Greetings,

After 8..., Bg7, given that Black now "threatens" 9..., Nfd7, my first thought was that White needs to sort out his queen-side asap, before playing Nf3.

Since 8..., Bg7/9..., Nfd7 prevents the normal 10.Rb1 move - or perhaps even 9.Rb1 !? - I think 9.Bd2 (with the idea of 9..., Nfd7; 10.a4/Rb1, Nb6; 11.b3 may work.

Any thoughts?

Kindest regards,

James

Blue Flaneur wrote on 07/16/12 at 12:47:44:


I am going to ignore the overzealous tone and just conclude that even after looking at 13...Nc4 for a while, I wasn't particularly impressed with Black's chances. 

TonyRo wrote on 07/11/12 at 19:24:30:


Yup. 13...Nc4! 0-1

After 9...Nfd7 it seems that White is in some serious, serious trouble. Not only does he have to deal with the uber sexiness of 9...Nfd7 but Alburt's original ideas (the ones after ...Nbd7, ...Nb6, ...Nc4) seem to resonate quite loudly with this innocent switch-a-roo.

I guess Watson, Georgiev, and Kaufman were right to go for different lines.

Pedersen's chapter on Nfd7 is available as a free download:

http://www.everymanchess.com/chess/books/Play_the_Benko_Gambit

11.Qc2 is the point - White has time to organize the Qc2,Rd1 setup. Thats the whole point of playing ...Nd7-b6 before castling. If White wants to play it is another question, but this is why the whole move-order refinement of delaying castling was introduced, since at one time White was scoring strongly with this setup and Black was desperate to avoid it.

To me 9...0-0 just seems like an inaccurate move order since you lose the option of an early ...Nb6, but the choice between 9...Nbd7 and 9...Nfd7 isn't an easy one since both moves offer chances for equality. I'd probably prefer 9...Nfd7, if only because it's not as well known, it stops the Rb1 lines and also I find Avrukh's lines against 9...Nbd7 a bit more convincing than against 9...Nfd7. But it would be interesting to see what a Benko specialist thinks of 9...Nbd7 10.Rb1 Nb6 nowadays. 

A few other, slightly off-topic points on move-orders:

a) If Black plays 5...Bxa6 instead of 5...g6 White can consider a setup with b3/Bb2, delaying the development of the c3-knight to try and reduce Black's counterplay. However if White plays a b3/Bb2 line against 5...g6, then Black can take with the knight on a6, with a turbo-charged Benko.

b) After 5...g6 6.Nc3, Black needs to play 6...Bxa6 as otherwise White can play 7.e4 (say after 6...Bg7 7.e4), when White will save time by taking a bishop on a6 rather than losing time with Kxf1-g2, for instance.

c) If White plays 6.Nf3 then g3/Bg2/0-0 without Nc3, Black can do better than playing ...Bxa6 by going for a ...Nxa6 setup or even ...Bf5 and ...Ne4, fighting tooth and nail for the initiative. 

d) One move order worth knowing about is 5...g6 6.Nc3 Bxa6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.g3 d6 9.e4, with the idea of transposing to 7.e4 after 9...Bxf1 10.Kxf1. It's not a bad trick in blitz where most players will premove 9...Nbd7 or 9...0-0, assuming you'll fianchetto your bishop. Also it could gain a minute or two on the clock in an OTB game but otherwise it doesn't have any special merit.

A while ago I bought the "1.d4" series books by GM Avrukh. In Chapter 14 on page 206 the main line is examined after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Bxa6 g6 6. Nc3 Bxa6. Avrukh goes on to recommend 7.g3 d6 8. Bg2 Bg7 9. Nf3.

There he writes " ... there is a split determined by which knight Black places on d7 and goes on to examine 9. ... Nfd7 and 9. ... Nbd7. What is baffling to me that there is no mentioning of 9. ... 0-0 which according to every database has been played nearly as often as Nbd7 while Nfd7 hardly registers. It doesn't look like that there is anything wrong with 9. ... 0-0 and it appears that it is simply a move order change (10. 0-0 Nbd7 11. Rb1) . Or is there a nuance I am missing?