OstapBender wrote on 06/21/06 at 17:26:47:


Well, I was not assuming that that was part of his point. 

And while that point does apply to young and improving players, in general, the purpose of playing a game of chess is to score.

Of course I don't think that Black's side of the Taimanov is as bad as 1..f5 versus 1. e4.

Interesting points.
The 'Milov Variation' with 9 Nf3 will certainly be covered in the next update.
I guess it all depends on what strength of club player we're discussing. FWIW I've even found many 2000-2200 players in England badly prepared for the Benoni and so they rarely respond critically. Of course, Black still needs to be ready for those critical lines and, with 2...c5 played, he may lose the early ...a6 option in the MML. Still, at below 2200-level, playing something other than 9...b5 should be fine especially if Black has a good general MB understanding. There are some other sharp lines, like 7 Bd3 and 8 Nge2, but again Black doesn't have to enter into the highly theoretical main line, and might prefer, for instance, Perenyi's ...Ng4 variation here.
Does Black really need to know more theory to play the MB than the KID, a very popular opening at club level?

I've played both approaches, but for 'club players' I imagine that a major objection to the pure move order is that in addition to the Taimonov, White has other aggressive approaches which require precise play.  Watson and others may provide solutions, but in many cases, they are solutions which require a great deal of memorization and defy intuition (in that the emphasize combinatorial rather than positional play).  This is all well and good, but if every White player you meet plays a different, aggressive continuation, it does one no good if the line is considered harmless by theory if one needs to either remember the exact position.  Often White has many approaches which 'lead to equality' if Black threads the needle but give a great position if Black loses his nerve and bails out.

kalle99 wrote on 05/28/06 at 00:39:51:


That's right, and the next time I want to brush on my defensive technique in a bad position, I'll play 1...f5 in answer to 1. e4.  But no, on second thought, I think I'll just play the move best calculated to score -- which is, after all, the object of the game.

As a club player, with limited time (and resources to some extent) to spend on theoretical preparation, I tend to avoid certain variations when I have the black pieces if my perception is that the line is much less forgiving to inexact play by Black than to inexact play by White.  For me, the prospect of facing the flick-knife attack falls into this category.

At the moment, I play Nimzo-Indian against 3.Nc3 and Benoni against 3.Nf3.

Have to be honest, as someone who is just starting out on their Benoni adventures, that I have been finding the quieter lines a problem, because it is less easy for black to 'get a grip' on the white position, rather like playing black in the Bayonet Attack.  However this is probably more to do with the fact that I haven't got sufficient experience with the opening yet and am not used to all the nuances!

My own highly subjective view is that the nature of the opening has different implications at different levels.  At club level it is a problem facing the flick knife attack, because even if black is objectively ok, it is simply much easier for white to blow black away, than the other way round (Rather like a 6 Bg5 Najdorf).  Compare this to the top levels where a draw with black is considered satisfactory and I guess the Modern Benoni suffers there because there are openings where it is 'easier' to achieve this result.

For everyone in between, or those in a must-win situation, it strikes me as a pretty good choice (See Bareev-Gelfand from The World Cup), but like all black openings it has its drawbacks, such as the Q vs. 2R's ending in the MML, where black has no real winning chances.  At some point a line has to be drawn between generating winning chances and taking unnecessary risks.

If I was to choose a variation, I would choose the MML as the most irritating because of whites ultra-flexibility and the difficulty generating winning chances in the main lines.  The Flick Knife, I regard rather like various sharp sicilian lines - White wins the majority of the shorter games, so as long as black can avoid getting murdered in his bed, then it is possible to look forward to the future with confidence. Think of all those dark squares that white has exposed!

Even if it is difficult against the Tajmanov variation I am sure it is very good training to play it. Good training for tactics and dynamic play. And defence. Active defence. So we shouldnt be so afraid to lose. See it as an adventure! An exciting game!!

In my case I really want to play the Nimzo and I play the MB when my opponent doesn't let me and when I fancy a sharper game than the QID or QGD.  But I don't really like facing the Flick-Knife/Taimanov either.  Actually, it's not so much the lines with (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+ Nfd7 (I don't really trust8...Nbd7?! although I think it's eminently playable) 9.a4 that bother me, but increasingly 9.Nf3!? looks like a good try to me, letting Black get his queenside play in but rolling him up in the centre.