QGD: Marshall defense (1. d4 d5 2. c4 N.f6)

This is a defense I somehow encounter a LOT: rapid, blitz, even in correspondence chess.

Can some of the practioners just explain to me: why do so many of you do this to yourself? All you're doing is giving white the center for nothing and then you're just getting smothered with no counterplay to speak of.

Really curious!

2...Nf6 just looks natural to beginners, it's used rarely in master games.

it just means that Black is out of theory on move 2 in the Queen's Gambit, a sign that they're a beginner

It's not that simple. I've played a number of 1800 players who simply have it as their primary defense to 1. d4. They keep playing it against me. I guess they just don't want to study a real defense, but this way they're basically asking for a loss. 

or maybe 3...c5

Yeah, my opponents never did that. They only recaptured on d5, mostly ... Nxd5, and just got a bad opening position.

After 3. ... c6 I think white can remain a pawn up in the endgame after 4. dxc6 Nxc6 5. e3 e5 6. N.f3 and then trading on d4, or maybe N.f3 first and trading on e5. Interesting gambit though.

I've faced this a lot lately. I wonder whether people are trying to play the Grunfeld with the wrong move order. I understand that Marshall tried to call this the "American Defense"; something his fellow countrymen glady declined.

#4 that's what I said: probably beginners and certainly out of book on move 2

Like I said they were 1800 players, so not beginners, and they had it as their main defense. So they couldn't have been out of book either; they just wrongly believed there was nothing wrong with their opening.

no serious book would recommend the Marshall Defense, so It's pretty safe to say they were out of book by move 2 and maybe by move 1 as well

Youtube Video Magnus Carlsen Banter Blitz/Chess 2021 at 56m56s

Magnus Carlsen as Black playing against player ranked 2531 who has played a much worse opening than the Marshall Defense (1.f3-e5 2.h4-d5 3.Kf2)

And it was not so easy to win, we imagine quite easily that against Stokfich, Carlsen could have lost or made a draw in this very bad opening. 

So in short, try to understand why blitz players can play the Marshall Defense doesn't seem so mysterious to me.

Marshall Defense is refuted

Ok that's interesting, you don't know anything about this opening [except that normally it is refuted and you have to play 4. Nf3], you have 3, 5 minutes on the clock to find the moves that lead to a clear winning position, you are always potentially capable of making tactical mistakes... 

In the end I think the Marshall Defense players don't care if guys say it's bad or refuted, they just have fun playing this opening and as they probably win many games with it encourages them to keep playing it.

Who are you even reacting to / quoting right now? Also, no one is talking about what works for Carlsen or the Marshall as solely a blitz weapon.

I'm not answering "a quote" but on the substance of the question why we find players playing the Marshall defense when in plenty of places it keeps saying it's refuted or wrong. 

And the op's question is "too ridiculous" for me to answer directly  it's like I've done a topic on the Alhekine Defense and I said : This is a defense I somehow encounter a LOT. Can some of the practioners just explain to me: why do so many of you do this to yourself? All you're doing is giving white the center for nothing and then you're just getting smothered with no counterplay to speak of.

I can't say anything, it's the theme of the hyper-modern school, to give the center and then counter-attack its or put pressure on its afterwards if Black plays badly well then it won't go well.

This position for example in Defense Marshall :

isn't refuted etc. and a lot players could play this, it's just a valid opening. Problem of course is White can play first 4.Nf3 (preventing e5). If White plays 4.e4-Nf6 5.e5-Nd5 and it plays a similar theme to the Alhekine Defense.

So there is nothing to say, it's just that there is not only the classic concept that exists as a game orientation but also the hyper-modern concept.  

I started with a video of Carlsen because it shows that a really really bad opening than a Marshall Defense can be played by a 2500 playing against Carlsen. This is quite important because "the only people" who wonder how it is possible to play the Marshall Defense etc. is because in chess books, video lessens etc. they have seen refuted opening.

And what we have to understand is that even a much worse positions still can have enough resources to potentially not lose in blitz.

The problem with what you're saying, is that you can use that answer for literally anything.

I could be talking about why 1. d4 a5 is a bad opening for black and you could still be saying: 'there is more than the classic concept' and 'they have fun with that opening and probably win many times with it'. All you do is make vague analogies without actually making a case for the Marshall defense.

The topic is what the appeal of the Marshall is exactly. If you think it's not a bad defense, then answer something concrete. Give variations for example. Don't talk about other openings, or what works in blitz, or what works for Carlsen and think you've proven anything. If you have something concrete to add to the topic - the Marshall - then actually say something about the Marshall.

I don't think it's a good opening or it's not an opening I would enjoy playing. In the same idea that Marshall Defense I first prepare a fianchetto to pressure the center (1.d4-Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 and now d5).

Now on the Hiarcs program when we remove its opening repertoire notably 1600 to 2100 Hiarcs likes to play Defense Marshall. Memory bots have the idea  after 1) d4-Nf6 2) c4-d5 3) cxd5 :

a : 3...Bf5 (can play Bxb1) with idea to encourage the development of Nb1 in c3 for to exchange it with his Knight and bring a pawn in c3. More simple, 4) Nc3-Nxd5 [example] 5) Nf3-Nxc3 6) bxc3. another idea is that there is a  annoying sacrifice after 4) Nc3-Nxd5 5) Nxd5-Qxd5 6) f3-Nc6 7) e4-Bxe4

b : 3...e6 4) dxe6-Bxe6 with an idea to have a game with a good or faster pieces activity 

To whoever said white needs to find 4. Nf3, I dunno if I really agree with that; maybe it’s the most accurate or something but 4. e4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Nf3 exd4 7. Qxd4 is also very cozy for white. That would still be enough to put this opening mostly out of business at high level IMO

i think confusedghoul is onto something. I’ll give a personal example. I often play a Catalan setup against everything as white. Do I know a lot of theory? No. But I know a lot of common ideas and when to play them. So it doesn’t really matter whether I know the theory or not if I can play the position.

Perhaps they’re people who don’t enjoy studying a lot of openings, and want to just play the middlegame. In any case, the Marshall is simply inferior and not losing. 

It is necessary to see the continuation (7...Qxd4 8.Nxd4-Bb4 9.f3)

Far from being convincing, Black could even be happy because Black seems to play an equal opportunity position.

After I am not a gosu etc. but I can watch games of strong artificial intelligences playing against themselves and make a more objective opinion to know if the position is losing for Black if the position is played by strong players [who in this case are very strong in tactics and calculation].

How would you know? 

f3 is not a challenging move to find whatsoever. White has a significant advantage.