|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-08-04 | | AgentRgent: <Bobsterman3000: Can anyone tell me why GM's seem to shy away from 4. b3 in this opening?> I don't know about GMs, but I don't mind this as Black at all. After 4. b3 bxc4 5. bxc4 Qb6! I have a +17 -0 =0 score |
|
| Sep-12-04 | | Phoenix: I'm trying to figure out why none of the top guns (2700+) are playing the Benko of late. Is it because the Nimzo/Q's Indian is solid and safe (which seems to fit most of their styles)? Or is there some novelty out there (which seems very unlikely to me). I understand there are ways for White to avoid the normal Benko pressure on the Q-side, but does that really mean anything? Also, I've noticed the initiative-seeking openings, like the KID, Grunfeld, Benoni, Benko etc., are not being played with any regularity. Of course, some of these are still doing well, I'm just talking about the elite players. |
|
| Sep-12-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: From what I've heard, the b6 countergambit (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. b6 ) and the Rb1 line (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 Bxa6 6. Nc3 g6 7. g3 d6 8. Bg2 Bg7 9. Nf3 Nbd7 10. Rb1) has been making black's life hard, but I don't think GMs played the Benko very much even before then. I play the Benko and I think it's still very much alive. =) |
|
| Sep-13-04 | | Phoenix: I don't know, those lines don't seem so horrifying to me. |
|
| Sep-22-04 | | AgentRgent: <I don't know about GMs, but I don't mind this as Black at all. After 4. b3 bxc4 5. bxc4 Qb6! I have a +17 -0 =0 score> make that +18 -0 =0 1. d4 c5 2. d5 Nf6 3. c4 b5 4. b3 bxc4 5. bxc4 Qb6 6. Qb3 g6 7. Nc3 Bg7 8. Bb2 o-o 9. Qxb6 axb6 10. f3 Ba6 11. e4 d6 12. Bd3 Nbd7 13. Nb5 Ne5 14. Bxe5 dxe5 15. Nc7 Ra7 16. Nxa6 Rxa6 17. Ne2 Rfa8 18. Nc3 Nh5 19. g3 e6 20. o-o Ra3 21. Rfc1 Bh6 22. Rc2 Be3+ 23. Kf1 Bd4 24. Rac1 Bxc3 25. Rxc3 Rxa2 26. Rd1 Rxh2 27. Kg1 Raa2 0-1 |
|
| Oct-17-04 | | HSOL: Any ideas how to play against 4.f3? |
|
| Dec-24-04 | | Gypsy: <Bobsterman3000>, after 4.b3 bxc4 5.bxc4 d6 White has two serious problems: (1) White pawns are badly overextended and (2) White is behind in development. Since there are no offseting drawbacks in Black position, White is practically loosing;
Christian Manley vs Jan Rosenberg, 2001 is a good example of the kind of trouble White is in. |
|
| Jan-17-05 | | Backward Development: The Benko is a very good and very interesting response to 1.d4. In exchange for the pawn, black gets, as usual with gambits, quick development and open lines, but in addition on this one, black gets a strong endgame(!). The pressure down the a and b files is also an initiative that lasts through the game. A very interesting conception by the great Benko, who's biography I've heard is excellent btw. |
|
Jan-18-05
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: I played the Benko on occasion in both OTB and correspondence chess, but only against weaker players--won every game (three or four total). However, the games were totally bizarre. For example, in one game, the winning move was ...0-0-0! Your eyes are fine; I did in fact castle Queen side as Black in a Benko. |
|
| Jan-18-05 | | Backward Development: Englishman...
castle queenside????
in a Benko????
wow.
that's like
"I castled Queenside in a dragon!"
or
"I castled Queenside as white in a Najdorf Poisoned Pawn!" craziness... |
|
Jan-19-05
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: Backward Development, I had the curious stylistic quirk of playing funny moves. In one game (a Botvinnik English), I played 20.Ke4 versus a Master who was expecting the move--and the entire tournament hall burst into laughter. I still don't get the joke. I had isolated pawns on d5 and f5, and since Black had pawns on d6, e5, and f6, my King was safer on e4 than anywhere else. This also freed my Queen to join in my winning King side attack. Perfectly logical. |
|
| Feb-04-05 | | Backward Development: anybody own the Batsford book on the Benko? saw it in a used book store and will probably go pick it up, but how is it? I've got the Batsford 'Ultimate Dragon' series, and those seem to be a little high on theory and low on explanation, IMO. |
|
Feb-04-05
| | An Englishman: Good Evening: B.D., I used the Batsford book in conjunction with Benko's to learn how to play the gambit. Although the theory is quite old, the Batsford book is still useful, with a good selection of games and explanation of typical play for both sides. However, it did not teach me to castle Queen side. |
|
| Feb-07-05 | | Backward Development: well, i picked it up. I wasn't only compelled to get it because i wanted to play it, but because I've been cold turkey on 1.d4 for a while, not least because of the Benko. It seems that the b6 lines are the most dangerous, and the book does have a CONSIDERABLY higher number of explanations when compared to the "Ultimate Dragon" series. I suppose with a name like that, I shouldn't have expected for it to be "Starting out:The Dragon" or something. The Dragon is a 'spicy meatball', and what i picked up was probably intended to be a theoretical manual to the frequent practicioner. I played a game last week where I used a 'Benko-ish' concept in it. On the black side of a Bird Stonewall formation, I sacked my g-pawn to take the only open file and create threats compelling white to totally bury his dark-square bishop. It was apparently a very good sac since even materialistic Fritz preferred my position during the game. Unfortunately, while making the plan, i used almost all of my time and failed to find the correct plan afterwards. I should have converted my advantage in mobility into a more open position, rather than repeat moves and let my opponent break through. Oh well, good game anyways. I guess it wasn't really a Benkoish idea since i had a LESS compact structure after it, but the idea of positional sacrifice intrigued me...
Here's the game anyway ...I'll analyze it later
White-NN(1500-ish)
Black-Backward Development(less than 1500-ish)
Time Control-G\100
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. e3 e6 5. Ne5 Bd6 6.Be2 c6 7. O-O Nbd7 8. f4 Ne4 9. Nxe4 Bxe4 10. Bd3 Nf6 11. Qe1 Qc7 12. Qg3 O-O-O 13. Bxe4 Nxe4 14. Qxg7 Rdf8 15. a4 f5 16. Qxc7+ Kxc7 17. Nf3 Rfg8 18. Bd2 Rg7 19. Be1 Rhg8 20. g3 h5 21. Kh1 Kd7 22. c3 Bc7 23. Rc1 Bd6 24. Rc2 Bc7 25. c4 Bd6 26. cxd5 exd5 27. Nd2 Nxd2 28. Rxd2 Re7 29. Rd3 Re6 30. Bd2 Be7 31. Rb3 Kc7 32. Ba5+ Kc8 33. Bd2 Kc7 34. Rd3 Bd6 35. b4 Rge8 36. Rc1 Kd7 37. b5 Rc8 38.bxc6+ Rxc6 39. Rxc6 Kxc6 40. Kg2 b6 41. Rc3+ Kd7 42. Kf3 Be7 43. Rc2 Rc6 44.Rb2 Rc4 45. a5 Kc6 46. h3 b5 47. g4 hxg4+ 48. hxg4 fxg4+ 49.Kxg4 b4 50. Kf5 Kd6 51. Bxb4+ Kd7 52. Bxe7 1-0 |
|
May-03-05
 | | Eric Schiller: <ALL> On the name of the gambit, Pal Benko himself has the clearest view (from a Yahoo group discussion): "It is hardly possible to state precisely who first adopted the
gambit. Some Swedish sources mention that it first occurred there in
the 1920s ........Stolz and Lundin also used it.
The earliest examples of the gambit in serious competition are the
games Bronstein-Lundin, Szabo-Lundin (1948) , and Tajmanov-Bronstein
(1953), which are analyzed below."
In those games the b5 pawn sacrifices happened, but Black did not
play the gambit like me. Therefore we have never found out who played
it first and so it is irrelevant. Alekhine said that: It is not
important who played it first, but who made it well known or popular. Like the Alekhine Defence, which was played before him, and he played
it only 3 times, or the Marshall Gambit only once, not to mention
the Breyer Variation, which he never played but just recommended. In my book (1973) you can find about 30 games from me playing the
Gambit even against GMs, like Portisch , Gligoric etc. consistently
and successfully.
The so called Volga Gambit (there is no such player or city) is also
explained in my book.
"Volga Gambit refers only to the treatment of the pawn sacrifice with
Black playing an early e6, which is rather similar to the old
Blumenfeld Gambit. ........
Taimanov's book , Damengambit bis Hollandish, published in German in
1970, and the Russian magazine Shakhmathny Bulletin (1971,#5) treats
only the Volga Gambit (with e6 by Black.) .......
It is pity to confuse these two openings which have completely
different goals. "
"In the beginning I tried to popularize this opening under the name
Benoni Countergambit , but the name did not stick as players began to
call it the Benko Gambit. I must add, of course, that I have never
claimed to have been the first to adopt it; in the chapter dealing
with the history of the gambit I explain its origins in international
chess. "
I hope you will stop this fruitless debate and just play the Gambit. Best regards: Pal Benko
|
|
| May-03-05 | | dragon40: <Backward development> I own the Batsford book on the Benko Gambit, and think it is excellent!! The book breaks down all the main lines very well, and also gives good treatment to the other, lesser known lines for White and Black as well. Byron Jacobs does a god job explaining the objectives of both White and Black in the book and gives several good examples of typical middle game positions that White/black will aim for and should want from this opening.
Overall, I think it is a great book, and you should grab it if you can :) |
|
| Jun-04-05 | | Gypsy: <In those games the b5 pawn sacrifices happened, but Black did not play the gambit like me. [Benko]> Talk about splitting hairs. Here are the games: Szabo vs E R Lundin, 1948
Bronstein vs E R Lundin, 1948
Taimanov vs Bronstein, 1953. They feel like "Benko" through and through. |
|
| Aug-18-05 | | notyetagm: What is the Epishin Variation of the Benko Gambit?
|
|
| Nov-14-05 | | refutor: what's the advantage to playing the blumenfeld gambit v. the benko gambit (generally ...e6 v. ...g6)? |
|
| Nov-14-05 | | refutor: i believe the epishin variation is the 10.Rb1 with the fianchetto as in Epishin vs S Halkias, 2001 |
|
| Nov-15-05 | | Dim Weasel: Thanks for the information <refutor>. To your other post: I don't know about the Blumenfeld, but I think that if black plays e6 and no g6 the play will be very different from Benko, where fianchettoed KB is an essential part of black's setup. |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | CapablancaFan: This gambit just dosen't seem sound to me. I think the theory behind this opening is that if 4.cxb5 then white's d5 pawn will be forced to be defended with pieces because e4 is not possible due to the knight guarding that square, but then can't white just prepare this pawn push with Qc2? Yes, I know it forces white to use up a tempo but is that adequate compensation? Can someone help me out here? |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | RookFile: It's more than that. White often
gets e4 in without a lot of difficulty.
Black has a positional advantage of 1
large pawn island rather than two separated islands, a great bishop on g7 controlling e5, and rooks that go to the a and b files to keep black's queenside at bay. I'm a little surprised that you write
this, because Nimzo played 1. e4 against Capa, and middlegame play transposed into something very similar to the modern Benko Gambit, where white already has his e4 in. Capa won easily: Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1914
Patrick Wolff said that white tends to
win with a scheme involving something like Na4 and Bc3 in a lot of these games. That Bc3 usually means things
are going bad for black.
|
|
Dec-08-05
 | | Sneaky: This is from the B-class of a weekend tournament a long time ago. It was a horrible tournament for me but I went home with at least one tiny rough gem: Sneaky vs NN
circa 1996
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. Nc3
click for larger viewA position to remember for those who love (or hate) the Benko. Black now is virtually forced to play into 5...axb5 6.e4 b4 7.Nb5 d6 (7...Nxe4?? 7.Qe2 f5 8.f3 Nf6 9.Nd6# ha!) where White's knight on b5 is a headache for both White and Black! But instead, my opponent was fearful of leaving the narrow repertoire he studied, and so he tries to transpose back into somewhat normal Benko lines. 5...d6?
A horrible move, but even strong players do this when faced with unusual moves in their favorite opening. Now the position resembles a "normal" Benko gambit position, except that (1) White can play e4 in one shot, and (2) there is no fear of losing castling rights. In short, it's a vastly inferior version of the Benko! 6. e4 g6 7. f4 Bg7 8. e5!?
click for larger view<his is a risky move which is not necessary. I'm note sure what the final analysis of this bold play might be, but I know what I like. 8... dxe5 9. fxe5 Nfd7 (9...Ng4 is more testing) 10. e6 fxe6 11. dxe6 Nb6 12. Qxd8+ Kxd8 13. Be3 Bd4 14. O-O-O Bxe6 
click for larger viewI could have a very comfortable winning position with simply Nge2 here, but I found a tactic which forced the matter even quicker: 15. Rxd4+! cxd4 16. Bxd4 (FORKED!) Rf8 17. Bxb6+ Kc8 18. Nf3 1-0 |
|
| Dec-08-05 | | KingG: <Sneaky> What would you have played after 10...Ne5 ? It's not clear to me that you have that much of an advantage, certainly Black could have some counterplay against your king. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
