ErictheRed wrote on 09/22/11 at 17:19:47:
I bought this book sight-unseen (which I rarely do) because I've been thinking of taking up the Benko against lower rated players (and probably the Tartakower against strong players). Also, my score against the Benko is not that great, so playing the Black side should help. I've had it for a couple of days now.
My initial impressions are not very good. I'm absolutely not an expert on the Benko, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But here are some of the issues I have with the book:
1. Poor editing: some grammatical mistakes, incorrect diagrams, etc. Not really a big deal but annoying nonetheless.
2. Lack of explanation: in the Introduction, Pederson mentions some themes, such as Black playing ...e6 or ...f5, etc. He then shows a diagram where Black has just played the move in question, and that's it! He doesn't offer any further moves so that you don't really get to see the consequences of the move in action.
Also, in the "classical main line" benko with g2-g3, Kf1-g2, and h2-h3, one recommendation is 12...Qb6. Against h2-h3 and Kf1-g1-h2, he recommends 12...Qa5, with a note that the reader should compare this line with the similar one before, the difference being the placement of White's King and Black's Queen. And that's it! He doesn't explain why he prefers sticking the Queen on b6 in one line or a5 in the other. The reader is left trying to figure things out for themselves; my guess might be that with the King on g2, Black wants to keep the option of playing Qb6-b7 and ...e7-e6 with tactics on the long diaganol. This lack of explanation is a problem throughout the book.
3. Few original ideas: The only line I know well is the 5.f3 line, as I play it for White, so I can't really judge how many new ideas exist in other parts of the book. However, I've prepared Nakamura's Knight sacrifice as White (though I've only been able to play it in online games). I'm far from the most well-prepared player on here, and I was surprised that Pedersen didn't have anything original to add to the line that I hadn't already discovered by looking at online annotations and moving the pieces around myself for an hour.
4. Does not predict future developments: In the game Lugovoi - Khalifman, 1996 (Classical Main Line with 12.Re1), after 16.a4 Ra7?! Pedersen suggest that Black should have played 16...Bxc3, and offers some analysis. At the end of the game, Pedersen suggests that White will have to find something besides 16.a4 if he wants an advantage, but he doesn't analyze any of White's other moves!
5. Lack of personal touch: As Pedersen himself plays the Benko, I expected some personal insight into the opening, but it doesn't come through. By personal touch I mean something along the lines of Chris Ward's old Winning with the Dragon or The Controversial Saemisch King's Indian. Those books weren't perfect, but I learned a lot from them because I felt like I was getting a GM's personal thoughts on an opening he knows extremely well and has a lot of first hand experience with. That's missing here.
This is what I noticed just in the first hour or two of looking at the book. Others might have different opinions but I'm disappointed with the book. I do like that he included coverage of some non-Benko lines, though I haven't looked at them yet and suspect they suffer from the same drawbacks as the rest of the book.
I have also purchased the book, and my impression is that you have not read the book carefully enough.
1. I agree with you. I'm not sure whether Pedersen, the editors or both are responsible for this.
2. I think you miss the purpose of the introduction. Pedersen just wants to mention the key ideas for White and Black, so that when you see the consequences of them in the main games, they stick in your memory. Even if the reader likes to have a book structured by themes, he can still play through the main game referenced under each theme in the introduction.
You haven't read the notes to this game properly. After 10.h3 he writes 'While the manoeuvre h2-h3 and Kg1-h2 takes one move longer, on this square the king is a bit more secure; and as we have seen, White often plays h2-h3 in any case in order to prevent ...Ng4, so the tempo is not wasted. Furthermore, Black's plan with ...e7-e6 is less effective without the white king on the long diagonal. On the other hand, the thematic e4-e5 is now more difficult to achieve.' He then gives a paragraph on White's key plans in this variation, followed by a paragraph detailing Black's plans after 10...Nbd7.
3. First, it is better to be right than original. Second, he suggests a lot of new ideas in the other chapters, especially Chapters 1-2 which cover the theoretically critical options that White can play. Perhaps you know of some improvement over Pedersen's analyses in the 5.f3 chapter that gives White an edge, in which case you have a point. Pedersen states in the game summary that 'far more critical is Nakamura's 12.Nfxd5!, which he used to defeat Vachier Lagrave. However, by playing to keep the sacrificed material, Black can reach an unclear game with accurate defence. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of room for practical tests here.'
4. This is incorrect. Pedersen also covers 16.Nf3 in some depth, even giving Black two options. Also my reply to 3 shows an instance of him predicting future developments. Overall the book seems quite objective. He is willing to admit that certain lines in his repertoire lead to drawish positions or may objectively favour White, but analyses secondary options for readers that want to try and avoid the problematic line.
5. I completely disagree. He analyses three complete games of his own as Black in the book, not to mention his games with White and Black in the notes to the complete games. I understand that you like Ward's style of writing, however Pedersen regularly gives his personal touch in his notes to his games, for instance 'This is indeed something to aim for from a Black perspective and shows that White often doesn't know how to react to an early ...Nd7-b6-c4'. He just presents it in a more formal way than Ward, which is completely fine as well, of course.
I haven't studied the book closely enough to give a full review myself, but at present I quite like it. Instinctively I don't entirely trust the 'Topalov Variation' but I need to analyse it, of course. I also have to check his improvements over 'Squeezing the Gambits' and 'GM Repertoire' before reviewing it here.
Pages: [1] 
Benko book (Read 97685 times)
