Domdaniel: And so, eight years since the last post here, we take up the Benoni theoretical cudgels once again. Because the CG admins, in their wisdom, thought that this might be the best place for such a discussion, and certainly better than the CG User Support Forum.Can't argue with that. Though, personally, I think anyone who still relies on the Benoni might need a lot of User Support.
Just joking. As openings go, this one has mythic status. Back in the 1970s, it was the subject of Stefan Zeuthen's book 'Modern Benoni: Survey of a Structure' which is still among the most conceptually advanced opening books ever written. Back then, most people thought of openings as move sequences, not *structures*. Zeuthen was ahead of his time.
Of course, every opening has a pawn structure associated with it, and books sometimes devote some space to it, its problems and advantages -- light and dark-square complexes, development and piece paths, and so on. But to think of an opening in structural terms is still quite advanced.
Speaking of people who were ahead of their time, I noted that the selection of early Benoni games here did not include that Ur-Benoni classic, Nimzowitsch vs Marshall, 1927 -- where both players, over the board, came up with plans and maneuvers that remain sound. Nimzowitsch's idea of playing Nf3-d2 with an eye on c4 would not have been obvious to many players, but has been theory ever since.
Of course, that game is [A61] and this page is for [A60].
In OTB games, if Black plays 2...c5, I would expect a Benko Gambit to follow. The move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 is a safer way into the Benoni complex ... unless one is willing to play it as Black after 3.Nc3, when White has some very aggressive options such as f4, with moves like e5 and Bb5+ (the infamous Flick-knife) to follow.
I know it can be seen as a classic case of Heroic Defence vs possible White over-extension. I just prefer not to risk it.
