Watson was talking generally about the Old Indian (not about f3 at all), but noted that while the ...f5 strike was an important theme in the KID, it did little to activate the Bishop on e7 (as distinct from the Bishop on g7 in the KID, when the whole game can hinge on this break). I'll leave out his further details—posed in his chapter on "Modern Pawn Play" in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy—but add the caveat that he suggests his reasoning for Black not playing for ...f5 is hardly a "principle." Hiis outline, however, is pretty interesting, and it is nice to see some coverage of the Old Indian, which is all too frequently not examined.

Maybe better ask just what position(s) Watson was talking about.

Great stuff, all, and thank you for your insights. I look forward to playing through all this and analyzing in due course. In the meantime, coming back to an earlier comment, John Watson seems to advocate opening Black's position with the advance of the c-pawn and playing on the queenside. He seems to think that plans with ...Ne8 and ...f5 are frequently unsuccessful.

Markovich wrote on 06/27/13 at 16:12:10:


Just to be clear, I was not advocating or proposing 3.f3 vs the Pirc.  In response to HGMan's comment that this was a curious or unusual move order, I was merely pointing out that Schandorff recommended 3.f3 -- albeit from a 1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 move order -- in his book.  But, in response to your question, I tend to agree with you.  In my own praxis, I rejected 3.f3 some time ago because I thought Black could favorablly transpose to an Old Indian, so I will have to compare my old notes to Schandorff's recommendations and see if he changes my view. 

I am sorry if the tone of my posts here has irritated.

@Lee Roth: I don't think that 3.f3 in the Pirc (sorry to introduce more nomenclature, but that is what you propose) is supposed to be any good, is it? Black has 3...d5, for one thing. If the Old Indian move order is used, then 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5, and Black's QN is not yet committed to d7. All that, not semantics, is why I said that my previous advocacy was about the traditional move order.

@MNb: So far as I know, White has no way to force Black to play ...Nbd7 before playing ...e5, except by playing 3.Nf3. Unless he does, the analyses below are not exactly critical to my point that White does not do well to play Saemich-like against the Old Indian.

Markovich, I agree that after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 White probably has better moves than 4.d5.  That's why I proposed the alternative move order 1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 Nbd7 4.c4 e5 5.d5 c6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Be3 0-0 as much more logical for arriving in this system.   Yes I think that Black has problems to solve in this position.  See the plans I outlined earlier; can we take them one by one and do a little analysis?  Propose alternative plans?

For once around here, can we not argue over nomenclature or move orders?  It gets tiresome.

Nobody is talking about some move order without White's pawn on c4. Schandorff's chapter begins with the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 when after 3...e5 he recommends 4.d5 and after 3...Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.d5.