Here is a fairly classic example of 6.Bb5+.  I analysed this before I saw the Stamenkovic game and wondered how White could improve.  I think Stamenkovic has helped me see a way!

Rogers,I (2558) - Kengis,E (2589) [A43]
Bundesliga 0001 Germany (8.3), 17.02.2001

1.d4 e6 2.e4 c5 3.d5 exd5 4.exd5 d6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bb5+ This is the traditional move.  Compared to the first game I showed (6.Be2), I'm not sure this is actually better. 
6...Nbd7 7.a4 Be7 8.Nf3 0-0 9.0-0 a6

This comes with an obvious gain of tempo compared to 6.Be2.  However, the position still favors White.  So the question, which I can't answer right now, is whether 6.Bb5+ is really necessary or even an improvement over the immediate 6.Be2? 

10.Be2 b6 11.Re1  

[Here, Qd3 may be inaccurate.  Perhaps White should try 11.Bf4 11.Qd3 Ne5 12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.Re1 And White retains a small advantage as long as he can hold onto the d5 pawn or get sufficient play for it. 13...Qd6 14.Qg3!? Bf5! (14...Nxd5? 15.Nxd5 Qxd5 16.Bf3) 15.Bc4²; 
11.Bf4 Qc7 12.Qd3 Ne5 13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.Bg3 Bd6 15.Rfe1 Re8 16.Bf3 c4!÷ I think this is approximately equal.  White has paid for his lost tempo and now stands to lose more.  However, he still has a very playable game.] 

11...Bb7

Again, I wonder why Black played this move.  It seems blatantly inferior to Re8, Nf8 and Bg4 ideas.  At the very least, it seems to be a slow way to play on the Q-side. 

12.Bf4 Re8 13.h3

And now, 13.Qd3 may be an improvement on 13.h3.  However, Fritz considers White to have at least a slight advantage with several candidate moves.

13...Nf8 14.Nh2 Ng6 15.Bg3 Bf8 16.Nf1 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.Rxa8 Bxa8 19.Bxb5 Rxe1 20.Qxe1 Nxd5 21.Nxd5 Bxd5 22.Ne3 Bb7 23.Bc4

Only now does Fritz begin to understand White's plan for the last ten moves or so.  It considers White to have about the same advantage as if GM Rogers had played more obvious 14th moves such as 14.Bc4. 

23...d5 24.Bxd5 Bxd5 25.Qd2 Qb6 26.Qxd5 Qxb2 27.c4

White has a slight, but lasting advantage.  I would consider the position to be +/= to =.  While I would not agree to a draw here as White, I would feel a bit disappointed that I couldn't have gained a greater advantage from the opening.

GM. Rogers goes on to win the endgame in instructive fashion.

27...Qa1+ 28.Kh2 Qf6 29.Qa8 Qe6 30.Nd5 h5 31.Qd8 f6 32.Ne3 h4 33.Bb8 Kf7 34.Kg1 Qe4 35.Kf1 Be7 36.Qd5+ Qxd5 37.cxd5 Bf8 38.Ke2 Ne7 39.Kd3 g6 40.Kc4 Nc8 41.Kb5 Bd6 42.Bxd6 Nxd6+ 43.Kxc5 Ke7 44.Kc6 g5 45.f3 f5 46.Nc2 Nc4 47.Nd4 Nd6 48.Nb5 Nc4 49.Kc7 g4 50.f4 1-0

I agree with TN that Bb5 is a main idea for White.   

I'm not sure that it's as good as its pedigree though.  I'll try to dig up some games which show White playing it and White avoiding it.  Perhaps White's best play is to defer the Bb5 check, and perhaps even avoid it completely.

Games to follow.

Thanks, TN, for that excellent discussion.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 09/18/07 at 04:59:40:


I submit that the Franco-Benoni is primarily used as a psychological weapon. The move order from move one is already significant, since I suspect that if a player opens with 1.e4 and reaches the position given in the quote, then it is more than likely that he will not choose a plan involving c4 as many 1.e4 players often feel uncomfortable in this structure, while a 1.d4 player is more than 80% (guesstimate) likely to choose a plan involving c4.

To be honest I'm not sure if there is a refutation to this opening, it seems that the position is one of plans moreso than tactics and over the years strong White players have chosen many different setups to counter this system, this lack of consensus would seem to suggest that there is know clear refutation.   

Curiously many players overlook this system/moveorder in their preparation or refuse to take it seriously, and are forced to make it up as they go when surprised with it at the board. The Franco is a particularly tricky weapon against those 1.e4 players who have limited experience in Benoni type positions, although an alert 1.e4 player could duck this whole issue by choosing 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.Nf3.

For what its worth as a 1.e4 player I prefer not to transpose back into an Open sicilian, as the chances of a sizeable advantage are much better against the Franco in my estimation. I usually go for plans not involving a pawn on c4, instead reserving that square for a piece, usually a knight. Its also usually a good idea to toss in a Bb5 check as this creates awkward problems for Black since whatever piece he blocks with on d7 is met by a4 forcing a concession of some sort, for e.g., if he blocks with the bishop and trades on b5 he faces unpleasant pressure on the half open a file. However if he doesn't trade and plays for instance a6 then white retreats the bishop to e2 thus depriving Black of plans involving na6-c7, a common manoeuvre in the Franco. Blocking with the Knight often results in a very cramped game for Black.

Attempts to fianchetto on the Kingside often fail in the Franco, which means that Black has to settle for the miserable e7 square with a solid but very passive game in the offing where there is very little for him to undertake other than play for mass exchanges of pieces in hopes of a draw. White for his part should avoid excessive exchanges, prepare a b4 break on the Queenside and use his extra space to further suffocate Black and or force further concessions till Black pops. What White should not do is hurry, patience is required, as very often Black has absolutely zero counterplay and can do little more than sit and wait to see if White can make any progress.

Well enough of my blather, if I get around to it I will post some illustrative games.

Sayonara

Tops

Pace is important because it's much too early for benonilike openings to get back into fashion yet.
Now is the time for 'dull' things like catalans, slavs and four knights's and they're scheduled to last at least up to the end of next year.

MNb, 

Thanks for the link to Harding's article on the Franco-Benoni (which, as he explains, is the most common name for the opening.  But that's a red herring of a digression).

Harding's link should probably be read by anyone who wants to contribute to the conversation because it will probably serve as the backbone of the discussion.

He shows that most authors don't have much respect for the opening, and then digs deeper to find some interesting plans for Black. 

All, 

Should we accept the position after 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e6 3.e4 ed 4.ed5 (or 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.d5 ed5 4.ed5)  to be the starting point of our analysis?  

There will be several important plans for both sides to check out, which is why I've been building this argument rather slowly.  


(Pace, HgMan, we're getting to the concrete stuff!)

HgMan, 

I was going to get down to variations once those proponents of Black had shown a model variation.  Well, in lieu of one for Black, I've already shown one for White and here's another:

Let's choose a different move order:  1.d4 c5 2.d5 e6 (still a Franco-Benoni) 3.Nc3!? Nf6!? 4.e4 ed and now the recommended refutation (No quotation marks.  It's actually supposed to be a refutation.) is 5.e5!

I don't know if this is truly a refutation, but this line hasn't been tried by Black since the 1970s when this refutation was first published (somewhere in eastern Europe I believe, and Hartston reported it in an English language book on the Benoni).

Here are some lines I looked at with Fritz to confirm the old refutation:

 


1.d4 c5 2.d5 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e4 exd5 5.e5 Qe7 [5...d4 6.exf6 dxc3 7.Qe2+; 5...Ne4 6.Nxd5+-] 6.Qe2! [6.Nf3?! d6 7.Nxd5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 Nc6=  White's advantage is mostly symbolic here I think.] 6...Ng8 7.Nxd5 Qd8 8.Bg5 Be7+- Line

You will see that in each case that I gave White a winning edge White was up much more than just a pawn in a comfortable position.  In most cases, Black is dropping heavy material.

Once we get past this, we'll move into some of the more critical lines.  But for the sake of being thorough, I want to make sure we agree on this much.