|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-28-05 | | Mefisto6: Mefisto6: Most of the comments here are merely theoretical. The benoni is perfectly playable against players rated -2400 and even above. A good way to avoid the taimanov attack is to play 1. .. e6 e.g. 1. d4 e6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 exd5 4. cxd4 d6 5. Nc3 g6 6. e4 Bg7 7. f4 a6!
another benefit of playing 1. .. e6 is that you play Ne7 and a quick f5 against the modern main line (h3 Nf3 Bd3) |
 |
| Apr-28-05 | | Backward Development: Indeed. There are many move orders to play the modern benoni that might be theoretically superior to 2...c5. The most common is to play 1...Nf6 and 2...e6, but if 3.Nc3, the taimanov can't really be avoided.
A King's Indian move order seems to be more acceptable.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 c5 7. d5 e6 8. O-O exd5 9. cxd5 and you've reached the classical variation of the Benoni, it's about equal. I also recently played against another move order, delaying e6.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 and Black plays ...e6 transposing into Modern Benoni avoiding the taimanov line<although not the 4 pawns.> |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Achilles: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6
7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+
How about 9...Bd7 somebody says Black is in the worst problem how?? after 10.after e4 .....Nh4 whats comes up kindly give me some games that proved black is in trouble!!! |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | Achilles: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6
7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+
How about 9...Bd7 somebody says Black is in the worst position how?? after 10.after e4 .....Nh4 whats comes up kindly give me some games that proved black is in trouble!!! |
|
| Dec-08-05 | | MoonlitKnight: The refutation of 8...Nbd7 that was presented by <BiLL RobeRTiE> on Mar-03-04 is in fact a forced draw with correct play. In fact, I recently played a game myself in this line which showed proof of that point. In the game, my opponent, rated over 200 points higher than me, quickly had to agree to a draw after he had played the so-called refutation: [Event "Norwegian team championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2005.12.04"]
[Round "2"]
[White "James Steedman"]
[Black "Haakon Strand"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A67"]
[WhiteElo "2232"]
[BlackElo "1986"]
[PlyCount "48"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4 Bg7 8. Bb5+
Nbd7 9. e5 dxe5 10. fxe5 Nh5 11. e6 Qh4+ 12. g3 Nxg3 13. hxg3 Qxh1 14. Be3
Bxc3+
<Also playable is 14...0-0, but after 15.exd7 Bxd7 16.Bxd7 Rae8 17.Bxe8 Rxe8 18.Qe2! (not 18.Kd2 Bxc3+ 19.bxc3 Qxd5+ 20.Kc1 Qxd1+! 21. Kxd1 Rxe3 with about equal play) white should be close to winning.> 15. bxc3 a6 16. exd7+ Bxd7 17. Bxd7+ Kxd7 18. Qb3 b5 19. O-O-O Rhe8 20.
Bxc5
<Here we arrive at the position which is supposed to be "much better for white" according to several sources. The best continuation is probably 18.Qg4+ f5 19.Qf3 with reasonable saving chances for black, as in S Ernst vs Stellwagen, 2003; 20...Qg2! <A key move, which ties down the white forces.> 21. d6 Re6 22. Ba3 Rc8 23. Bb4 Qxg3?! <Heading for the draw. After 23...Rc4, black is slightly better.> 24. Qd5 Rxc3+
<I played this move almost instantly, accompanied by a draw offer, since it had been a key part of my plan all along. To my horror, I suddenly discovered that white had 25.Kb1 Rc6 26.Qxc6+ Kxc6 27.d7, but after a little more thought I found 27...Qf4 28.d8=Q Qxb4+ with a perpetual. In the post-mortem we realized there was even a win for black with 27...Re4! 28.Ba5 Rd4!! A more interesting continuation, however, would have been 26.Nf3, but with the help of Fritz, this line has been analyzed to a forced draw after 26...Qf4 27.Nd4 Rexd6 28.Bxd6 Rxd6 29.Qb7+ Ke8 30.Qc8+ Ke7 31.Re1+ Kf6 32.Qh8+ Kg5 33.Rg1+ Kh6 34.Qf8+ Kh5 35.Rh1+ Kg4 36.Qe7 Rxd4! since the rook and three passers are more than enough compensation for the queen.> 1/2-1/2 |
|
| Dec-13-05 | | sucaba: In J Rowson vs R Palliser, 2005, after
8. _  bd7 9. e5 dxe5 10. fxe5 h5 11. e6  h4+ 12. g3 xg3 13. hxg3 xh1 14.  e3 xc3+ 15. bxc3 a6 16. exd7+ xd7 17. xd7+  xd7 18. g4+ f5 19. f3 xf3 20. xf3  ae8 Rowson played 21. d2. To keep the in the center where it can support the c and d seems to be an improvement on the more often played 21. f2.
Although this ending is drawish anyway.
In G Burgess vs J Anderson, 1985, Burgess himself gave 4 checks in a row 14. exd7+ xd7 15. xd7+ xd7 16. g4+ f5 17. a4+ c8 18. e3  .
I don't understand why this prosperous looking line hasn't been tried recently. |
|
| Dec-13-05 | | MoonlitKnight: <sucaba> Instead of Anderson's 18...Bh6, Bxc3+ followed by either Qxd5 or Qg2 seems like a more modern approach, though I agree white's position still looks promising. I guess the reason why this hasn't been tried is simply the fact that very few strong players will even consider playing 8...Nbd7. |
|
| May-16-06 | | WTHarvey: Here is a little collection of zaps and traps from Taimanov miniatures: http://www.wtharvey.com/a67.html What's the best move? |
|
| Aug-30-06 | | yanez: I think black has a good position after 8...Nfd7 9.a4 0-0 10.Nf3 Na6 11.0-0 Nb4 12.h3 f5 |
|
Aug-31-06
 | | Albertan: Another triumph for the Taimanov variation:
[Event "It"]
[Site "Hereford ENG"]
[Date "2006.08.29"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Wells, P."]
[Black "Palliser, R."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A67"]
[WhiteElo "2480"]
[BlackElo "2413"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "2006.08.29"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5
5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 9.e5 dxe5 10.fxe5 Nh5 11.e6 Qh4+
12.g3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qxh1 14.Be3 Bxc3+ 15.bxc3 a6 16.exd7+ Bxd7 17.Bxd7+ Kxd7 18.Qg4+ f5 19.Qf3 Qxf3 20.Nxf3 Rhe8 21.Kf2 Re4 22.Ng5 Ra4 23.Nxh7 Rh8
24.Rh1 Kd6 25 Bf4+ Kxd5 26.Nf6+ Ke6 27.Rxh8 Kxf6 28.Rc8 Rxa2+ 29.Ke3 g5 30.Bb8 Ra5 31.Kd3 Ke6 32.Rg8 Kf6 1-0 The first 21 moves in this game were known theory then on move 22 Palliser appears to have played a theoretical novelty 22...Ra4 (before this game the move 22...Rc4 had only been played). |
|
| Oct-25-06 | | soughzin: Great post and game MoonlitKnight. Do you know if the move 12.Kd2 is drawn as well? 12...fxe6 13.dxe6 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 0-0 15.Nf3(15.exd7 Bxd7 16.Bxd7 Rf2 17.Ne2 Rd8) But black can invert the moves a little. 13...0-0 14.exd7 Bxd7 15.Bxd7 Bxc3+ 16.Kxc3 since the light squared bishop can't be forked by the queen now. 16...Qb4+ 17.Kc2 Rf2+ 18.Ne2 Qe4+ 19.Qd3 Rxe2+ 20.Bd2 And now it's less forced but 20...Nf6 21.Qxe4 Nxe4 22.Rad1 Rd8 23.Rhe1 Rxd2+ 24.Rxd2 Nxd2 And it looks like a drawn endgame. phew thats a mouthful!
|
|
Oct-26-06
 | | plang: It is interesting that the variation is named after Taimanov as there is only one game by him here. |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | RookFile: I'm more inclined to play ....c5 after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 than against 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 |
|
| Oct-26-06 | | nikolajewitsch: It is not that odd, considering that there are numerous examples of lines being named after players who have never played them. |
|
| Aug-31-09 | | WhiteRook48: 8...Nbd7 9 e5 allows white to set the board on fire
8...Nfd7 has only a small plus for white |
|
Sep-07-09
 | | Phony Benoni: <plang: It is interesting that the variation is named after Taimanov as there is only one game by him here.> Which probably indicates nobody was anxious to let him play it again! |
|
| Nov-23-09 | | CruyffTurn: This might a stupid question, but... what does White play against 7...Bg4 - I met it last night in a blitz game - can anyone show me how to refute Black's plan? I played 8.Bb5+ Nfd7 9.Qc2 and won in the end, but it got me thinking that it <7...Bg4> might not be such a bad move. |
|
Apr-02-11
 | | jahhaj: <CruyffTurn> 8.Qa4+ looks good. 8...Qd7 loses to 9.Bb5, 8...Nbd7 loses to 9.h3, 8...Nfd7 9.Be3 threatening 10.h3. That leaves 8...Bd7 9.Qb3 when Black's pieces are in a tangle. |
|
| Apr-02-11 | | Penguincw: Opening of the Day:
Benoni, Taimanov Variation
1.d4 f6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.c3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 g7 8.b5+ |
|
May-04-13
| | Phony Benoni: Gosh. I was feeling better before I saw the Opening of the Day. |
|
May-04-13
 | | perfidious: <bens oni.....The decalaration of the Benoni being unsound is little more than a typical arrogance often seen in certain circles....I think that the successful use of the Benoni by GMs from Tal to Fischer to a young Kasparov to Psakhis to Topalev and a number of others is refutation enough of that arrogance....> One should note that Psakhis wrote that he came to adopt the Modern Benoni only after the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 or 3.g3, so as to avoid the Taimanov. This speaks of a healthy respect for this line. |
|
May-04-13
| | perfidious: <Phony Benoni>: With any luck, I shall find more of my old games from the 1980s for the DB (not that I've any desire to add to your discomfiture). There were a few interesting ones back then in this, my speciality vs the Modern Benoni. |
|
May-04-13
| | perfidious: <Phony Benoni>: In this variation's favour, regardless of the result, is that it leads to more entertaining games than another ECO code 67 (C67, the Berlin Wall). |
|
May-04-13
| | Phony Benoni: <perfidious> I really don't mind if you submit more of your crushes in this line. Black's best chances are psychological. If White has the impression it's an easy win, he may play slowly and safely instead of aggressively, and then Black may find counterplay. Just to pump one of my own games: J Patty vs D Moody, 1988. With my style, I had to try the 8...Nbd7 line a few times, where White needs to play the first fourteen or so moves correctly to avoid getting into trouble. Unfortuately, all my opponents seemed to know the moves, or perhaps they are just so natural that learning is not necessary. (P.S. Regarding the PCN inquiry: I used to own several volumes of the PCN Annual. Then again, I used to own a lot of stuff before selling it off. Idiot.) |
|
May-04-13
| | perfidious: <Phony Benoni> In 1980, I won a game with Jim Rizzitano in the 8....Nbd7 line, in which we were both familiar with existing theory IIRC; I achieved a winning position and we exchanged blunders, thus proving the aphorism that the winner of a game is the player who makes the last but one mistake. My only game on CG in the Taimanov is A Shaw vs C Chase, 1984, though Chris' defence was hardly exemplary and this game does not show his play in the best light. He had two wins that I recall as well vs my Taimanov, including our final meeting of twenty or so, in 1989. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
