Bonsai wrote on 09/08/16 at 12:44:45:

If your point is that White has other ways of avoiding 2.d5, that is indeed true. As I pointed out, however, these alternatives are relatively rare; so it seems unlikely that Palliser was thinking of them when he said that after alternatives to 2.d5 Black has "generally" gained by playing ...c5 before ...Nf6.

Palliser doesn't suggest trying to force ...e5 after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5. In fact he doesn't cover 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 at all. Not in that book, anyway.

I hope it's OK to revive this thread for a question. 

In How to play against 1.d4 IM Palliser recommends the Czech Benoni (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e5). He explains that he considered providing a full repertoire after 1.d4 Nf6, but decided instead to offer a supplementary repertoire with 1.d4 c5 (and if 2.d5 e5) for the benefit of those readers who wouldn't be sure what to do if after 1.d4 Nf6 White abstains from 2.c4.

He adds that if after 1.d4 c5 White does not play 2.d5, Black has generally gained by going ...c5 before ...Nf6. I don't understand this.

After 1.d4 c5 2.c3 Palliser recommends 2...Nf6, when 3.Nf3 is the same as 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.c3.

After 1.d4 c5 2.e3 his main recommendation is 2...Nf6, when 3.Nf3 is the same as 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3.

White has other options on move 2, of course, but according to Palliser they account for only about 16% of games that start 1.d4 c5. In the 63% of games with 2.d5, Black seems to be worse off than after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5. In another 21% (the ones that go 2.e3 or 2.c3) it seems to make no difference, at any rate if Black follows Palliser's recommendations. So what is he referring to when he says that after alternatives to 2.d5 Black has "generally" gained from this move order?

Quote:


6. Nd2 instead of Le2

Nice game, Bibs!


I wonder, is the Clarendon Court (1.d4 c5 2.d5 f5) really as bad as its reputation? In the last 5 years players like Sakaev, Epishin (twice) and Shabalov (twice) have tried it.

If White plays something solid with g3/Bg2 Black gets his desired "Benongrad", but White is still slightly better anyway if we're to believe Curt Hansen, annotating his win over Henrik Danielsen for Chessbase.

I also thought the "refutation" was 3.e4! fxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.g4! and now the most played 5...h6 looks too weakening and has horrible reults. So maybe 5...g6!? is worth a try? Black is willing to get his knight kicked to h5 and sacrifice a pawn there if White spends the tempi on it (g5 and Be2xh5). In return Black gets the f-file and play on the dark squares (and a weak king position...).

True story: I sometimes get the Benongrad pawn structure through the Leningrad Dutch. In a tournament game my opponent, rated around 2150, surprisingly castled queenside! Naturally, a Benko-style ...b5 break and a winning attack followed. Afterwards he explained that he had decided when he got out of bed that morning to castle long, and he wasn't going to let the position on the board get in the way of that promise!

Pretty. Your opponent might have over-estimated his connected passed pawns on the 6th rank 

I think, the only case where it makes sense to play 1.d4 c5 is against low rated player who plays only the london system. They have to play 2. c3 after which you can transpose to the slav exchange, or play some other weird moves like Qc7 or Qa5. Usually those players, being out of their system don't how to play after only 3 moves...

Against "normal" players, I don't see any reason not to play 1...Nf6 then 2...c5

Not really. After 1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4 e6  4 a3 Nf6 5  e3 Bd6 6 Bd3 00 7 00 Ne8 8 00 Qc7 9 f4 Nxd4 10 ed4 Bd7 11 Be3 =