this 3...Be7 line reminds me of 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 d6, where after 4.g3 Black generally struggles to do anything because he has to play ...e5 later to control some space, and also the Black bishop is stuck behind the pawn chain. Of course it's an extra tempo for Black in comparison with this 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Bg2 Be7 4.Nc3 0-0 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2, but I still feel that White should have a small edge. Miezis's white games in the Mikenas line are a pretty good example of how to handle the position.

Actually in the Nimzowitsch-Schlechter game, if White plays 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 the play transposes to a game I played some years back which was basically a positional crush (and isn't in the databases). I can PM you the game if you want.

If you go for 5.e4, 6.Nge2, 7.0-0 (Botvinnik) you will probably face something like an Old Indian setup with ...d6,...c6,...Nbd7,....a5,...Nd7-c5 and so on

I have now played three games that started 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 Be7. I can't find it mentioned in Marin's books (which I want to follow). I seem to recall something about Kosten saying White can play a Botvinnik set-up because Be7 is sub-optimal in this line but I don't have the book here right now. However, I also think playing for d4 would be good, and I have found two games by Marin doing exactly that. 

In my last game I continued with 4. Nc3 and after ...c6, played 5.d4 but now it seems like I entered a Keres-system with the potentially sub-optimal Nc3 played (it might be attacked by ...d4). Even though 5 ...cxd4 6. Qxd4 d5 offers a pawn, 7. cxd5 0-0 looks unclear. Black won in the game Godes-Tseitlin, 1996, which maybe could have to do with the rating difference, though. I perhaps should have played 5. Nf3 first, or maybe 4. Nf3?

What are your ideas on these issues?