For what it's worth, here's another (GM vs. GM) game I've long had in my "memory bank" concerning this opening.


[Event "San Antonio"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Browne, Walter Shawn"]
[Black "Evans, Larry Melvyn"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[NIC "OI 8.4"]
[ECO "A43"]
[PlyCount "49"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5 d6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Be2 O-O 8. Nd2 Na6 
9. Nc4 Nc7 10. a4 b6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Bf3 Qd7 13. Bf4 Rfe8 14. Qd3 h6 15. Bg3 Bf8 
16. Rfd1 Ba6 17. b3 Ng4 18. Re1 Rxe1  19. Rxe1 Re8 20. Rxe8 Qxe8 21. Qe4 Nf6 22. 
Qxe8 Nfxe8 23. Ne3 g6 24. h4 h5 25. Ne4 1/2-1/2

Good question actually. The F-B is on my list of "rare but tricky defences I should prepare something against" so if there is some great line for White I want to know which it is!

Edit: I think my first step in that direction will be actually reading the whole thread 

The F-B could also be the solution for a desperate 1.d4 e6 (English Defence or Dutch) player who wanted imbalance and after 1.d4 e6 2.e4 fears that 2...d5 3.exd5 is coming. 1.d4 e6 2.e4 c5 may be weaker, but also more fun!?

I dabbled with the Franco-Benoni in the early 1990s. Should still have my old game scores available.

@Michael Ayton

What is your view on Avrukh's recommendation against the F-B? Do you have any improvements prepared over Avrukh's analysis or is his recommendation still holding up as a clear route to an advantage?

I agree with TopNotch. White has a solid advantage, based on his space advantage. The problem for black is that he does not have any active counterplay. It is a completely different opening then the modern Benoni. Black does not have a queenside pawn majority, no pressure on the e-file and he does not have time to fianchetto his f8 bisschop. It is not much fun playing the franco-benoni as black.

Smyslov_Fan,

Yes, I can follow your annotations.  There are a few bits (like extraneous symbols and the repetition of the move 11. Bf4) that made it unclear to me (on my preliminary glance) what was going on.

I think I could be forgiven for thinking that you were at least somewhat endorsing your computer's view of a "tremendous advantage," in light of your initial claims.

You mention again that this defense is generally not seen at the highest echelons.  You initially contrasted it with the Schmid Benoni, which is not exactly a common guest there either.  (I recall being rather surprised at seeing it played a while back in a game of, I think, Ivanchuk.)  It also makes me think again of a comparison to the Steinitz Defense in the Ruy/Spanish, perhaps a typical += (I mean plus-over-equals) defense.  The Steinitz seems to be invisible at top level, and is played much less often by GMs than the Franco-Benoni is.  But I don't think anybody would claim that it is busted/unplayable, and I would think that the Franco-Benoni is at least not worse than the Steinitz.

You asked my opinion about 8...Nbd7.  I don't think it's the most natural move, because I would think that Black's general preference in such positions would be to play ...Na6 with the idea of  ...Nc7, so as to put more pressure on d5 and help promote ...b5.  And while the Topster might be relieved to hear that I don’t think books should be taken as gospel, I might mention that most of the books I’m aware of give 8...Na6 as the main line, while none that I am aware of mentions 8...Nbd7.  There's also the (trade-oriented) possibility of ...Bg4 before …Nbd7.  That was played by the eponymous (Hungarian GM) Barcza against (Czech GM) Filip in the game below, and was evaluated by (Romanian GM) Ciocaltea in ECO as, you guessed it, +=.   


[Event "Sofia"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1957.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Filip, Miroslav"]
[Black "Barcza, Gedeon"]
[Result "0-1"]
[NIC "OI 14.6"]
[ECO "A43"]
[PlyCount "82"]

1. d4 c5 2. d5 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 exd5 6. exd5 Bg4 7. Be2 Bxf3 8. Bxf3 
Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Bf4 Nbd7 11. Re1 Ne8 12. Be2 a6 13. a4 Bg5 14. Bg3 Bf6 15. Bf1 
Be5 16. Bxe5 Nxe5 17. a5 Nf6 18. Qd2 Qc7 19. Na4 Rae8 20. Nb6 Qd8 21. h3 Nfd7 22. 
Nxd7 Nxd7 23. Rxe8 Rxe8 24. Re1 Nf6 25. Bd3 g6 26. c4 Nd7 27. Rxe8  Qxe8 28. Qc3 
Qe5 29. Qxe5 Nxe5 30. Be2 Kf8 31. f4 Nd7 32. Bd1 Ke7 33. Ba4 b6 34. Bxd7 Kxd7 35. 
axb6 Kc8 36. Kf2 Kb7 37. Ke3 Kxb6 38. Kd3 Ka5 39. Kc3 Ka4 40. g3 f5 41. g4 h5 0-1


TopNotch,

The Kasparov reference was to volume 4 (the Fischer book) of “My Great Predecessors.”  I’m not saying that he condemns Bb5+; he gives it “!?” in the course of citing some Larsen games (and giving Black a “!”); then, as mentioned, he says (with some detail) that he thinks White should prefer a line with early c4, leading to a slight advantage. 

NCO considers the N to e3 maneuver in this guise: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 ed 4. ed d6 5. Nc3 Be7 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. h3 0-0 8. Nf3 Na6 9. 0-0 Nc7 10. Bc4 a6 11. a4 b6 12. Rb1 Qd7 13. Re1! Re8 14. b4 b5 15. ab ab 16. Be2 c4 17. Nh2 Bf8 18. Nf1 Bb7 19. Ne3, with a slight advantage.

It looks like Kengis could have aimed to hinder that maneuver (as Larsen might have started doing with an earlier ...Bb7) with 12…Nh5 or (even if White precedes Bf4 with h3) 13...Nh5 (idea 14. Bh2 Nhf6), with the idea that Bc4 looks likely to lead to a rook exchange unlike in NCO's line.  I’d also wonder about a later …Ne4 in some of those positions; after all, O’Kelly’s 15. Bd3 invites one kind of exchange, but the Rogerian type of play invites another.  But even the way the Rogers game went, it looks as though White was left (say at move 27) with just the slightest of advantages.   

The Kasparov book observes that “Black’s strategy in this line involves surrounding the d-pawn with pieces.”  I’m not sure how broadly/strongly to construe your comments, but one might get the idea that you think this idea is practically worthless (despite that it perhaps came within a hair’s breadth of equalizing in the Rogers game).

It might be noted that Rogers played this defense with Black, against a fellow GM, after the Kengis game.  (Yes, he met Bb5+ with …Bd7, which seems interesting.)  Also over 40 other GMs have played (or offered to play) it in the last decade, some of them repeatedly. 

If you’re saying that Bb5+ should be assessed as leading to “+=” rather than “=”, that’s one thing (and seems plausible to me).  But again, that wasn’t really the issue.  The issue was whether White can force the kind of advantage (as in ±) which could justify describing the Franco-Benoni/Barcza-Larsen with terms like “busted” and “unplayable.” 

kylemeister wrote on 10/01/07 at 16:34:30:


Which Kasparov book are we talking about here, as I find it highly suspicious that Kasparov himself would be dismissive of this 6.Bb5+ variation. While it is not clear that 6.Bb5 is more accurate than 6.Be2 (Though I have a feeling it is), what is clear is that White can maintain an advantage after either move, the only question being the size of that advantage.

The examples chosen by SF are excellent in that they highlight the ideal piece placement and typical plans for White that prove the most challenging for Franco advocates to face. As I stated in my description of the Franco, the variation is one of plans moreso than a concrete sequence of moves. The ECO reference is worthless and the assessment incorrect in my opinion, why, its very simple, less space combined with passively placed pieces and a lack of meaningful counterplay equal worse position in my book. Just because you see a line given in a text as equal doesn't mean you have to accept it, especially when it goes against decades of accumalated chess wisdom and logic. 

Lets take a look at the ECO referrenced game that has been referred to more than once in this thread: 

[Site Palma de Mallorca]
[Date 1967.10.02]
[White O'Kelly,A]
[Black Larsen,B]
[Result 0-1]
[ECO A43]

1. d4 e6 2. e4 c5 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5 d6 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. Bb5+?!
[Larsen's annotation in Informator, and probably an attempt by the winner to bluff others into not repeating this line] 
Nbd7 8. a4 O-O 9. O-O a6 10. Be2 b6 11. Re1 Re8 12. Bf4 Nf8 13. h3 Ng6 
[ECO stops here superficially claiming equality for Black]
14. Bh2 Bf8 15. Bd3?
[I don't like this, White should avoid unneccesary exchanges if he can so as not to ease Black's cramped position, and to that end 15.Nd2! was better intending 15...Ne5 16.Nf1 to e3 followed by a later f4 or Rb1 b4 depending on circumstances. After 15.Nd2! the Knight re-routes to its ideal post on e3 and White maintains his advantage thus.] 
Rxe1+ [Exchanging a pair of rooks eases Black's defensive task] 
16. Qxe1 Bb7 17. Qd2 Qd7 18. Bc4 Qf5 19. Re1 Re8 20. Rxe8 Nxe8 [Every exchange is a minor victory for Black] 
21. Qe2 Nc7 22. Qe4 Qf6 23. h4 Bc8 24. Bd3 h5 25. Nd1 b5 26. axb5 axb5 [The rest of this game needs no further comment] 
27. c3 c4 28. Bc2 Bd7 29. Ne3 Na6 30. Bg3 Nc5 31. Qd4 Qd8 32. Ng5 Be7 33. f4 Bf6 34. Qd2 Qe7 35. Nf5 Bxf5 36. Bxf5 Nf8 37. Bf2 Na4 38. g3 g6 39. Bb1 Nd7 40. Nf3 Ndc5 41. Bxc5 Nxc5 42. Kg2 Qa7 43. f5 Qa1 44. Bc2 Qxb2 45. fxg6 fxg6 46. Qe2 Kg7 47. Nd4 Be5 48. Qe3 Nd3 49. Qg5 Bxd4  0-1

Later games such as Rogers - Kengis served to confirm what White should be aiming for in this variation, and what SF neglected to emphasise in his otherwise instructive post was the importance of the Knight manoeuvre to e3. This Knight manoeuvre represents a typical and key strategy for White against the Franco and some other Benoni structures as well, and one would do well to take special note of it. 

Toppy  

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/02/07 at 06:28:48:


Neither do I have an answer, but I know where to find it. Everything depends on the question if Black has to play 8...Nbd7 like Santos did. If yes, 6.Bb5+ is a superfluous demonstration. If Black has better, like 8...Na6 or 8...Bg4 or 8...Re8 first, then 6.Bb5+ must be more precise. Alas I don't know how to evaluate these setups. To make things more complicated, White sometimes plays x.h3 somewhere to keep that queen's bishop passive.
So my humble opinion is, that White might be better against the Franco-Benoni, but a clear-cut way to prove it is not established yet.