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 

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!

As a sometime-Benko player, I find the 5.b6 lines to be challenging.  I don't get the desired open files, and it takes me some time go get my pieces coordinated.

When I first started playing the Benko, I used to run into 4.b3?! a lot, and it gave me a lot of problems.  There is almost no literature on this move, and if Black plays carelessly I think he gets stuck in a dull position with virutally no play.   

It might be worth a shot for surprise value. 

If Black is familiar with Benoni ideas, though, he probably won't have any problems and White is stuck with a pretty pointless move and might have to concede the c4 square.

5.b6 seems to be interesting as well. 

[Event "FIDE World Cup"]
[Site "0:18.18-1:02.45"]
[Date "2005.11.30"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "21"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Ivan Cheparinov"]
[Black "Vassily Ivanchuk"]
[ECO "?"]
[WhiteElo "2618"]
[BlackElo "2748"]
[PlyCount "88"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. b6 d6 6. Nc3 Nbd7 7. a4 a5
8. e4 g6 9. Nf3 Bg7 10. Be2 O-O 11. O-O Qxb6 12. Nd2 Ba6 13. Nb5 Rfb8
14. Qc2 Qd8 15. Nc4 Nb6 16. Nca3 Ne8 17. Rb1 Nc7 18. b3 Bxb5 19. Nxb5
Na6 20. Bg5 Nb4 21. Qd2 Qd7 22. f4 Rb7 23. f5 Qe8 24. Rf3 Nd7 25. Rbf1
Be5 26. Rh3 f6 27. Be3 g5 28. g4 Rc8 29. Bc4 Bd4 30. Nxd4 cxd4 31.
Bxg5 Ne5 32. Bh6 d3 33. g5 Qf7 34. Rg3 Kh8 35. g6 hxg6 36. fxg6 Nxg6
37. Rf5 Ne5 38. Bf8 Qh7 39. Bg7+ Qxg7 40. Rh5+ Kg8 41. Rxg7+ Kxg7 42.
Qh6+ Kf7 43. Qh7+ Ke8 44. Qf5 1-0

Hi all, I need some help. I am starting to play d4 and need something to play against the Benko. What are the lines that really test it these days? Oh, I really don't see myself taking the pawns and trying to make it to the end game (which is really hard to do in the Benko it seems). I like to play something sharp where I get to attack. Well any advice would be great.