Looking over some of the threads in this section I noticed that these anti-benoni questions keep coming up and that this thread is still helpful.

Again Black has a decent choice:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 c5 4.Nf3 d5 is Semi-Tarrasch, while 4...cxd4 can't be bad.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 and g6 are other possibilities.
For a Benoni-player it cannot be too hard, to find a reliable path.

Well what about 1 d4 Nf6  2 c4 e6  3 g3 c5 4 Nf3 transposing to an english? Its definitely not what i want as a benoni player.

When I used to play Benoni like openings - mainly the
Volga Gambit - I did not mind 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.e3
and always transposed to the Panov of the Caro-
Kann. After all, what is more unbalancing than a
double edged pawn sac?
Transposing to a symmetrical Tarrasch is not a bad
idea either: 3...e6 4.Nc3 d5 5.Nf3 a6!? and by
postponing the development of the Queen's Knight
Black can break symmetry.

In fact, the transposition to Benoni may be the main reason why 6...c5 isn't so popular in the Classical KID!  I am not completely sure about this, but can't black favorably delay the capture on d5 (in comparison to the Benoni move order)?  If it's true that black can aim for a favorable transposition to the Benoni when white recaptures with cxd5, then I think Black is doing well in this line.  Maybe the main problem for most people is that black must be willing to play three different types of positions (Benoni, exd5, and Maroczy) of different character.

Thanks for the input!  I didn't it occur to me that  1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 e3 g6 4 Nc3 Bg7 5 d5 0-0 6 Nf3 d6 7 e4 e6 8 Be2 exd5 9 exd5 and 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 d4 5 0-0 Nc6 6 d3 e5 7 e3 Be7 8 exd4 exd4 are exactly the same position with colors reversed with white playing as black.  Apparently, some decent players (Kasparov and Petrosian (!)) don't mind playing this is as white. 

I also learned that there was a recent article written by Kirk Langeweg in New in Chess Yearbook 64 entitled A Temporary Lead in Development, which I believe is entirely about this exact postion!  (I don't have the article yet.)  After looking closer at some of the similar positions assessed favorable for white in the KID Classical with ...c5, it seemed to me that white's advantage (if there is any) seemed difficult to maintain in view of black's control of the a1-h8 diagonal and e-file, once black played ...Re8 (and maybe ...Bf5) and ...Ne4 successfully.  This started to make me think about why methods with ...c5 against the Classical KID were not more popular with all the trouble black has had in the Bayonet Attack.  Maybe it's the tranposition to the Maroczy Bind that can arise if white refrains from d5.   

6.d5 was the move that most concerned me, when I looked at this move order.  The other two lines seem to lead to a transposition to a Grunfeld or Smyslov KID, where black seems to have no problems.  However, I think white can demonstrate an advantage with 6.d5, since it seems like white has a space advantage and can obtain a powerful bind.  d4 seems a likely square for a future Nf3-d4 or Be3-d4, when either piece will be powerfully placed.  When examining this position, I could not find an effective way to break the bind before white completes his development.

What few examples I could find from this position seem to confirm that black's position is difficult to play.  Notable is Laurent Fressinet's loss, since there was major ELO difference (about 2200 and 2500 at that time).  Also the position arose from a Symmetrical English, which is an interesting possibility against an early ...g6.

This is the type of bind I was worried about.  Note that when the knights reached e5 and g4, they were simply chased back with h3 and f4.  One of the problems for black seems to be where to place his queen's knight.

[Event "Reggio Emilia 7980"]
[Site "Reggio Emilia"]
[Date "1979.12.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Hess,Ralf"]
[Black "Campioli,Giuseppe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A43"]
1.d4 c5 2.e3 cxd4 3.exd4 Nf6 4.c4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.d5 0-0 7.Be2 d6 8.Nf3 Nbd7
9.0-0 Ng4 10.Nd4 Qb6 11.Ndb5 Nde5 12.h3 Nf6 13.Be3 Qa5 14.a3 a6 15.b4 Qd8 16.Nd4 Ne8
17.Rc1 f5 18.f4 Nf7 19.Ne6 Bxe6 20.dxe6 Nh6 21.Nd5 Kh8 22.Nb6 Nc7 23.Nxa8 Qxa8 24.c5 d5
25.Bd4 Qc8 26.c6 b5 27.Bb6 Rd8 28.a4 Rd6 29.Bxc7 Qxc7 30.axb5 Rxe6 31.Bf3 axb5 32.Qxd5 Qb6+
33.Kh1  1-0

Here's a try from black that seems to fail.  Black should probably be wary of d6 before moving the e-pawn:

[Event "HUN-chT 9596"]
[Site "Hungary"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Petronic,Jovan"]
[Black "Rovid,Kalman"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A56"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.e3 cxd4 4.exd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.d5 0-0 7.Nf3 e5 8.d6 e4
9.Nd4 a6 10.Be2 Nc6 11.Be3 b6 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Nb3 Rb8 14.Na4 Ba8 15.c5 bxc5 16.Nbxc5 Nb4
17.a3 Nbd5 18.Bd4 a5 19.Qd2 Bc6 20.Rfe1 Re8 21.Bc4 e3 22.fxe3 Ne4 23.Nxe4 Rxe4 24.Bxd5 Bxd5
25.Nc3 Rxd4 26.exd4 Bc4 27.Ne4 Qb6 28.Kh1 Bxd4 29.Rac1 Be6 30.b4 axb4 31.axb4 Kg7 32.Rcd1 Be5
33.Nc5 Bf6 34.Rxe6 dxe6 35.Nd7 Qxb4 36.Qxb4 Rxb4 37.Nxf6  1-0

This game shows how difficult it can be to break successfully with ...b5.  Here black places the knight on c5, but even here there seemed to be a tactical drawback (22.b4).

[Event "Istanbul ol (Men)"]
[Site "Istanbul"]
[Date "2000.10.28"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Ramsingh,Yogendranath"]
[Black "Fressinet,Laurent"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A34"]
1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.e3 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.d5 d6 7.Nf3 Bg4 8.Be2 Bxf3
9.Bxf3 Nbd7 10.Be3 0-0 11.0-0 a6 12.Be2 Rc8 13.Rc1 Qa5 14.Bd2 Qc5 15.Qb3 Qd4 16.Be3 Qe5
17.h3 Nc5 18.Qc2 b5 19.cxb5 axb5 20.Bxb5 Nxd5 21.Nxd5 Qxd5 22.b4 Ne6 23.Qxc8 Rxc8 24.Rxc8+ Nf8
25.a4 Qb7 26.Rfc1 f5 27.R8c4 Bb2 28.Rb1 Be5 29.Bc6 Qb8 30.a5 f4 31.Bxf4 Bxf4 32.Rxf4 Kg7
33.b5 Ne6 34.Rc4 Kf6 35.Re1 Nc7 36.b6 Na8 37.Rxe7 Qd8 38.Re8  1-0

In this game black plays e6, but isn't that successful either.

[Event "Istanbul ol (Women)"]
[Site "Istanbul"]
[Date "2000.10.28"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Korsakova,Tatyana"]
[Black "Ingolfsdottir,Harpa"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A56"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.e3 cxd4 4.exd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.d5 d6 7.Nf3 a6 8.a4 Nbd7
9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.h3 Bb7 12.Be3 Nc5 13.Rc1 a5 14.Nd4 e6 15.dxe6 fxe6 16.Ndb5 Ne8
17.Bg4 Qe7 18.Re1 Qf6 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Bxe6+ Kh8 21.Qc2 Rd8 22.b3 Nd6 23.Nxd6 Rxd6 24.Bd5 Qxc3
25.Bxb7 Qxc2 26.Rxc2 Rd3 27.Re7 Rxb3 28.Rce2 Bd4 29.Bf3 Bf6 30.Rb7 Rb4 31.Re6 Bd8 32.Bd5 Rxa4
33.Rd6 Ra1+ 34.Kh2 Bf6 35.f4 Bd4 36.Rdd7 Bg1+ 37.Kg3 Ra3+ 38.Kg4 h5+ 39.Kg5 Rf5+ 40.Kh6 
1-0

I really don't think you should be too concerned about that - because White has spent two moves playing e2-e3-e4, you will be a tempo up on similar lines where it is in any case not easy for White to prove any advantage.  I know the position seems to be lacking a little dynamism, but I guess you just have to be patient sometimes 

Quote:


I think you're right about the Panov-Botvinnink line. However looking at games by strong players I've noticed that they delay cxd4 until after Bg7 and O-O, and maybe then throwing in cxd4 before d5, or d5 first. One popular move order being 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 d5 (or 6...cxd4 7.exd4 d5), which is a Grunfeld, D94.

Ben Hague

Quote:


Yeah you are right I forgot 3.Nf3 d6 4.e4

Can't Black just play 3...Nxe4 in the above mentioned variation?  By the way, I never meant to imply that 3.e3 was threatening to the Benoni in a theoretical sense, or the 4.Nc3 variation (without c4) for that matter.  It just seemed that these lines were more likely to lead to sterile positions where it was much harder to play for the win.  You see my endgame technique is so week I usually need to be at least a piece up or have a mating attack soon after the middlegame....

I can't believe that 3.e3 would put anyone off the Benoni!!  As someone who has played the Modern Benoni on and off for twenty years, I can safely say it is the main lines you ought to be more concerned about!!

Nobody has ever played like that against me but it seems to me Black has various good options after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.e3:

(a) 3...g6 (I didn't understand the earlier post which said Black's attempts to transpose into a Grunfeld or King's Indian aren't any good - why not, when White is committed to a passive system with e2-e3?)

(b) 3...d5!?

(c) 3...e6 followed by 4...d5 with a symmetrical Tarrasch, which is OK for Black.


I think the line Glenn Snow mentions (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3!?) is a bit more annoying for Black (although certainly not life-threatening!).  It is worth considering playing 3...b5 (instead of 3...e6) there - although you must be prepared for both 4.c4 (transposing to a Benko Gambit Declined), and 4.Bg5!? when both 4...Qb6 or 4...Ne4 are interesting and relatively uncharted.

Hope this helps a bit!

Another observation:

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 b6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 is line of the Three Knights Symmetrical English that transposes to some of the lines I mentioned.  Gurevich has used this move order with some success.  Lines with an early ...cxd4 seem to white an edge.

I'm beginning to think that black's best option is to play into a Symmetrical Tarrasch.  I think that in this structure, white's extra move has little significance.  This seems like the strongest argument against 3.e3 for white.

I think the Queen's Indian approach with ...g6 (reversed Reti formation) is also good as long as black is OK in the Hedgehog formations that Malaniuk plays as white (which I think is the case).  I think this is probably the best approach to keep the position imbalanced as black.

It seems like if black tries to play for a standard Queen's Indian with an early Bb7 (without exchanging on d4), he simply allows white to obtain a superior Benoni, where the bishop is misplaced on b7.  With an early exchange on d4, it seems like black loses a lot of flexibility.

I don't have a lot on knowledge on the QID or the Symmetrical Tarrasch, but these are my current impressions.

Another mention:  Hansen's section on the "Anti-Benoni" covers lines arising after 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4.  These lines are quite comfortable for black.  Also, 3.d4 has the disadvantage that it gives black several options in directing the play (for example, a choice between the solid 4...e6 or the aggressive 4...e5).  In a sense, white gives up many of the advantages associated with having the first move.

Maybe this isn't a terribly interesting post (though I think the question of move orders is of importance), but at least read the second sentence, if you're going to reply...

Have you looked at the Symmetrical English? Carsten Hansen wrote a good book for Gamit, which includes 50 pages on the so-called anti Benoni.  In Hansen's book, Black eventually plays cd4: with White replying Nd4:

That's a start. Isn't it?

What to do after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.e3 and 3.Nf3 when white avoids the Benoni? 

3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 is a sharp gambit that is often analyzed in books on the Symmetrical English.  This is known to used by Benoni players striving for tactical, imbalanced positions.  Argurably, white can play the dull 5.Nc2 (when 5...d5 leads to dull equality) instead of the sharp Nb5, but 5.Nc2 b5!? has been used from time to time by some strong players.  It seems like Black has good opportunities to unbalance the play in the spirit of the Benoni.

But what about 3.e3?  White shows no interest in playing the imbalanced positions that Benoni players crave and settles for equality in positions transposing to the Classical Queen's Indian or the Symmetrical Tarrasch QGD.  Sure, Black's fine, but often the positions can be quite balanced if white shows no interest in playing for an advantage.  Also, if Black wants to transpose to the Queen's Indian, he has significant fewer options, as he has already played the committal ...c5.  Are there good ways for Black to avoid symmetry and imbalance the position in the spirit of the Benoni?  I haven't seen covered well in any books yet.  Two approaches come to my mind:

Black aims for a Reversed Reti and plays something like  3.e3  e6 4.Nf3 b6 5. Nc3 g6 etc.  Black allows white to play d5 and enter a Benoni.  If White ignores Black's offer, it seems like Black can usually break favorably with ..d5 (as White does in the Reti) or play the more restrained ...d6 and aim for kingside expansion.  It doesn't seem like the extra tempo creates a major difference from the ...e6 Reti in these positions.  I am not aware of any way White can favorably stop this without going into the Benoni.  Can anyone think of a possible problem with the move order or approach?

The second approach is to play for a Grunfeld setup (another opening I find appealing) with 3.e3 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Nc3 0-0 6. Be2 d5, which transposes to a known line of the Grunfeld which I think is good for Black.  These move are probably typical of someone who would play 3.e3, but I think there is a slight flaw (practical and theoretical) in this move order.  Say White plays 5. d5 after Nc3 has been played.  Then Black can play for the Benoni with ...e6 (Usually Black has to play d6 first.) and white has wasted a move on e3, right?  Well, the problem I see is is that White can play e4 after e6, intending to recapture with the e-pawn.  Usually this reaches lines from the ...c5 Classical KID, where white is a tempo down.  These lines are considered to offer white a distinct advantage, as white has strong methods for quelling conterplay.  I don't think the extra tempo makes a major difference in these closed positions, where one side often plays waiting moves to see how the other will commit.  (In fact the extra move could easily be a disadvantage if black attempts to play actively!)  This seems to be a significant problem with this move order.

I am curious to see how other Benoni players handle the Benoni avoided as this occurs often in tournament practice, yet there is not material on this in chess literature.  Also of interest are the lines where white plays 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 and aims for the Colle or 2.Nf3 c5 3.d4 e6 4.Nc3 (which is slightly annoying; perhaps this is an argument in favor of 2...e6 instead of ...c5).   I can offer more concrete lines, if anyone has any comments on move orders.