sure, usually good players motivate and play "sound" variations

however, looking at the variation with 4...Nb6 (which seems quite interesting, deserving much more attention than it had - despite the Karolyi NYC yearbook articles) I dont see many games followed
by Nc6

take a look at Bogdanov, (by the way just noticed it) as well
and did Mikenas win?

Schaakhamster wrote on 01/02/10 at 18:41:57:

That's quite an exaggeration. For one thing there weren't many GM's in Mikenas' time. Being from 1910 "his time" was between about 1935 and 1955. Mikenas did not exactly beat the crap out of Capablanca, Euwe, Eliskases, Fine and Tartakower. In 1939 he failed to beat Van Scheltinga (one of those fine unknown Dutch masters hehehe) twice at the Buenos Aires Olympiade.
After 1940 he did not (was not allowed to) play in the west, but in 1948 Mikenas also lost at least twice against Nezhmetdinov. His results against Alekhine are impressive though and so is his 5th place in the URSch of 1944.

Korch wrote on 01/02/10 at 18:29:54:


Thanks for the word.  Funny, I assumed that someone of his stature just had to be a GM.  After all, his name comes up in many games, and he has at least two notable variations named after him (in the English and the Modern Benoni).  In those days, they were pretty stingy with the title, though.  He is listed as "EST" in my data base, a clerical error, no doubt.

Concerning 6...Nb6, Bagirov says "This attempt to deviate from the main lines was proposed by the Lithuanian player Vishomirskis and has often been used by Mikenas." 

Schaakhamster wrote on 01/02/10 at 16:30:32:

And he was from Lithuania. It`s true that he was born in Estonia and emigrated to Lithuania in 1931, but he had Lithuanian nationality.

Net Warrior wrote on 12/31/09 at 15:06:30:


I looked into this, and it turns out your judgment of this line is pretty good.  It was played on many occasions by the strong Estonian GM Vladas Mikenas.  I have four of his games with it in my database, and Bagirov mentions others in his 1973 book.

The first thing to understand is that after 6.0-0 the only line of independent significance is 6...Nb6!?, since leaving the knight on d5 permits White to transpose into a version of the Old Main Line where Black's knight appears early on d6.  This is considered disadvantageous, because White will play exd6 followed by d5.  So 6...Nb6, which is the way Mikenas played it, and now there are two challenging moves.

7.h3 Bxf3 (not 7...Bh5 8.e6) 8.Bxf3 exd5 (8...e6 doesn't work out well) 9.exd5 Qxd1 10.Rxd1 e6 and sooner or later White will exchange on c6, debilitating Black's queenside pawns.  Mikenas must have felt that Black could hold the game, however, since he went for this repeatedly.  In the last game in my data base, he is defeated in this line in 1979 with Kengis, of all people, in command of the white pieces.

7.a4 is a very big challenge.  The main point is that 7...dxe5 8.a5 e4 9.Ng5 is very good for White.  Black must try either 7...a5 or 8...Nd7!? 9.a6 b6.  Here Bagirov, aped by both Eales and Hort, gives 10.dxe5 Ndxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxd1 12.Bxd1 Nxe5 13.Bxg4 Nxg4 14.Bf4 as favorable for White.  This is utter crap, since Black is a pawn up and perfectly safe after 14...e5.  But White also has 10.h3 and 10.c3.  10.h3 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Nxd4 12.Bxa8 Qxa8 looks about equal to me.  But 10.c3! is a challenge and I will let others now have their say about it.

I thought 4... Nc6!? 5. ed ed wasn't supposed to be that big of a deal if you play the 5... exd6 exchange as after 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. ed ed 6. Nc3, black's most accurate move is 6... Nc6! as played by Baburin to prevent the Nc3, Bd3, Nge2 setup.