A shame that this thread has gone quiet. 13.Ra3 seems to score incredibly well for white - is this mentioned in any books on the opening, and does anyone know the current theoretical status of the line?

Well, the main point of 12.a4! Qa5 13.Bd2 is that 13...Rfb8 can be answered by 14.Nb5! and this is obviously not possible after 12.Qe2 Qa5! 13.Bd2 Rfb8 when White has to defend b2. Now 14.Nd1 Qa6 is typical and seems okay for Black as does 14.b3 Ng4 15.Rac1 Qa6.

Thank you.

Is there a clear choice between 12.a4 and 12.Qe2 right now?

6...Bg7 is also covered in an article by Kuzmin in the latest Chessbase Magazine (163). He calls the line Perunovic Variation and suggests that 8.a7 might be White´s best. I haven´t looked at it yet.

Just saw this very interesting game  on chess base today....Lokander Martin's 6.Bg7!! is very interesting and i think its the perfect answer to Kaufmans novelty... ( that is simply not allowing him  play his novelty.. )

http://en.chessbase.com/post/hammer-takes-the-rilton-cup

Keano wrote on 11/06/14 at 21:37:02:


Who knows?!
It would probably work if above IM level.. 

Hi, IsaVulpes!
What you're missing is 14.Bd2! (or even 13.Bd2)

Here I post some games out of my correspondence chess database. Though most of them are not high quality games, you can find the right ideas for white:

In addition, Black needs to solve his problems in the variation in atticus' post #93 after 17.Ra3 Ne5 18.Nxe5 Bxe5 19.Bh4 Nc7 and now 20.g4!?N. This move has the advantage of saving the h4-bishop whilst maintaining the option of securing the e-pawn with f3, something that f4 does not do (you can see the in variations stemming from Haugen-Gonzalez that this is a persistent theme).

I think when I looked at it yesterday that I thought 20...Nxb5 21.axb5 Ra5!? led to some drawn endings, but I can't remember all of the details at the moment. I wasn't sure this was something I'd want to play as Black OTB, but then again, I'm not sure if I'm being paranoid - very few players' preparation at my level is this deep.

Niko's suggestion of ...Rb8-b7 is certainly interesting, but still far from giving Black decent compensation, I'm afraid.


I have analysed those games, and I think that white's just better.
Recently Ramirez tried 14...e6 straight away, but I think the move is just bad.

We played two games with Valeri at a thematic tournament in chess.com. Both ended in draws, are far from flawless (no computer assistance), yet I think his plan effectively defuses Naka's 16.Nd1, while I cannot say I was very happy with my position at the (critical?) variation in which Black drops the e7 pawn.


Any thoughts are welcome...

TonyRo wrote on 04/25/14 at 17:20:16:

In my opinion not. My current ICCF rating is 2071 and I'm a nobody. A ICCF rating of 2139 is definitely not "high level". Players like Dlugolecki and me are totally capable of screwing things up, with or without silicon assistance.

Grzegorz Dlugolecki (white in the first game) is really not a high level CC player, not when I played him on LSS anyway, I guess he's a very decent player OTB but doesn't use engines (or a pretty bad one)

There's a new book on sight. http://www.amazon.com/Benko-Gambit-Move/dp/1781941572/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8...

It is not absolutely clear from the sample pages but it looks like Tay's offered solution is a second pawn sacrifice as played by Gonzalez. 

Luckytiger wrote on 09/23/13 at 10:55:33:



indeed they need a lot of upgrades here on this site to modernize it but im not holding my breath for any of it

oh, just between, I could not realize that - thank you!

Hello, let me share my thoughts on some of your notes about my book lines. I added them in this file.

[[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.09.23"]
[Round "?"]
[White "ChessPub forum"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A58"]
[Annotator "Aveskulov Valeriy"]
[PlyCount "28"]
[EventDate "2012.01.23"]
[SourceDate "2012.01.23"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 g6 6. Nc3 Bxa6 7. e4 Qa5 $1 (
7... Bxf1 8. Kxf1 d6 9. Nf3 Bg7 10. g3 Nbd7 11. Kg2 O-O 12. a4 $1 Ra6 13. Qc2
Qa8 14. Ra3 $5 {Is the main critical point of 12...Ra6 line. I don't like this
for Black. Here just some games are.} c4 (14... Nb6 15. b3 Ne8 16. Nb5 f5 17.
Rd1 fxe4 18. Qxe4 e5 19. Bg5 Qb7 20. Bd8 Qf7 21. Ra2 h6 22. Nh4 Kh7 23. Be7 Nf6
24. Bxf6 Qxf6 25. Rd3 Nd7 26. Nc7 Rb6 27. Ne6 Rb4 28. Nxf8+ Nxf8 29. Qf3 Qg5
30. Qe3 e4 31. Rd1 Nd7 32. a5 Qd8 33. a6 Qa8 34. Ra4 Rxa4 35. bxa4 Nf6 36. Qe2
Nxd5 37. Qxe4 Ne3+ 38. Kf3 {
1-0 Gajewski,G-Brustkern,J/Limburg NED 2012/The Week in Chess 916}) (14... e6
15. dxe6 fxe6 16. Re1 Ng4 17. Nb5 Qb7 18. Bf4 d5 19. exd5 exd5 20. Bd6 Rc8 21.
Re7 Bf8 22. Qe2 Bxe7 23. Qxe7 Ngf6 24. Ng5 d4+ 25. Rf3 Re8 26. Qf7+ Kh8 27. Nc7
Raa8 28. Nce6 Rxe6 29. Nxe6 Rg8 30. Nxc5 Qc6 31. Nxd7 Nxd7 32. Qxd7 Qxd7 33.
Be5+ Qg7 34. Bxg7+ Kxg7 35. b4 Rd8 36. Kf1 Rc8 37. a5 Rc1+ 38. Ke2 Rb1 39. Ra3
{1-0 Leitao,R-Leon Hoyos,M/Istanbul TUR 2012/The Week in Chess 931}) (14... Rc8
15. h3 {being ready for c5c4} c4 16. Be3 Nc5 17. Bxc5 Rxc5 18. Rha1 $14) 15.
Be3 e6 16. dxe6 fxe6 17. Rd1 Qb7 18. h3 Rb8 19. Rd2 Qb4 20. Qd1 d5 21. exd5
Nxd5 22. Nxd5 exd5 23. Rxd5 c3 24. Rxd7 cxb2 25. Qd5+ Kh8 26. Rd8+ {
1-0 Gajewski,G-Beukema,S/Limburg NED 2012/The Week in Chess 916}) 8. Bd3 Bg7 9.
Rb1 {The move you discuss here. I really don't understand what wrong with this
line for Black is.} d6 10. Nf3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O 12. h3 Rfb8 {with idea Nf6-e8-c
7 to cover b5-square and to get a normal compensation on "a" and "b" files.}
13. Bg5 h6 14. Be3 Ne8 $44 {Nc7 will take b5-square under control, so Black
got the regular Benko compensation.} *]

Regards, Valeriy Aveskulov.

p.s. it's my first post on this forum. so if someone will tell me how more readable game text can be posted here - I will do so. I could not find that option

Dink Heckler wrote on 09/18/13 at 09:44:42:


Black gets counterplay.

The 12...Ra6 variation is analysed in the Forum section of the new NIC YB 108 by Peter Boel under the heading "Fighting the a4-Nb5 Set-Up".

But isn't white just much better organised than 'usual' if black plays slowly? No loss of time in castling by hand etc.

Either there should be something concrete for black to do earlier, or the cure may very well be worse than the disease.

In what way is Qa5 an improvement over Bxf1? Or is the point simply that it's a much less common move so it's more fun to play? At first sight it would look like white just gained a few tempi over the king walk stuff but I admit of course that this is just an unqualified first impression. Can someone explain to me the basic idea of leaving the bishop on a6?

Indeed! But what about 9. Rb1!? first with the idea to play 10.Nf3 next while avoiding this tactic? OK, White doesn't really avoid this. For example Black can still play something like  9...Nxd5 10. exd5 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Qxc3+ 12. Ke2 Qe5+ 13. Be3 Qxd5 but after say 14. Nf3 Qxa2+ 15. Kf1 Bxd3+ 16. Qxd3 d6 17. g3 O-O 18. Kg2 i still prefer White. Anyway, interesting stuff here and Black might be OK IF he plays really accurate and in the set-up i am proposing the value of the B at d3 and the R at b1 might be questionable and on the other hand this ...Qa5 manouvre is typical in other positions (for example that f4 line) but i am not convinced at all, still.

@TalJechin: Doesn't White have some improvement over the games you showed?

I don't really play the Volga/Benko for either side, but since Black seems to despair about the chances after 12.a4 I thought I'd mention the following idea with 12...Ra6 and 15....c4. That Nxd5 tactic must be sweet to play!

No! My intention is still to play 9.Nf3! With the Bd3 move you only avoid that unpleasant take at f1 and ...Qa6 idea, i was not intending to play Nge2!

Stigma wrote on 09/08/13 at 13:41:03:


Sorry, no offence intended, thought it might be a plausible explanation at the time...

I never buy from Amazon anyway...  

But since Fllg could buy it for the published price, it may be be an issue between Amazon and its Norwegian customers which Gambit may not know about. 
Perhaps it includes some customs fee for non-EU countries... Strange though that you're not allowed to buy from .de or co.uk instead.


I just did some googling and found out that Amazon even charges a few bucks from Norwegians for material that is free! 
http://weirdmage.blogspot.se/2011/02/amazons-hidden-extra-charges-does.html

edit: apparently they claim the fee is some kind of 3G roaming charge, made mandatory for some customers, even if they don't have 3G...
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/08/30/international-kindle-users-heres-ho...

Ametanoitos wrote on 09/08/13 at 01:57:08:


8.Bd3 is only a sideline in his analysis. He continues differently and concludes Black can be happy with his chances there. Again I don´t think it´s right to reveal his analysis here even if it´s only a sideline.

But I would also welcome if Gambit would decide to publish this part of the chapter for free on their website. Even if I have already paid for it. 

atticus wrote on 09/07/13 at 15:17:35:


8.Bd3! is natural and critical i think. The idea is that the typical 8...Bxd3 9.Qxd3 Qa6 is met by 10.Nb5! Qb6 11.a4. Does he look to that? My first impression is that this quick ...Qa5 is suspicious...

Chandler is a GM, though.

That´s strange. I bought it exactly at the price given on Gambit´s website.

I have the "Kindle for PC" program, but one thing really bugs me about these Kindle e-books: Every time i click on one and get sent to amazon.com, the price increases by 50-100%! I assume Amazon gives people from different countries different prices, but why are they allowed to do that? I can't see that happening with a printed book.

Plus, it makes Gambit's own pricing information on their website misleading to non-US/UK/German customers.

I never understood the point of these vague posts. Surely you should at least show where he deviates and how? You would be sharing approximately 0.1% of the 14 page analysis with us.

Fllg wrote on 09/06/13 at 17:52:51:


So much new analysis, that it cannot be watertight. But it is an interesting try in blitz

Of course it would have been very nice from Gambit and Aveskulov to present an update for free, but only because another publisher does this regularly doesn´t mean Gambit has to work the same way.

It´s not so common nowadays but there was a time when it was normal buisness that revised and updated versions of books appeared and certainly no one would have asked to get the new material for free only because he bought the first edition.

I have bought the paper version of this book and have been so curious about Aveskulov´s treatmen of 11.a4 that I was willing to spend the few extra bucks for the kindle version. But I don´t own a Kindle and wasn´t interested in buying one for this purpose.

Fortunately Amazon offers a ´Kindle for PC-App´ for free so everyone is able to read books in this format on a Windows-PC and so I orderd it.

Aveskulov´s treatment of 11.a4 is neither broad nor very deep (he doesn´t cover Nikos´ ...Ra6 from the Quality Chess newsletter) since his conclusion after month of analysis is White is better in all lines.

Instead he recommends to avoid the whole line with a deviation for Black at a very early stage which he analyses on 14 pages. I´m not going to reveal it here since Gambit and Aveskulov for now have decided otherwise but it certainly looks interesting. For now I don´t have the time for a closer look.

I agree I bought the book, and I think it should be a free update, and not to buy Kindle version.

She went out Kindle version book Attack with Black where there is analysis of 12.a4. I'm sorry if my England as bad.

Thanks Ameitatonos! I think there is enough practical counterplay now. It is += but perhaps no more. As white I will continue to play 5.b6

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/Newsletter017July2013.pgn

Ametanoitos wrote on 08/09/13 at 15:50:38:


Just had a look now Nikos, very interesting. I have a feeling the ...Ra6 line may be decent against 12.a4 also, which is maybe why Carlsen went for the 12.Qe2  move order. 

In the analysis you gave I also like 14...Rc8!? for Black instead of 14...Qb7. With ideas ...Nb6 or ...c4. This might have been played in a recent game unless I've mixed the moves up and thats been known to happen.

I intend to have a proper look at this to discover the true implications and differences between the 12.Qe2 line and the 12.a4 line.

Neric wrote on 08/20/12 at 09:12:40:


In that last line:
12.......Qb6
13.Qe2 Rfb8
14. Bd2 Qb3
15. Rhb1 Nb6
16. Ra3 Qc4
17. Qe1 "and white is consolidating his extra pawn".

I tend to also dis-agree with the assesment, but I do like the 14...Qb3 move and Blacks play up to here.

17...Qb4 and now what? Has White anything better than repaeating moves? He seems in a bit of a tangle to me. 

barnaby wrote on 03/27/13 at 15:34:41:


Can you give a brief summary, i.e. lines, which lead to nearly unplayable lines to have a starting point for discussion?

Other than the Budapest being played by Ivanchuk today you mean In general of course they're really not the right sort of openings for this sort of event. 

Have computers actually made much difference to 5 Bg5 in the Blumenfeld? I  had the impression that an awful lot the lines were very strategic.

Don't think we disagree much I can't see the benko being busted to a forced win for white or anything, but even an annoying edge which is unamusing for black to play against would deter usage to some extent.

Rather depends how hard it is to play for both sides of course.

tony37 wrote on 03/27/13 at 15:18:45:


benko, blumenfeld, budapest, albin and the like

MartinC wrote on 03/27/13 at 09:21:55:


i respectfully disagree ... we have only has these multi-cores at this level for three years and since that time many things have changed and are not going to change back

we have not lost solid black systems but almost all of the black gambits have been shown to be tenuous and bordering on unplayability  ... on the other side, we seeing that the time honored classic systems almost all lead to draws and that white does not have any lasting initiatives that lead to winning positions in any main systems unless black makes errors

Lauri Torni wrote on 03/22/13 at 10:05:41:



i think this time, with the aid of these multi-core engines, the wound may actually be gangrenous and lead to fatality

Hasn't the benko always been like that though? Sundry 'near' refutations have popped into existence over time and then eventually semi neutralised.

I've been looking at this 12. a4 line a lot the last couple of days. It certainly looks hard to equalize, if it all possible.

What I find strange, is that this move has only been played a lot from around 2010 by stronger players.
While the logic of advancing a passed pawn to a4, putting a knight on b5 and then start squeezing is not that hard to find as a plan against the Benko?

Aveskulov wrote on chess.com that he will look into 12. a4, but that was already 4 weeks ago. 
http://www.chess.com/blog/LuckyTiger/feedbacks-on-my-book

Still searching I guess 

And I just ordered "Attack with Black"....