MNb wrote on 01/16/11 at 20:52:25:


Good point. My sentiments exactly!

Markovich wrote on 01/16/11 at 15:45:40:

It's not really important. But if we're going to name and classify openings at all, why not do it right?

At the end of the day, are these issues of classification really important?

Stigma wrote on 01/16/11 at 00:26:31:


I would like to point out that in this line, you have the move c4 thrown in, making it an English Opening. Now, whoever said that the Benoni is  1 d4 c5 2 d5? That is like saying that 1 e4 e5 2 d4 is the Goering Gambit (it is not). For that matter, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 e5 is not the BDG, but the independent Lemberger Counter Gambit. As everyone knows, the BDG is 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3. 

Technically, you could call the Lemberger Counter Gambit a way to avoid the BDG. It's similar to calling the Falkbeer Counter Gambit a way to avoid the King's Gambit Accepted. So, is 1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4 an anti-Benoni system? Yes. That said, why cannot anti-Benoni systems be gambits?

The Anti-Sicilian systems discussed here have the Sicilian Wing ( 1 e4 c5 2 b4) and Smith-Morra ( 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3) Gambits. So you have plenty of precedent for using gambits against certain systems.
Eric Schiller's 2002 tome, Unorthodox Chess Openings, 2nd edition, has Zilbermints Benoni Gambit.

I hope that answers your questions.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 is normally called an "Anti-Benoni" too (when it's not called a Symmetrical English), and the similarity is pretty obvious: White refuses to play d5.

@Gambit: Why would it be "much more interesting" to call it a new Benoni variation? It's still the same position, the same games whatever you call it...

Or Benoni Defense, Zilbermints Variation.

Actually, 1 d4 c5 is the Benoni Defense. Now, after 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4 we enter a gambit line. Black can of course, play the Tamarkin Counter-Gambit, 3...e5 and this is where the fun starts. I have played both 4 a3 and 4 Nxe5!. If you want to see games with this line, look up my old 1999-2000 articles on the Internet.

I suppose the purists could call my line an Anti-Benoni line. However, it is much more interesting in having a new Benoni variation! Besides, the name has been in print since 1999, so why should it be changed now?

First, there is nothing wrong with putting problems before your opponent in a chess game. That is called psychology. For why should you play something that has been heavily analysed, when you may be outplayed there? Rather, why not use something little-known, where your opponent cannot use grandmaster analyses or the computer to help? Bobby Fischer used to play little-known variations a lot. And this was before computers became strong at chess!

Second, Kasparov lost to Deep Blue computer in 1997. That tells me right there that it is not a fair match. A computer can think millions of variations a second, with a database. A human can only think 10-20 moves ahead, with no database. Besides, a human cannot use books while playing a computer. Conversely, a computer uses an electronic book, a database, while playing a human. Not a fair match, I say. For this reason, I will NOT play a computer.

Third, the reason why there are so many ICC games, is simple. Over the board, I do not see too many players answer 1...c5 versus my 1 d4. It is a rare opening indeed. However, I see quite a few players play 1 d4 c5 on the Internet Chess Club. For this reason, I have to include the games played on ICC.

Fourth, yes, I know the theory of 1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4 because I developed it! Now if you are not too lazy, you can score quite well with the Zilbermints Benoni.
I posted some articles online back in 1999-2000. All you have to do is type in "Zilbermints Benoni" in the Internet search. After the articles come up, print them out, and go over the games. Once you have won won a number of games, come back and tell me about your experiences.

VLT-fantomen is one player that plays the Old Benoni, 1 d4 c5, on the Internet Chess Club. I always beat him with my Zilbermints Benoni.