It is in one of the "Chess Evolution" books published by Quality Chess. I am not sure which issue though.... Propably #5?   

buffos wrote on 09/26/13 at 06:22:09:


Can you please indicate which is this "simple plan with a clear advantage" as honestly i cannot see it. Maybe you are right that the Petrov lines stop too early, but what he meant about the computer evaluation is that despite the computer seems to favor White, Black has no problems to hold equality or adequate counterplay. The same happens with the King's Indian Defence, where always computers favor White, but in most of the cases Black is fine.

Ametanoitos wrote on 06/20/13 at 08:18:52:


I have also compared the two.  Dreev looks at Petrov's ideas and finds some improvements for White.  Most of these move the evaluation from equal or unclear to slightly better for White (+/=), but there is no major refutation of any of Petrov's lines.  

A few examples:  

EX. 1:

In the MML with 9..b5 10.Nxb5 Re8 11.0-0 Nxe4 12.Re1 a6, Petrov looks at 13.Na3, 13.Qa4, and 13.Rxe4 but not Dreev's main suggestion of 13.Nc3.  This should have been included, even if it hadn't been as popular in practice at the time Petrov's book was written. But, in any event, Nikos has now analyzed this line in the QC newsletter.

Petrov's main line is 13.Na3, which has historically been the most popular move.  He follows the game Palliser-Kononenko, Plovidiv 2010, which led to equality for Black.  Dreev also looks at this line, and claims that Kononenko's 17..Qb6 fails to equalize.  This may not be that big of a deal, since both Petrov and Dreev seem to agree that 17..Qd7 is playable for Black.  After 17..Qd7, Petrov gives several moves from Polak-Simacek, Decin 2009, and says its equal.  Dreev looks at 17..Qd7 in more depth, considers not only the Polak game, but other White and Black alternatives, and ultimately says its unclear.          

The position after 17..Qb6 is nonetheless interesting.  Dreev's main line goes: 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Re1! Kg7 [19..Bd7 looks tempting, but leads to fairly forcing play that Dreev shows favors White after 19.Qf4 Bxb5 20.Bxb5.]  20.Na3 Bb7 21.Qe4 Nd7 22.Nc4 Qc7 23.Qf4 reaching a critical position where, in practical play, ok, I'd rather be White.  

But is the position really better for White?  Dreev gives 23..Nb6 and says it is, but there are two other tries to consider.  First, I thought to try 23..Bxd5.  Now, 24.Nxd6 [24..Kg8 sidestepping the Ne8 check is also playable, but after looking at this for a while its slightly better for White.]  24..Qc6!? 25.Ne8+ Rxe8 26.Rxe8 Bxb2.  My engine still likes White here, but Black maybe has some compensation.  Second, Black can play 23..Rf8, my engine's suggestion.  The engine thinks it is close to equalizing after 24.Qxd6 [24.Nxd6 Qb8] 24..Qxd6 25.Nxd5 Bxd5 26.Ne8 Kg8 27.Nxf6 Nxf6 28.b3 Rd8.  White should be a little better given the weak Black c-pawn, but perhaps Black holds.  

EX. 2

In the 9..b5 10.Bxb5 line, Dreev offers a few improvements on Petrov's analysis.  After 10..Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Qa5+ 12.Nfd2 Qxb5 13.Nxd6 Qa6 14.N2c4 Nd7 15.0-0 Ne5 16.Nxc8 Raxc8 17.Nxe5 Bxe5 18.Re1 there are two main continuations:  18..Qd6 and 18..Rfe8.  

After 18..Qd6, Petrov looks at 19.Bh6.  Dreev gives a number of White options (including 19.Bh6, which both agree is equal), but his main recommendation is his own novelty, 19.Qa4!?, which he analyzes as leading to a "slight edge" for White owing to Black's weak pawns.  It's not much of an edge, though.  Dreev himself notes that, while White can set problems for Black,  White can't "count on having much."  

After 18..Rfe8, Petrov's main line continues 19.Bg5 Bd4 20.Rb1 and he also considers other White alternatives.  He does not, however, cover 20.Bf4!? which is Dreev's main line and, although Dreev does not indicate it, again appears to be a novelty.  Dreev concludes that this move leads to +/= "with superior prospects for White."  As Black here, I would play 20..Qf6, pressuring b2, which to me seems OK for Black.  But perhaps I am wrong.     

I think more important than Dreev's analysis of this line is his comment on it.  He notes that, while it is not easy for White to obtain a big advantage in these positions, he has "much the easier game."  Black has to stay accurate to hold, a slip can mean disaster, and White is still up a pawn.  

Having played this line with both colors, I think this is especially true at amateur level.  These lines are cheerless for Black and, at least for me, not what I am looking for when I play the Benoni.   Why I usually try Watson's 9..Nh5 in my own games.

   

Sorry for forgetting to answering this. I prefer 9...Nh5, but 9...b5 is a safer bet for equal chances. Only when you need to win, after 9...b5 the position gets so simplified that you can do nothing against a decently prepared opponent.

I raised my chess level significantly when i followed my coach's advice to study the KID. He suggested as well that there is no point in studying the KID if you don't have a good knowledge (at least of the basic-ideas level) on the Benoni Systems (Modern, Old and Benko).

As i see things today, the Modern Benoni is in its best theoretical shape ever! The f4 lines are not a big concern, neither are the classical lines. Maybe the fianchetto is more critical now than ever, but also there Black is doing at least OK. But, Modern Benoni is not KID (in my eyes). It is a great samplement for KID and a good opening to play today, but KID is a love that can last a lifetime...

I have done. Dreev offers some new ideas, but there is no major concern for the followers of the GM12. Check the fothcoming QC newsletter for that.

MartinC wrote on 05/29/13 at 11:52:29:


He does.  I've been going through the book on my iPad.  The book is very good, but I am not used to the e-reader and that is making it hard for me to really get into the book.  I will try this weekend to look at some of the positions on a board, but I'm thinking I may spring for a hard copy.  Anyway, when I get a chance to dive deeper into the analysis, I'll post some concrete impressions.