I am currently playing a game using this line as black.


Nett,P (1955) - Elcoate,I (1930) 
CB-2003-0-00074 IECG (1), 30.03.2003
[Elcoate,Ian]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+ Nfd7 9.a4 Qh4+ 10.g3 Qd8 11.Nf3 0-0 12.0-0 a6 13.Be2 Re8 14.Re1 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Rxe4 16.Bb2 Nf6 17.c4 Bg4 18.Qb3 Nbd7 19.h3 Bxf3 20.Bxf3 Rxe1+ 

We are actually 20 moves past this, so I'm not giving away any secrets, and I believe I am drawing the game....but I could be proven wrong.

The main point is that I think black can safely equalise with this line but I have never felt that I could get an advantage or have the usual Benoni tactical melee.  ???

I am considering switching to the Dutch as my first line of defence against 1.d4  and wheel out the occasional Benoni when I don't feel that my opponent will play in this way.

Hi, Maybe this is covered somewhere in the site (and I havent subscribed to this section yet)...but does anyone have any thoughts on the Qh4+ idea advocated by Watson in his recent book to counter the taimanov (flick-knife) in the modern benoni after white plays the critical 9a4?   

He suggests 9...Qh4+ or 9...a6 followed by Qh4+.  In both instances the idea is to provoke g3 and weaken white's kingside, which is thought to compensate for the loss of time after the queen retreats.  But a lot of the section is just analysis without games, so I am wondering if its really sound??