Jupp53 wrote on 10/02/19 at 00:25:22:

Simply to help locate the relevant game in the mass of stuff that Gambit posted in #25. He did give 3...e5 at B1, but after 4.a3 black played 4...d6. 3...Nc6 4.a3 e5 was at B4.

Jupp53 wrote on 10/02/19 at 00:25:22:

I don't care for most of the games, but I do care for the game which intersects with ReneDescartes's analysis. It's not fair to ignore something already posted if it is relevant, even if it is obscured by a mass of irrelevant stuff.

Jupp53 wrote on 09/29/19 at 23:58:21:

Well, via 1.d4 c5 2.Nf3 cxd4 3.b4 Nc6 4.a3 e5, Gambit gave a game Zilbermints - Diamond, 1996, with 5.c3! (his exclam) that ReneDescartes did not directly address.

• Diamond played 5...Nf6.
• I guess ReneDescartes wanted to play 5...dxc3 but then 6.Nxc3 and there is a hole on d5. So white gets something for the pawn, precisely how much compensation is of course open to debate.
• One curious possibility is 5...a6!? tit for tat 6.cxd4 e4 7.Ne5 (7.d5 Nxb4 8.Ng5 Qf6) 7...Ne7 with a tense position.

Diemer's political views leave much to be desired. That being said, his chess was rather interesting and adventuresome. Same with Fischer, whose political views were radical and anti-Semitic. However, Fischer's chess games are still studied.

All this being said, how about you get away from the computer? Sit at the chessboard and try the Zilbermints Benoni in an over-the-board match. The move order can be 1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4 or more frequently, 1 Nf3 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 b4.  See what happens.

You'd be surprised how effective the Grob can be at club level for mainly psychological reasons.  I've faced it several times with Black and have had a significant minus score, often as a result of getting complacent because "we all know it isn't really that good".  My opponents tended to deviate from established lines with 2.e3 or 2.h3, not letting me get into lines such as 1.g4 e5 2.Bg2 h5, or 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4 dxc4 4.Bxb7 Nd7 5.Bxa8 Qxa8.  Some players develop normally but make the mistake of castling kingside too early and presenting White with a ready-made kingside pawn storm.  1.d4 c5 2.b4 could have the same psychological effect, though if White wants to meet 1.d4 c5 with a gambit, 2.e4 is a rather sounder way of doing so - Stockfish 9 assesses this transposition into the Morra as one of White's five best moves in the position, though not as good as 2.d5.

Stockfish 9 also offers 3...d5 as a good alternative against 1.d4 c5 2.b4 cxd4 3.Nf3, so I took a closer look at this line.  One idea is that 4.Nxd4?! can be met by 4...e5 with a strong central pawn roller.  White did win against it in the Zilbermints Benoni tournament with 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qb2 in Blankenberg-Sardi, when 5...a6 6.e3 e5 7.Nxe5 Bxb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2+ 9.Nxd2 gave White a decent game, but there is no need to voluntarily trade the e-pawn for the white b-pawn.  Black has the edge after 5...e6 or 5...Nf6.

The only question after the reply 3...e5 is how much worse white is after only three moves. Trumps the Grob.
It's not an opening to recommend to the neighbourhood kids. Or indeed to anyone who is not a fan of self-combusting.

One to avoid. Next.

@ReneDescartes, your moves are very logical and I would be happy to play that way as black, but the game is not over. 1. d4 c5 2. b4 cxd4 3. Nf3 e5 4. Nxe5 Bxb4+ 5. c3 dxc3 6. Qb3 Qe7 Stockfish suggests 7. a3 is -0.8. White is getting one pawn back and has some slight compensation for the remaining pawn minus.
Edited:

@kylemeister, I also saw that quote, which seemed a little ironic to me, considering some of the drek Schiller advocated in Gambit Opening Repertoire for White. Of course 2. b4 is bad, but in a way it is also good, because it is not as bad as it looks at first glance. I pushed the pieces around a bit, thinking "there must be some simple refutation", but it was not too easy. And some players become completely unhinged when their opponent seems to be "getting away with" a bad move. Don't forget the etymology of "gambit".
Edited:

In this "gambit," White gives himself, not his opponent, development problems, a central inferiority, or both.

1.d4 c5 2.b4 cxd4 3.Nf3 e5. Now the stated 4.a3 grants Black a big central preponderance. Black can just develop and support the d-pawn with 4...Nc6: White won't be able to dislodge the knight with b5 because of ...Qa5+ and Qxb4. If White now develops according to his evident plan with 5.Bb2, Black plays 5...d5 with a monstrous center. White can reduce it to a merely ideal center with ...c3 or ...e3, but then Black develops very smoothly with ...Nf6, ..Be6 and ...Bd6 in some order, and White isn't even ahead in development for his center pawn!

More sane is capturing the e-pawn with 4.Nxe5 Bxb4+, but then by responding to the check White gives himself terrible problems developing. 5.Nd2 planning to fianchetto doesn't work because  5...Nf6 6. Bb2 Ne4 (the big issue) and 7.Nf3 (forced) is met by Qf6! when the Nf3 is overloaded.

On the other hand, after 5.Bd2 Bc5, how is White going to develop his queen's knight? 6.Nd3 Bb6 (or 6...d6 straightening out the pawn structure) and again ...Nf6 followed by ...Ne4, Nxd2 and ...Ba5 is a dominant threat.

So after 4.Nxe5 Bxb4+, White has to block with 5.c3 dxc3. White can't play Nxc3 to gain time. He can try 5.Qb3 to support Nxc3, but 5...Qe7 defends the bishop and forces White's knight back, losing any time he will gain. Again, White be ahead neither in development nor in the center.

These long lines from rapid games between non-masters are useless after move 4, 5, or 6. But I like the way Gambit managed to slip the words "Zilbermints Benoni" into Chessbase by naming a tournament that.