My hat's off to you. Thank you for all the time and effort that you three have put in here.

Luke Li - Richard Taylor

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 e6 4. Nc3 exd5 5. cxd5 d6 6. e4 g6 7. f4 Bg7 8. Bb5+ Nfd7 9. a4

click for larger view

Now I lost the game. I have played the Benoni quite a lot, and in fact with it I won against Antonio Krstev who is 2135 ELO but he played 8. Bf4 (a6)...but in this other game ( with the Taimanov line) I got into a dispute that I had not played the best line as now I played

9. ... 0-0 10. Nf3 Bg4 13. Qc2

and here I think as did my opponent is that I should have taken on f3 i.e. 13 ... Bxe3 etc as his knight then went to d32 and on on.

I was bit rusty on this line but I cant see that the check

9. ... Qh4+ 10. g3 Qe7 (or d8)
is necessarily better.

The data base here seems to be divided on it.

But I feel it was bit silly to blame the loss of my game on my not playing 9....Qh4+ (sure it would be good if I had remembered that line...) but I think 9. ... 0-0 is quite reasonable.

You and or other Benoni people might know.

Also there is almost a "superstition" that the Taimanov is just about killing the Benoni but I don't see that at all.

click for larger view

Here is the position after the check...I can see merits in it but it is not hugely better than e.g. the position below?

click for larger view

There's an aesthetic to such activity that does indeed relegate "relevance" to the category of "spin-off.">

Yes, there is a kind of enjoyment of in ordering my own books (Not chess book only as I have biggish collection of say literature and poetry (and lit crit etc), some history, art, and even some science). Children like to do that also. I think that sorting and ordering is something many of us love to do...Maybe it helps us feel more in control and also we need such a process for survival. Even animals do it (much more than we commonly think). And we are animals, albeit rather strange ones! Homo chessens!

An interesting book on libraries and books by the way is:

"The Library at Night" by Alberto Manguel.

Patty John vs D Moody, 1988

[Event "North Shore Open 2008"]
[Site "North Shore,Auckland,N.Z."]
[Date "2008.08.30"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Stephen Lukey"]
[Black "Richard Taylor"]
[Result "0-1"]

click for larger view

click for larger view

White resigned.

I looked up my record against the Taimanov: +6 -10 =2. That doesn't sound promising, but on the whole my opponents were rated over 100 points higher than I was, making it a reasonable result.

Looking back, I seem to favor the 9.a4 0-0 variation, followed by the ...Na6-c7 maneuver. It doesn't make sense to my mind to play ...a6 after White plays a4.

I guess 9...Qh4+ is considered 'theoretically" best, but that doesn't mean we should always play it if we don't comprehend or trust it. Certainly you did not lose the game by failing to play it.

The Taimanov is a powerful weapon. It's sharp, so when Black has to waste a move with ...Nf6-d7-f6, White gains time to blast open the center with consequences often fatal for Black.

That being said, it is not a simple, forced win. White has advantages in space and time, but Black still has much of the counterplay associated with the Benoni.

At the highest levels, White is likely to have the technique needed to exploit his advantages while minimizing Black's counterplay. Lower-rated players are more likely to have accidents. I think that's why the Benoni is rare in GM play, but still playable down where we play.

Thanks for these points. Other players at the tourney were implying my 0-0 instead of the Q check was why I lost!

And they are too much in awe of the Taimanov. Now Taimanov himself was great player...but I don't see that system as too dangerous (although i take your point it is sharp but (more ) so is the advance or "pawn storm" line) especially at my ~ level of play when players are no more than 2300 or so. A lot are maybe say 1700, 1800 or whatever. So they are more or less mostly ordinary club or tourney players...

I will look into that line. I also was puzzled for some time about the intermezzo check in the QI but that is explained well by Nunn in his book (Gambit) 'Understanding Chess Move by Move"

I have a terrible feeling that baseball Biebered you out last year during the World Series.

I had several chess posts in a row here, so apparently people assumed that baseball was no longer the focus.

<Marty Marion, Cardinals’s Slick-Fielding Shortstop, Dies at 93>

Why isn't he in the Hall of Fame? It is an outrage.

But the union provides a valuable service by negotiating my salary and benefits far more effectively than I could alone. I have no problem in paying for this service through union dues.

No doubt baseball union demands get out of hand sometimes. But history tells us that without effective opposition, the owners will impose restrictions limiting a player's salary and economic opportunties. There are faults on both sides, which is why we need both sides.

In any event, unions exist for the average ball player, not the super stars. There have always been a few players who could make demands and get away with it; for instance, Ty Cobb held out almost every spring until his demands were met. The average player can't do that, and needs a union to ensure fairness.

Sports, everyone can relate to, I try to not ask too 'obscure' person, also giving the clues with a bit of tongue-in-cheek(ness).