RVergara wrote on 03/16/10 at 16:34:46:


I noticed that Bologan's new KID book has a chapter devoted to White's acceptance of this gambit, with 10.Nge2 as the last, and therefore most prominent, choice for White.  But he claims that Black is fine.  I recommend Bologan's book.

I have not been able to check this myself, but a friend informs me that Dzindzhi's suggested refutation 
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bxc5 Nc6 10.Nge2 Nd7 11.Be3 Nde5 12.Nf4 Nb4 13.Rc1 makes no mention of theory's recommendation 13... Be6.

If this is the case, then I am sorry to say that this is not untypical of him. He's been a great player and he has always produced a lot of interesting ideas in a wide variety of openings, but it seems that these days he often disseminates them via lectures and even commercial DVDs without proper checking of sources; and very often it's the most critical response that he omits.

RVergara wrote on 03/15/10 at 21:34:19:

The line you give is not a real refutation of the c5 gambit. The point is that white must find a right square for his dark squares bishop after 10...Nd7. In Ward's book, it seems to be f2 (http://www.chesshouse.com/The_Controversial_Samisch_Kings_Indian_p/6512.htm) and in the book "The Sämisch King's Indian uncovered" (http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/books/The_S%26auml%3Bmisch_King%27s_Indian_Un...), it seems to be e3.
Ba3 seems also to be a quite bad move where black get too much counterplay and where white pieces do not collaborate effectively.
Now the fact that you play Bf2 or Be3 does not mean you will win. You might be a pawn up, it is not easy to develop your pieces, black has a lot of possibilities and a single slip can cost white the game.
So I would not speak of a refutation but more of the only way to survive in a difficult position. 

Hello, I have just joined the Chess Publishing site, and I'm enjoying it a lot.

I also came across an analysis of the Saemisch gambit by GM Roman Dzindzichashvili where he claims that the line favors white after the moves: 

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be3 O-O 6.f3 c5 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bxc5 Nc6 10.Nge2

He also says that he has not found games with this line that could be used to deepen the analysis, since the games he found were all short agreed draws.

I was wondering if this line has been analysed here, and also if this is the refutation of the Saemisch gambit, what other option is there against the Saemisch?