Marshall Defense

Seen a few past posts on this opening in the forums, but didn't really get a lot of info from them. I know it's a weak opening for Black, but the problem is, I can't really understand the analysis of some of the subsequent lines. White is supposed to be able to maintain an advantage with 4.Nf3! Bf5 5.Qb3 (shown below), but I'm not too sure what are the lines of attack to use after that (for that matter, why is Black compelled to play 4. ...Bf5?). Could anyone help me out there by explaining the reasoning behind White's moves to me? Is the queen move to put pressure on the centre as well as the b-pawn? But a pawn grab with the queen seems rather risky though...

At the same time, I'm not too clear why 4.e4?! Nf6 5.Nc3 e5! 6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Ng4! (shown below) is supposed to allow Black to equalize...I've tried playing against Rybka on my computer and it responds 8.Nh3 to defend the f3 square. If Black responds by taking the e5 pawn, White counterattacks via 10.Nb5 (edit: sorry, I meant 10.Nd5). Black can't copy White's defence with Na6 because White's f1 bishop is not blocked by the knight and can take the knight on the rook file, unlike the Black bishop. On the other hand, if Black uses the move after 8.Nh3 to defend the b5 square, White can defend the e5 pawn with 9.Bf4, leaving White a pawn up. So it seems White can still counter all of Black's responses in this line, despite the fact that it's supposed to let Black equalize.

Oh, and sometimes Rybka bypasses Nh3 entirely and responds with 8.Nb5 (edit: again, sorry, should be 8.Nd5) instead, leading to rook-king forks by both White and Black. After trading rooks the objective becomes to trap/rescue the knights in the corners...I'm having problems analyzing this line because of the many ways the bishops can give checks or rescue the knight along the open diagonals, depending on whether the kings move onto light squares or dark squares. As far as I can tell though Black seems to have the edge in this case, although it is a pawn down.

I'm really not an expert in this opening, but Bf5 is the only reasonable way to delay the e4 push, which is much better for white after playing Nf3 (so that e5 cannot be played).

In the second diagram (mainline), white attacks the b pawn and black doesn't really have a good way to defend. The goal isn't necessarily to get the pawn, but's it's usually an option. Also, later playing Nbd2 threatens a fork with e4. You might want to see this short article which has some example lines. http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8213/341/

In the last diagram black equalizes easily because he gets the pawn back and leaves white without castling rights.

Hope I helped.

1)its-not-a-weak-opening.2)4Nf3.g6-is-best-for-black.3)4e4-is-white's-best-move.on-4...Nf6.5Nc3.e5.6Nf3-is-best-for-white.4)4Nf3.Bf5.5Qb3.Nb6.6Nc3-and-white-will-play-e4-with-a-good-game.

I see. That's an interesting note...although the thing is, since I can't seem to find how to respond well to Rybka's moves in this situation, I assume they are pretty decent?

To coach777...just about every reference I've seen to the Marshall Defence says it's weak for Black if white plays the main line (4.Nf3). Regarding point (2), I don't really agree that a fianchetto is the way to go...if that's what you're planning with g6, I mean. For (3), 4.e4 is supposed to be a weak move by White that allows Black to equalize...although I admit I don't completely see why that is so, which is kind of the point of this thread. Oddly enough your analysis in (5) and (6) seems to contradict your statement in (3) since they let Black gain advantage or equalize against 4.e4...I more or less agree with your analysis on those lines, so I have some idea why 4.e4 lets Black equalize now. Thanks! (On a side note, what happened to your spacebar?)

Ah, okay, so the e4 push is enough of a threat to deserve an immediate response. And I guess I see how to use the queen now...thanks! (incidentally, I've seen that article while looking up this opening, and while it was quite informative, I couldn't really understand how to follow up some of the lines explained...specifically, the ones I mentioned in this thread. :P)

Although about the last point, the thing is, Black can't do both (using the g4 knight, at least). He either regains the pawn or he stops White from castling (and since he's a pawn down at that point with roughly equal development, I'd assume that achieving only one of those "equalizes" the position). But that seems temporary, because after that White replies by either defending the pawn or depriving Black of castling rights as well, giving him an edge again. Although I guess coach777's lines covering those scenarios shows that Black has some good lines of attack after that as well.

 sorry,spacebar-broken.to-elaborate,4Nf3.g6.5e4.Nb6.6Nc3.Bg4.7Bb5.c6.8Be2.Bg7-and-black-is-already-equal.4...g6-is-a-transposition-to-the-gruenfeld-defense-unfavorable-for-white.4e4.Nf6.5Nc3.e5.6Nf3.ed4.7Qd4.Qd4.8Nd4.Bb4.9f3.c6.10Bg5.Nbd7.11O-O-O.h6.12Bh4.O-O.13Nf5and-white-is-slightly-better.the-main-line-of-this-variation-is-4e4.Nb6.5Nc3.g6.6h3.Bg7.7Nf3.O-O.8Be3.a5.9Be2.a4.10O-O.c6.11Qd2.Be6.12Bh6.Bc4.13Bg7.Kg7.14Rfe1.Be2.15Re2,white-is-slightly-better,but-its-playable.

4 e4 79% for white based on 556 games

4 Nf3 80% for white based on 251 games

4 Nc3 79% for white on 19 games

4 g3 90% for white on 5 games

This opening is clearly bad for black.

 statistics-are-not-god,or-we-could-all-stop-playing-chess.they-are-based-mostly-on-master-games,and-most-players-aren't-going-to-be-playing-many-masters.cite-the-stats-for-the-specific-moves-cited,and-it-would-be-more-relevant.since-the-Encyclopedia-of-Chess-Openings-evaluates-these-lines-as-slightly-better-for-white-at-best,they-can't-be-bad.Tyzebug,play-the-moves-i-have-suggested-and-you-will-be-fine.of-course-the-gruenfeld-1d4.Nf6.2c4.g6.3Nc3.d5.4cd5.Nd5.5e4.Nc3.6bc3.Bg7,is-better.

Statistics may well NOT be god but neither is a 1200 hack that doesnt even play.

you've-just-insulted-all-players-rated-1200,in-particular-the-many-like-myself-who-had-our-ratings-put-back-to-1200-by-this-site-in-order-to-fix-the-broken-live-chess,which-is-still-not-fixed.i-play-with-those-who-can-benefit-from-my-44-years-of-teaching-experience,which-obviously-doesn't-include-you.i've-beaten-a-2350IM,and-i-have-a-student-that-is-rated-2350(both-better-than-you).and-you've-insulted-GM-Frank-Marshall,who-was-a-better-player-and-openings-theoretician-than-you-could-ever-dream-of-being.disrespectful-players-like-you-are-the-reason-parents-keep-their-kids-away-from-chess-or-come-to-me-to-take-lessons-after-complaints-about-you.keep-your-bozo-comments-to-yourself.

 All you do is talk and you dont play. What IM did you beat ? Who is he ? Why not show us the game ? I have beaten IMs and a few GMs too, so what ? How have I insulted Marshall ? He himself didnt play that opening much/long , which means he also didnt think it was very sound against players his level. You dont want to go by stats from games between masters so what do you go by ? Opinions ? If you would learn to listen to those who know more than you about the game you might learn something instead of arguing all the time. Black scores less than 25% with the Marshall defense ...... the KID you condemned with 5.... Bg4 scores better yet you condemn it while defending this opening that scores much less. You cant even be consistent.

coach777 the fact remains that you have no idea what you are talking about.  The marshall defense is not sound, frank marshall didn't believe it was sound (at least not after 1925), and I doubt he would be insulted by it being called unsound since he thought so himself.  However, I imagine modern chess theoreticians might take "the marshall defense is sound" as an insult to their intellegence, as the consensus  is that it's unsound.  Reb is calling you a hack not out of anger, but in order to signal to other players not to listen to you because you are leading them in the wrong direction.

Furthurmore, you are simply misreading eco, I could play 1... a6 and get +/=.

 well said Reb, call his bluff

 as-always,reb-can't-defend-himself-so-you-sycophantic-followers-pile-on.but-you're-too-lightweight-to-matter.i-quoted-ECO-exactly,so-how-am-i-misreading-it?are-you-saying-1...a6-is-good?remember,we're-not-talking-about-the-straight-Marshall.we're-talking-about-transposing-to-a-neo-Gruenfeld,and-that-is-not-unsound.

If you were going to play the Gruenfeld why not just play it in the main move order?

and-i'll-keep-talking.so-you-can-insult-someone-else?no,i'll-deal-with-you.i-post-first-trying-to-help.you-post-only-to-insult-me.this-is-the-pattern.i-never-condemned-Bg4.you-said-i-did.you-keep-talking-about-masters-playing-masters.that's-not-what-is-going-on-in-most-chess-games.i-don't-play-disrespectfuls.you-don't-deserve-to-see-me-play.not-so-great-openings-are-played-at-all-levels-with-success.but-they-are-especially-successful-against-those-below-expert.if-tyzebug-wants-to-play-this-opening,i-don't-want-to-stop-him-or-insult-him-if-he-does.i-want-to-help-him-play-it-better.besides,he-probably-learns-more-from-playing-than-all-of-us-talking-about-it.

coach, this is my first post defending reb, what the **** do you mean sycophant?

anyways, I'm leaving this thread, I came into it in a bad mood and I'm not trying to convince you to give up your master chess teacher charade and contradict your dubious assertion that the marshall defense is sound.  I'm just venting at this point.

Limmericks are like banana peels. Always better when they happen to someone else.

 tony,my-old-pal,i-am-so-proud-to-accept!honestly-you-should-publish-a-book-of-chess-poetry.i'll-help-you-sell-it.i-would-be-so-honored-to-be-included.

 check-out-the-other-sycophants-on-the"sour-king's-indian"post-by-anthony-cg.and-particularly-pay-attention-to-tonydal's-poetry.its-awesome!