The 9...a5 Move: An Opening DVD and the Cracks in the Mirror of Belief

On a morning in August, I sat before an old wooden chessboard in a small apartment in Chengdu. Outside the window, the city was waking up with the sound of buses and the smell of tea from the shop downstairs. I placed my finger on the black Bishop on g7, then moved a Pawn to a5. It was a small move — just one square, just one Pawn. But it came from a DVD I had just received, and like every move in my life, it carried a story. The story began with an email. An editor sent me a preview of a King's Indian Defense opening course. The title was compelling: "9...a5 against the Bayonet Attack — a strategic weapon for Black." The promotional copy was equally compelling: "No memorization needed. No engine analysis needed. Just understand." I read that and smiled. I had heard this phrase many times in forty-one years at the board, and each time I heard it, I remembered a line I once wrote for myself: The pitch never lies, only we deceive ourselves with applause. But this DVD had a bigger problem than its marketing copy. The original document's headline did not match its content. The headline described a team event in Samarkand, round two, "R2 (open)," with the line "despite close calls, all top teams grab wins." The content inside was entirely different: an opening-instruction DVD, selling 9...a5 as an antidote to 9.b4. The two texts were unrelated. One was tournament news. One was a product advertisement. And they had been spliced together like two pieces of a picture from different origins. I set the email aside. I did not reply to the editor immediately. Instead, I opened the board, set up the position from the beginning, and started going through each move. I needed to verify it myself. Not because I did not trust the sender — but because I had learned, after July 2026, that humility is also a tactic. Mar del Plata. The name sounds like a southern poem. In the world of the King's Indian Defense, it is not a place — it is a declaration. It says Black will not concede the center meekly. It says Black will build a wall on the kingside, push e5, bring the Knight to e7 and then d5, and attack the kingside with all the force a hypermodern system can muster. The basic sequence of the Mar del Plata is: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7. That is the backbone structure. Once this position is reached, both sides know they are entering territory mapped out for decades. White has the center, has space. Black has a solid structure, has attacking potential. And from here, the game begins. But there is one move White always makes Black think about: 9.b4. That is the Bayonet Attack. It is simple: White pushes the b-Pawn to b4, opens the diagonal for the Bishop to b2, and starts applying pressure on the queenside. It is not a strange move. It is one of the most popular ways for White to meet the Mar del Plata in the 21st century. It has been played at every level, from club games to world championship matches. And it is why this DVD exists. Because if White plays 9.b4, Black needs an answer. And the orthodox answer — the answer considered the "main move" for decades — is 9...Nh5. That is the forcing move. It pushes the Knight to the rim, attacks the f4-pawn if White pushes f4, and forces White to calculate immediately. After 9...Nh5, the game enters a very specific phase: both sides must remember a mass of variations, must calculate every move, must rely on engines to ensure they do not stray. That is why 9...Nh5 is called the "main line." It forces the game down a narrow path, and whoever knows the path better, wins. The DVD I received proposed another path. It said: do not play 9...Nh5. Play 9...a5. This move does not open the position. It pushes the a-Pawn to a5, attacking White's b4-pawn on the spot. It says Black does not need to hurry. Black can wait, can build, can let White decide when and where the fight will break out. This is the core difference. 9...Nh5 is a technical question: "Do you remember the variations?" 9...a5 is a strategic question: "Do you understand the position?" I recalled the evening I first saw 9...a5 in a real game. It was 2026, at an open tournament in Shanghai. I was not commentating that game — I was just watching, like an ordinary spectator, with a cup of tea and a notebook. The game was on board four. White was a young Indian Grandmaster. Black was an Uzbek player. And when Black played 9...a5, I saw the Indian sit motionless for thirty seconds. That is a very long pause in a rapid game. He did not know what to do. He had prepared for 9...Nh5. He had prepared for the familiar variations. But 9...a5 was not in his book. That game ended in a win for Black. But I do not remember the result. I remember the silence. Because that silence is what this DVD is trying to sell. It is not selling a move. It is selling a moment — the moment your opponent realizes their plan no longer works. When the stands are empty, I hear the game whisper in a different language. And in the Indian's silence in 2026, I heard a language I had never heard before: the language of a player who no longer knows where he is. But this is where I must be careful. In the world of opening theory, there is an unwritten rule: every "antidote" has an expiration date. 9...a5 is not a new invention. It has existed in chess databases for years, even decades. It is not a novelty — a move never seen before. It is a sideline. And sidelines, by definition, are the less-traveled roads. They can be good. They can be effective. But they are not secret weapons. That is the truth any opening DVD must face. You can teach people a sideline. You can explain why it is good. But you cannot make it the main line. Only practical play at the highest level can do that. And practical play is not in your hands. The DVD's promotional copy had one sentence I paid particular attention to. It read: "Computers often do not know how to handle these complex strategic positions." This sentence sounds very appealing. It tells the buyer: "You do not need an engine. You only need to understand." But it also told me something else: the author is living in the past. Before 2026, this statement made sense. Traditional engines — old-generation Stockfish, Houdini, pre-neural-network Komodo — genuinely struggled with long-term strategic positions. They were good at tactical calculation, good at finding strong moves a few moves ahead, but they were not good at looking as far as a Grandmaster. That is why humans could still beat or draw engines in closed positions. Then AlphaZero appeared. And everything changed. Modern neural-network engines — Leela Chess Zero, Stockfish NNUE, and their successors — no longer struggle with strategic positions of the King's Indian type. They have played millions of self-play games, learning strategic patterns that took humans decades to understand. They are no longer "blinded" by closed positions. They evaluate them in a different language, but they still evaluate them. So when an opening DVD in 2026 — or any year after 2026 — still uses the line "computers do not understand," it is using an outdated language. That is not a technical statement. It is a marketing statement. It targets players who want to believe that humans still have their own space, that there are lands engines cannot touch. And the truth is — I say this with all due respect to those who believe otherwise — there are not many such lands left. Modern engines understand the King's Indian better than most Grandmasters. They do not need to "understand" the way humans understand. They just need to play well. And they play well. But that does not mean this DVD is worthless. This is where I must be clear, because I do not want this article to be read as a wholesale dismissal. This product has its own value. It is just not the value it claims. The real value of 9...a5 lies at club and intermediate level. If you are a 1800, 2026, even 2200 player, and you are looking for a way to escape having to memorize hundreds of variations of 9...Nh5, then 9...a5 can be a reasonable solution. It gives you a clear plan: push a5, pressure b4, wait for White to decide, and react based on what White does. You do not need to remember the first fifteen moves. You only need to understand three or four basic ideas. That is a real benefit. Not a glamorous benefit. Not a benefit that can be advertised with flowery words. But it is real. The problem lies elsewhere. The problem lies in how this product positions itself. It does not say: "This is a reasonable alternative for intermediate players who want to save study time." It says: "This is a weapon that makes White quickly dangerous if Black knows what he is doing." That is a much stronger claim. And I see no evidence for that claim in any accompanying material. There are no sample games. No statistics. No engine evaluations. No author name. No practical results cited. We have only a promise. And in the world of chess openings, a promise without data is a suspicious promise. Back to the source problem. The original document's headline — as I mentioned at the start — describes a team event in Samarkand. Samarkand is a city in Uzbekistan, a country with a strong chess tradition. The event is described as "R2 (open)" — round two, open section. And it says "despite close calls, all top teams grab wins." That is news. That is a round report from a team event. It has teams, results, developments. It belongs to a completely different genre from an opening DVD. These two texts cannot be one. They have different origins. They were written by different people. They serve different purposes. And the fact that they were spliced together is an error — a serious error, because it damages the reference value of the entire document. Why does this matter? Because when a document's headline does not match its content, you do not know which part to trust. You do not know whether the headline is correct and the content is faulty, or the content is correct and the headline is faulty. You do not know whether a third document exists, or whether there is a real source you need to trace. In my profession, this is one of the most dangerous errors. Not a factual error — facts can be wrong and corrected. A source error — an error in the identity of the information — is far harder to fix. It is like a book whose cover was pasted from another book. You can read the content, but you are never sure you are reading the right book. I spent three days trying to trace the real origin of this document. I searched chess databases. I searched forums. I searched online shops. I found a few opening DVDs on the King's Indian — there are many. But I did not find one described exactly like this, with a mismatched Samarkand headline. I also did not find any Samarkand event described as "R2 (open)" with that result line. It may exist. It may not. But I spent three days, and I have no answer. This is a lesson in how we consume information. We often believe a document because it looks like a document. It has a headline, content, formatting. It sits in a file or on a webpage. It looks like a source. But a source is not a document. A source is a document you can trace back to its origin. If you cannot trace it, it is not a source. It is just text. And in the world of chess openings, where information is exchanged at the speed of light on forums and social media, we often forget this distinction. We read a tweet about a new move, and we believe. We watch a video about a variation, and we memorize. We do not ask: "What is the source? Who said it? Based on what?" I have made this mistake. Many times. And each time, I learned a lesson. Now, let us talk about the technical nature of 9...a5. I want to go deep into the structure, because this is where an opening commentator must demonstrate value. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4, we have the typical Mar del Plata structure. White has occupied central space (d5) and begun to expand on the queenside (b4). Black has a beautiful structure: King castled, Bishop on g7 strong, Knight on e7 that will jump to d7 or c6 as the situation demands, and kingside potential. But 9.b4 poses a direct question: will White play b5 to attack the c6-Knight, or play Ba3 to trade Bishops with g7. 9...Nh5 is the active answer. It ignores the queenside and focuses on the kingside. The Knight goes to h5, attacking an empty square. It aims for f4. If White plays f4, the Knight can jump to f4 and create pressure. 9...Nh5 tells White: "I do not care about your queenside. I will attack your King." 9...a5 is different. It looks at the queenside. It attacks the b4-pawn on the spot. It tells White: "If you want to play on the queenside, I will block you right here. If you want to play on the kingside, I will react when you do." That is a more proactive defensive posture. Black does not attack first — Black waits and reacts. This difference sounds small, but in practice it is huge. In 9...Nh5, both sides know the fight will occur in specific variations. In 9...a5, no one knows where the fight will occur. That is both the strength and the weakness of this move. Strength: White must decide for himself. If White is used to simply memorizing and following the book, White will struggle. White must think. White must evaluate. White must choose a plan. Weakness: for the same reason. If White is a strong strategic player, White can choose the right plan and gain an advantage. 9...a5 does not stop White from playing well. It only stops White from playing by the book. Let us look at a few concrete variations to understand better. After 9...a5, White has several options. White can play 10.Ba3, attacking the g7-Bishop and keeping the b4-pawn in place. White can play 10.b5, pushing the Pawn to attack the c6-Knight. White can play 10.bxa5, opening the a-file. And White can play 10.a3, reinforcing the b4-pawn. Each choice leads to a different type of position. 10.Ba3 is a natural move. White wants to trade Black's good Bishop. After 10...axb4 11.Bxb4, White has a better Pawn structure and an active Bishop. But Black can play 10...b6 first, keeping the a5 and b4 Pawns in tension. This is a position Black can play, but it requires patience. 10.b5 drives the c6-Knight away. After 10...Nd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Nb5, White has a small advantage but Black can play 12...Nxe4 and create complications. This is a variation both sides must remember. 10.bxa5 is an opening move. It opens the a-file for White, but also opens the a-file for Black. After 10...Rxa5 (or 10...Nxa5), the position becomes balanced but complex. 10.a3 is a cautious move. White keeps the b4-pawn, waiting for Black to decide. But Black can also wait. After 10...Nc6 (returning) or 10...Qe8, the position becomes balanced. In all these variations, I do not see a move that makes White "quickly dangerous." I see a balanced, complex position with chances for both sides. That is not what the promotional copy implies. But wait — I am doing what I always warn others not to do. I am evaluating a product based on its headline and promotional copy. I have not seen the DVD's actual content. I have not seen the variations it teaches. I have not seen the explanations it offers. This is a problem. An opening product cannot be evaluated only by its packaging. Perhaps this DVD truly contains deep analysis. Perhaps the author — whose name I do not know — is genuinely a King's Indian expert with years of experience. Perhaps the variations it teaches are genuinely better than anything I can imagine. But that is precisely the problem. I have no way to know. And if I have no way to know, I cannot evaluate. And if I cannot evaluate, I cannot claim. This is what I learned after years of commentating. People often ask me: "Mr. Do, is this book good? Is this DVD good? Is this course worth buying?" And I always have to say: "I do not know. I have not read it. I have not watched it. I only know what people say about it." That is not a satisfying answer. But it is an honest answer. And honesty, in the world of chess openings, is a scarce commodity. I remember a time, years ago, when I almost published an article based on a document I had not carefully verified. The document said a famous player had changed his entire opening system within a week. It sounded compelling. I wrote an article about it. I sent it to my editor. The editor asked: "What is the source of this information?" I said: "I read it on a forum." The editor said: "Which forum? Who posted it? Have you checked?" I had not checked. I had taken a forum post as a source of truth. And when I checked — after the editor demanded it — I discovered that the story was merely a rumor. No evidence. No origin. Nothing. I deleted the article. And from then on, I learned a principle: never publish information I cannot trace at least two steps back to its origin. This principle sounds rigid. But it has saved me from many mistakes. And it is saving me in this case. Now, I want to talk about another aspect of the story: the opening-product market. This is a peculiar market. It is unlike the sports news market. It has no timeliness. It has no hot events. It has only knowledge — and knowledge, in chess, has a very long lifespan. A book on the King's Indian from 2026 can still be useful in 2026. A DVD on the Mar del Plata from 2026 can still teach you the basics. That is why this market is very stable — and also very hard to compete in. Chess publishers compete by creating increasingly specialized products. They say: "Our course has 500 variations." "Our course has 20 hours of video." "Our course has engine analysis for every move." But in the end, they all face one truth: the internet has all of this for free. You can find thousands of Mar del Plata games in online databases. You can download the strongest engines in the world for free. You can find detailed analysis on blogs and forums. So why would you pay for a course? The answer is: curation. A good course is not a course that gives you the most information. It is a course that gives you the most important information, arranged in a logical way, explained by someone who understands it. It is a filter. It is a guide. It is a companion on the path of opening study — a very long path, very easy to get lost on. And that is why I still believe opening DVDs have value. But that value depends on who created it. And in this case, I do not know who created it. This is where I want to offer a different angle. An angle I have thought about for a long time before offering it. I believe the problem with 9...a5 is not technical. Its problem is psychological. Look at how it is sold. It is not sold as a strategic choice for those who want to save time. It is sold as an "antidote" — against the Bayonet Attack. The word "antidote" implies there is a disease. That White is doing something wrong. That 9.b4 is a problem to be solved. But 9.b4 is not a problem. It is a good move. It has been played at the highest level for decades. It has produced many wins for White. It is one of the best ways to meet the Mar del Plata. It does not need an antidote — it needs a good answer. And good answers, in chess, are not antidotes. They are ideas. They are plans. They are structural insights. When you sell a move as an antidote, you are selling an illusion. You are telling the buyer: "Buy this and you will never have to worry about the Bayonet Attack again." But that is not true. Nothing guarantees you will win after 9...a5. White still has good options. White can still play well. White can still play better than you. The truth is: there are no antidotes in chess. There are only better positions and worse positions. And even the best position can be beaten by a better player. This is what I always tell my students. I say: "Do not seek safety in a move. Seek understanding in a position." Safety is an illusion. Understanding is real. 9...a5 can be a good move. It can be a move you should play. But if you play it because you believe it will solve all your problems against the Bayonet Attack, you are playing it for the wrong reason. Play it because you understand the structure. Play it because you know what you will do in the next ten moves. Play it because it fits your style. Do not play it because a DVD told you it is an antidote. Back to Samarkand. The name will not leave my head. Samarkand is one of the oldest cities in Central Asia. It sits on the Silk Road. It is a meeting place of cultures, languages, systems of signs. For thousands of years, it was a center of trade and knowledge. And in the 21st century, it is also a chess center. That a team chess event is held in Samarkand is not strange. Uzbekistan has one of the strongest chess federations in the region. Uzbek players have achieved notable results at international level. And the country has hosted many international chess events. But the event described in the headline — "R2 (open)" with the result "all top teams grab wins" — does not appear in any database I can access. It may be a recent event I have not updated on. It may be a small event I do not know. It may be an event that does not exist. This is a blind spot in my knowledge. And I must acknowledge it. I do not know all the chess tournaments in the world. No one does. Thousands of tournaments take place each year, at every level, in every country. A commentator like me can only follow a small fraction. But that is not the important point. The important point is: headline and content do not match. And that is a problem, regardless of whether the Samarkand event exists. From keyboard to pitch, the speed of words is never as fast as the speed of the ball. And in this case, the speed of words exceeded the speed of truth. An email was sent, a link was shared, a headline was read — all in seconds. And in those seconds, false information was transmitted without anyone checking. That is what I want to say to everyone in this profession. We cannot let the speed of words outrun the speed of truth. We cannot let the appeal of a headline outrun the dryness of a verification. I want to end this article with a thought about the future. In the next few years, the King's Indian Mar del Plata will continue to exist at the highest level. It will continue to appear in tournaments. It will continue to be an option for players who want a complex, strategic, surprising game. And 9.b4 will continue to be one of the hardest questions for Black. The answer to 9.b4 will continue to evolve. 9...Nh5 will remain the main line. 9...a5 will remain a sideline. And other sidelines — perhaps 9...Ne8, perhaps 9...Nc6, perhaps a move we have not thought of — will appear and disappear. Opening DVDs will continue to be produced. They will continue to promise antidotes. They will continue to use the language of the past to sell the ideas of the present. And buyers will continue to face the old question: believe or not believe? My answer is: do not believe. Do not believe anyone. Do not believe me. Do not believe the DVD. Do not believe articles like this one. Verify for yourself. Open the board. Look at the games. Play it out. Let the position speak to you. Because the pitch never lies, only we deceive ourselves with applause. And the chessboard, too. A stadium without spectators is still a piece of music, just played for oneself to hear. And a chess game without spectators is still a chess game. It does not need the world's attention to be meaningful. It only needs two people sitting opposite each other, a board between them, and a truth both are seeking. In 2026, I thought I was stepping onto the stage. It turned out I had only stepped into the hallway. In that hallway, I learned that truth does not lie in flashy advertisements. It lies in dry games, cold variations, and long nights with only the board and me. And in the silence of 2026, when every stadium was empty and every cheer fell silent, I found a stillness before a move unlike anything in 57 years. In that silence, I understood that chess — like football, like life — does not need an audience to exist. It only needs players. And the player, if honest with himself, will always find the truth. That is all I want to say about this DVD. Not an assertion. Not a denial. Just a reminder: check the origin of what you read. Examine for yourself what you are taught. And always remember that, in chess as in life, no antidote can replace understanding.