Keano wrote on 06/13/06 at 13:48:29:


Wasn't Steinitz the first one, to say something like this?
I strongly advise to violate this thumbrule in the following cases:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 c5 5.Bxc4 cxd4 6.exd4 Nc6 7.o-o!
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 exd4 (better Be6) 6.Bc4!
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 c6 when 4.Nc3 and 4.d4 are better than 4.dxc6?!
1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 Nf6 4.c4 (better 4.Bb5+) e6!
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 when 4.d3 and 4.Nc3 are better than 4.exf5?!
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 and c5! is certainly better than the very risky exf3.

As I may have forgotten a few examples, I question the value of this statement.

Markovich wrote on 06/12/06 at 17:17:49:


when analysing these positions, i felt the same way. Much of the theory of 5. f3 was accumulated before 1997/1998 just before computers became really powerful. From the later nineties onwards it was all about the Rb1 fianchetto, and critical theory seemed to have stopped developing in the 5. f3 line. A pity, because it is one of the richest lines in chess. 

Yes Waitzkin is right, while i first saw the queen sac in Nunn's Move-by Move book of games (Lalic-Khalifman).

But the Queen's Gambit isn't a gambit ...

Surely "The critical test of a gambit is to accept it" is a good rule of thumb, but (unsurprisingly) not true in every case (even in the case of "real" gambits) ...

And I too thought Josh "Searching for Bobby Fischer" Waitzkin played the queen sac first ...again, if it's the same one (how many can there be, in this context?).

Is the QGA the critical test of the QG?

For sharpness, the Zaitsev is incomparable to White's other options, but it's also somewhat unprincipled.  5. f3 is sharp, and it's a much more thoroughoing challenge to Black's system.  I respectfully doubt that Black's problems against it have all been solved -- which is what the latest Benko books allege.  Still, it requires some sophistication to play 5. f3 well.  Systems that trade time for space, like this one, are always dangerous and dynamic.  Another move that often leads sharp, relatively open play is 5. e3, and unlike 5. f3, here White develops rapidly. 

Personally I would never play 5. bxa6.  It may be good, but it gives Black precisely what he wants.

By the way, I thought it was IM Joshua Waitzkin, not Khalifman, who first played that queen sac against 5. f3 e6  6. e4 exd4  7. e5 Qe7  8. Qe2 Ng8 and so forth.  Or are we talking about the same queen sac?

I'm an experienced Benko player. The move i dislike to see is 4.Qc2!

I'm not sure the 5.b6 lines really fit the bill in terms of darthmambo's desire or something sharp.  If anything it is at the quieter end of the scale.

I am also not sure that "any Benko player worth their salt" will know the Zaitsev.  I think a lot of players at club level (maybe they are not worth their salt?) play the Benko knowing very little theory - and the fact that in many lines it is possible to do so is one of the attractions of the opening.  They will not be expecting a White player to know something like the Zaitsev.

I admit, it's a bit of a bluff, but it's not as if the Zaitsev is actually bad for White even if Black does know his stuff!