Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov? (Read 10906 times)
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #13 - 09/28/15 at 00:08:51
Post Tools
Actually, Watson recommends 5.h3 followed by either 6.Be3 or 6.Bg5.  Technically speaking, I don't think either of these is called the Makogonov, although they can certainly transpose into it if White plays Nf3 at some point.  The reason that Watson recommends the bishop moves instead of the Makogonov proper is to avoid the variation 6.Nf3 e5 7.d5 Nh5.      

Edit:  Hmm, I do see a bunch of Internet sites calling the 5.h3 Kings Indian the Makogonov system.  I had always thought that White had to play Nf3 for it to be a Makogonov, but it looks like any h3 system now gets that name.
« Last Edit: 09/28/15 at 13:33:02 by LeeRoth »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
eggman
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 13
Location: USA
Joined: 12/30/13
Gender: Male
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #12 - 09/27/15 at 18:48:39
Post Tools
TonyRo,

Forgive my ambiguity, IM Watson advocates the Makogonov line for White in his repertoire book "A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White". I'm a mere 1800 strength player here in the U.S., but I've come to appreciate this line for White.
I recall vaguely that Kasparov referred to it as an "Insideous" line for White. Sounds like a compliment to me. GMs Yermolinsky and Karpov are known to have used this line as White. Karpov has only used it in faster time controls and simuls, fwiw.
  

May the wind at your back never be your own!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gerry1970
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 482
Joined: 02/01/06
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #11 - 04/16/15 at 14:59:40
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 04/15/15 at 12:00:58:
The former.

Thanks. Looks like an interesting book. I try to play a few of his recommended lines so I am thinking of getting it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1777
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #10 - 04/15/15 at 12:00:58
Post Tools
The former.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gerry1970
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 482
Joined: 02/01/06
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #9 - 04/14/15 at 23:01:48
Post Tools
eggman wrote on 10/14/14 at 02:05:12:
Howdy,

IM Watson proposes this line in his repertoire book.


Sorry I am a bit behind in books but do you mean he recommends the h3 line or the f3 line?

Thanks,

Gerry
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gerry1970
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 482
Joined: 02/01/06
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #8 - 04/14/15 at 22:58:04
Post Tools
lnn2 wrote on 05/26/14 at 16:46:39:
One thing I notice about the Makogonov is that the White knight on f3 doesn't seem to have any good squares to go to in the main line but just goes to d2  and remains there to protect the e4 pawn. If that's the case, then the benefits of having a knight on f3 seem rather overrated ... There is an argument that securing the e4 pawn with 5. f3 gives more flexibility to White's pieces.


In some cases White's N on d2 can end up on e4 or c4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
eggman
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 13
Location: USA
Joined: 12/30/13
Gender: Male
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #7 - 10/14/14 at 02:05:12
Post Tools
Howdy,

IM Watson proposes this line in his repertoire book.
  

May the wind at your back never be your own!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #6 - 05/26/14 at 16:46:39
Post Tools
One thing I notice about the Makogonov is that the White knight on f3 doesn't seem to have any good squares to go to in the main line but just goes to d2  and remains there to protect the e4 pawn. If that's the case, then the benefits of having a knight on f3 seem rather overrated ... There is an argument that securing the e4 pawn with 5. f3 gives more flexibility to White's pieces.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2514
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #5 - 05/26/14 at 16:21:00
Post Tools
OrangeCounty wrote on 05/23/14 at 17:16:31:
The Makagonov h2-h3 avoids 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 c5, since White can still play Nf3 and e3 isn't weakened.  I won't claim this is cause and effect, but the Makagonov's popularity seemed to coincide at the GM level with the period when the Saemisch Gambit was considered a clear equalizing line (I understand it's cloudier now, but I still play it).


I think it's a little more along the lines that Black is more-or-less happy to play a Benoni where White has gone 7.f3, but in the Makoganov move order White could still play a Modern Main Line, which was looking quite at that time.  In fact, White's 5.f3 (and especially if he follows it up with the modern 6.Bg5 or 6.Nge2) are extremely effective at dealing with the "old" King's Indian ideas of playing ...e5 and then ...f7-f5, etc.  Hence Black had to search for other ideas, like the Panno and heading towards the Benoni structures. 

The Makoganov shares more ideas with the Averbakh, in my opinion.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2514
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #4 - 05/26/14 at 16:16:53
Post Tools
The main difference is that 5.f3 supports White's center and 5.h3 does not.  Hence White can more easily "build up" in the Saemisch variation, and also switch play to either wing more easily.  Because e4 is overprotected, plans of putting a knight on c5 and pressuring e4 (as in many other variations of the King's Indian) just don't work for Black.  This is true in lines where White closes the center with d4-d5 and when he allows ...exd4.

In addition, White can often threaten (or at least make Black think about) a h-file attack with the Queen+Bishop battery, which Black sometimes needs (or chooses) to react to.  The popularity of 6...c5 is due in large part to Black not wanting to face the h-file attack, and in the Panno variation with 6...Nc6, 7...a6, and 8...Rb8 Black spends two tempi to immediately prepare queenside play of his own should White choose to castle in the direction.  If you have no inclination of ever launching the old h-file attack, you might want to shy away from the Saemisch.  I personally don't choose the h-file attacking lines all that often, but if Black ever makes a "slow" move (like 8...Re8 in the Panno or 5...0-0, 6...a6, and 7...c6), I'll go for it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
OrangeCounty
Full Member
***
Offline


You played that like it
was a good move!

Posts: 171
Joined: 05/26/10
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #3 - 05/23/14 at 17:16:31
Post Tools
The Makagonov h2-h3 avoids 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 c5, since White can still play Nf3 and e3 isn't weakened.  I won't claim this is cause and effect, but the Makagonov's popularity seemed to coincide at the GM level with the period when the Saemisch Gambit was considered a clear equalizing line (I understand it's cloudier now, but I still play it).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #2 - 05/23/14 at 08:57:23
Post Tools
Reed wrote on 05/22/14 at 16:46:55:
After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 --

What's the difference in White's plan after 5.f3 (Saemisch) compared to 5.h3 (Makagonov)?


Saemisch would play f3 with the idea of a big centre against the Nimzo-Indian as well. The idea that h3 can achieve the same result in the Kings Indian is a more recent development. Back in the days when I first learned the Kings Indian by reference to the Batsford book of that name by Keene, Hartston and Barden, h3 was regarded as a means of improving exchange variations. This was down to  a plan used by Larsen on occasions.

I'm still struggling a bit to understand what to expect next when White tries these h3 ideas on move 5 or 6. One of them is a Petrosian system style immediate pawn advance meeting e5 with d5. Alternatively when I've tried for an early f5, they've played g4. Then they play gxf5, castle long and generate a strong attack on the g file.

Lines and themes in the Saemisch can be much better known by the defender. It's also easier particularly against Bg5 lines to switch into Benoni structures and tactics with .. c5 instead of .. e5.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MartinC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2014
Joined: 07/24/06
Re: Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
Reply #1 - 05/23/14 at 08:41:19
Post Tools
You might notice a lot of Saemisch games/lines where white plays on the queenside! g4 very far from a universal theme.

I guess its a little more popular because it reinforces e4 quite strongly while h3 is a bit more abstract. If you want to play with a knight on f3 then obviously more natural to stick it there straight away, which is of course very popular indeed Smiley

Doubt it relates to strength so much as all of these lines are playable for both sides.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Reed
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 6
Joined: 03/29/14
Strategic differences in Saemisch and Makagonov?
05/22/14 at 16:46:55
Post Tools
After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 --

What's the difference in White's plan after 5.f3 (Saemisch) compared to 5.h3 (Makagonov)? Both variations allow a prophylactic g2-g4 to cramp Black's kingside expansion, except 5.h3 allows the knight to be developed naturally at f3. To my mind that makes it the Makagonov strategically better, but for some reason the Saemisch is way more popular. Why is that?

I have a couple of possible reasons that I don't think are very good... One is that the e4 pawn is not as well-reinforced in case Black gets in f7-f5 before White can play g2-g4, but in case of ...fxe4 White usually recaptures with Nc3xe4 anyway.

Another possible reason is that White can advance h2-h4-h5 in the Saemisch. But again, White's pawn advances to g4 and h5 are more prophylactic than aggressive. The intention is not usually to start a kingside attack, so playing g2-g4 seems good enough.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo