I don't play the Benko as Black, and refuse to for many reasons (5.b6, certain lines of the Gambit Accepted, and the Declined lines are all annoying).

However, I can tell you that I do have the book "Starting out: Benoni Systems", in which White scores heavy in the Benko Gambit Chapters (They call it the Volga Gambit, same thing).

However, looking at the percentages in real life, it appears that all of those "Semi-Accepted" lines, like 5.e3, 5.f3, etc., are only scoring 54-55%.  The Declined (4.Nf3) is scoring a huge 59% in GM play.

I saw someone recommended the 5.Nc3 line.  This is probably White's worst choice.  I have played my fair share of 1.d4 as White.  I've played the accepted, the 5.b6 line, and the 5.f3 lines over the board, and have looked at 5.Nc3, 5.e3, and 4.Nf3.  The 5.Nc3 line is a thumbs down for certain.

I recommend you give 4.Nf3 a shot.

Darthmambo wrote on 06/07/06 at 04:49:28:


I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu here, like i've dealt with this exact topic somewhere before on this forum.

I will try to find the thread and post it.

Tops

The difference between the benko and a "classical gambit" like the king's gambit or Danish gambit is that in the KG and the DG you sacrifice a central pawn. In the benko you sacrifice a flank pawn. And flank pawns are usually not so importent in the opening and midgame. And you get a lot of compensation in open a and b lines for the rooks!

I also like to play 5.b6 it takes the game out of blacks favorithe line, the axb6 line. Not allowing black the open lines is spoiling his mood! I also like to play a4 a few moves later.

However 5.f3 is also very interesting.

once again it has to be the g3 line with Rb1 - however there may be some hope for Benko fans...WonderKid Magnus whatshisname won a nice game recently as Black. All the same this is the line to cause Black headaches 

Greetings,

One thing is clear... the definition of a "gambit" is not that clear!  

I always thought of a "gambit" as a sacrifice of a pawn in the opening for non-material compensation, whether in the form of space (centre control, open lines, etc) and/or time (lead in development, the initiative, etc).

Some gambits, obviously, are more open-ended ("ongoing"  ) - the Scotch and Goring Gambits, for example. There is no particular indication of if, or when(!), White may regain the gambited material - only if White's lead in development and open lines results in a successful attack will material be regained - with interest!

In the QGA, on the other hand, the gambitted pawn is regained fairly shortly - Black can try to hang on to the pawn, but it's inadvisable to do so.

Which is why the QGD was more popular than the QGA - why capture a pawn if you can't keep it?

For this reaon, most people don't think of the Queen's Gambit as an actual offer of a pawn.

Theory has, however, moved on and now the QGA is back in fashion because Black has compensation in other forms to make up for not being able to keep the sacrificed pawn.

However, the Queen's Gambit is a "gambit" in the truest sense of the term.

Why?

Because White sacrifices a flank (c-)pawn to deflect Black's centre (d-)pawn in order to gain a space advantage - the Classical Centre (pawns on d4 and e4) granting (greater) control of the centre.

A form of non-material compensation.

I apologise if the above explanation appears to belittle any here - that is not it's intent!

I simply wished to clarify this point...

In the case of a "temporary" gambit, it's easy to overlook the real reason for the pawn sacrifice - and, therefore, why it is a "gambit" in the truest sense of the term.

Kindest regards,

James

Sorry for being late and off topic.

Keano: Quote:
and kylemeister: Quote:


No, I did not know that. I thought that even if black is a pawn up for just a few moves, it's still a gambit.

Sorry, Keano, typo. I meant 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.o-o cxd4 7.exd4 Nc6 8.Nc3.
I will not react on your other comments, because I don't want to spoil this debate. Moreover I agree, that accepting is critical for the Benkö indeed - in all meanings of the word.
I just wanted to make the point, that it is better to consider every gambit seperately than rely on a general statement.

MNb wrote on 06/14/06 at 04:34:05:


Well now...lets see..

Quote:
What has this got to do with anything? Where is the gambit 

Quote:
  Again...where is the relevance - this is White playing a "gambit" if you can even call it that in a poor example of play by Black.

Quote:
I agree! In this case I would classify this as a correct gambit. Obviously all gambits cannot be unsound, the point is that the "critical test" is to examine acceptance. As it happens this line though is merely a move order for the Panov Botvinnik and the point is White has committed himself with 3.c4 to this decision, which allows Black the luxury of a "gambit" with ..c6

Quote:
refer to previous - c4 is commital, not to mention 2.f4 which is simple incorrect!

Quote:
Is this really a gambit? I dont know the theory but I assumed Black recovers the pawn here, maybe I am wrong   

Quote:
  This an eccentric sideline but an interesting example, in that personally for practical reasons I would not even play 5...dxe4. Again some common sense must be applied - as after 5...dxe4 there is the Qg4 line to contend with so again this line is really not a true gambit.

To sum up - I stand by my statement