[quote 4.Nf3 g6 - given that White has a wide range of possibilities on move 5, I'm interested to know which line you think gives White an edge. 
[/quote]
5.cxb5 a6 6.b6 - see Squeezing the Gambits by K.Georgiev.

MNb wrote on 05/09/11 at 02:17:57:


Any idea where you went wrong? It certainly looked very promising to the human eye. I haven't checked with the engines yet, but maybe 21.Qd4 instead of 21.Qe4 to keep Qd8 at home? Or did you have any improvements after 21...Qb6 ?


Btw, it's now easy to post the pgn as a board, just copy the game and click the PGN button and paste between the tags.

I played the Benko for 20 years but gave it up 10 years ago. It's main deficit as far as I'm concerned is not the Benko iteself! but all the numerous ways white can avoid it. Like 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3; 1.c4 / 1.Nf3 (you have to learn aother opening here). I was struggling against basically all of these.
10 years ago I changed to the Dutch Leningrad and that has worked wonderfully well for me, in particular since you can play it against 1.d4/c4/Nf3.

The game using the new pgn-feature:



What time-control was this game?

Dink Heckler wrote on 03/22/11 at 14:49:49:


Thanks for encouragement!

My finnish selo is 2090, that is 2100-2200 Fide elo.

>I have played the Benko a fair bit, and only very recently dropped it from my Black repertoire.

Why did you stop playing it? I'm considering dropping too.

When commenting, I would like to emphasize, that in addition to theoretical advantage one must pay attention to psychological advantage (for whom to lines are easier/more fun to play). In many anti-benko lines black has to give up normal benko-positions to have some changes for equalizing. Overall I think white has several lines that give him a comfortable game.  Some lines also promise a theoretically better game.

>To get the discussion rolling, here are the games on which I base the above assessments:
>4.Qc2 - Ding-Nepomniachtchi, CHN-RUS Summit rapid 2009
 
4.Qc2 scores well. In my database (last 10 years, both players 2300+) 64%. This is easy solution to those who have no passion for studying much. 

>4.a4 - Ward-Kinsman, Wrexham 1998

after 4.a4 bc , f4-lines are dynamic and very unclear. White has in practise good attacking possibilities. Possible is also 4.-b4 , it is close to equal but rigid.

>4.Nf3 g6 - given that White has a wide range of possibilities on move 5, I'm interested to know which line you think gives White an edge.
 
4.Nf3 scores also well. In my database (last 10 years, both players 2300+) 62%. Here (after 4.-g6) 5.Qc2 (57%)  is one good solution, but 5.cb a6 6.b6 (6.Qc2!?, 68%, 6.e4!?) is at least comfortable for white. In my opining white has in these lines a small advantage. 4.Nf3 is good choice. I have played it too.

>5.b6 e6 - Gleizerov-Tregubov, Krasnoyarsk 2003

These are close to equal, but white has also here scored well (59%)

>5.f3 e6 - Paul Cumbers is right, Nakamura-Vachier Lagrave indicates that this is good for White. I find it difficult to offer better advice for Black though, since 5...g6 6.e4 Bg7 7.Na3 doesn't give Black full compensation and >5...ab5 6.e4 Qa5 7.Bd2 b4 8.Na3 also favours White. And the gambit 5...e6 6.e4 c4 doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

5.f3 is strong.  Ambitious white should take it. I play 5.-ab, but this is somewhat better for white.

>5.e3 - Ki. Georgiev-Rogers, Biel Interzonal 1993

5.e3 scores 61%
5.-ab is theoretically probably unclear, but I don't like these positions. I play 5.-g6 for practical reasons (+=). both have scored equally.


>10.Rb1 - J.Gustafsson-S.Kasparov, Deizisau 2002 

65% and surely +=, but there is some play at my level, so I'm not too afraid of these lines in practise

>12.Re1 - Again due to the wide range of options at Black's disposal, I'm curious to know where you think Black can equalise.>

61%, this is indeed +=, I have played 12.-Qb6

Above general opinions, we can also go to details.

MNb wrote on 03/21/11 at 23:32:12:

Thanks for this . Looking back at some analysis I did a year ago, I thought Black should sac back with 21...Nbc6 22.a4 Qb8 23.0-0 Rb7 24.Bc3 Rxb5 25.axb5 Qxb5 26.Rfd1 +=, but your opponent has tried a different approach. Will be interesting to see how it works out.

That reminds me that I promised you guys to keep informed about my ongoing game.

MNb - Sobry,S [A57]
em ICCF WS/H/267, 2011

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.f3 e6 6.e4 exd5 7.e5 Qe7 8.Qe2 Ng8 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh3 c4 11.Nf4 Qc5 12.Nfxd5 Bxd5 13.Be3 Qb4 14.a3 Qa5 15.Bd2 Be6 16.Nd5 Qd8 17.Qxc4 Ra7 18.Rc1 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 axb5 20.Bxb5 Ne7 21.Qe4 Qb6 22.a4 Qb7 23.Qc4 Nbc6 24.0-0 g6 25.Bg5

(we are at move 33)

This looks like having some theoretical relevance.
At the other hand I am not sure about White's chances after 5...axb5. I would have followed TN's line indeed, but things are a bit complicated.
All in all 4.cxb5 and 5.f3 looks perfect for aggressive natures like me.