Batsford Chess Opening Guides

The Benko Gambit

Byron Jacobs and Andrew Kinsman

B. T .Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1999
Copyright © 1999 Byron Jacobs and Andrew Kinsman

ISBN 0 7134 8462 4

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

A catalogue record for this book is
available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.

The Batsford Chess Opening Guides were designed

and developed by First Rank Publishing
Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton
Printed in Great Britain by
Creative Print and Design, Ebbw Vale, Wales
for the publishers,
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
9 Blenheim Court,
Brewery Road,
London N7 9NT
A member of the Ch K.lis Group plc

To the other Andrew K, who helped set the wheels in motion

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

 CONTENTS I
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 c5
3 d5 b5

Bibliography 4
Introduction 5

Part One. Gambit Accepted: Main Line

( 1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6)

Castling by Hand with e2-e4: Main Line (5 ... g6 6 lLlc3 i..xa6 7 e4 i..xf1
8 �xf1 d6 9 lLlf3 .tg7 10 g3 0-0 1 1 �g2 lLlbd7) 15
2 Castling by Hand with e2-e4: Other Variations (5 ... g6 6lL!c3 i..xa6 with
7 e4 and 7 f4) 32
3 Fianchetto Variation (5 ... g6 6lL!c3 i..xa6 7lL!f3 i.. g7 8 g3) 44

Part Two. Gambit Accepted: Fifth Move Alternatives for White

( 1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6)

4 5 b6 54
5 5 e3 g6 69
6 5 e3 axb5 78
7 5£3 92
8 5 lbc3 109

Part Three; Gambit Declined ( 1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5)

9 4lL\f3 g6 119
10 4 lbf3 i..b 7 and Other Fourth Moves for Black 132
1 1 Other Fourth Moves for White 144

Index of Complete Games 159

I BIBLIOGRAPHY I

Books
Encyclopedia of Chess Openings volume A, second edition (Sahovski Informator,
1996)
1he Benko Gambit, Benko (Batsford, 1974)
Benko Counter-Gambit, Levy (Batsford, 1978)
Mastering the Modern Benoni and the Benko Gambit, Bellin and Ponzetto (Bats­
ford, 1990)
Play the Benko Gambit, Ravikumar (Maxwell Macmillan, 1991)
1he Complete Benko Gambit,Fedorowicz (Summit Publishing, 1995)
Winning with the Benko Gambit, Jacobs (Batsford, 1995)

Periodicals
Informator
New in Chess Yearbook
ChessBase Megabase CD-ROM
Chess Monthly
British Chess Magazine
 INTROVUCTION I

1 d4 l'bf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5
We firmly believe that the pawn offer
introduced with 3 ... b5 is sound. Let's get
that out of the way at the beginning. But
with the advances in theory over the past
ten years, is the Benko Gambit an easy
opening to play?
Of course, in the early days of the
Benko, back in the 1970s, Black players
piled up the points. No wonder that Al­
burt, Browne, Georgadze, Vasyukov and
Benko himself won so many model games
- White players didn't know what had hit
them! The gambit was, for the most part, Easy Development
accepted, White got a passive position and Coherent, easy development is a key fea­
that was that. But today, with numerous ture of the Benko Gambit Accepted. Black
sophisticated reinforcements having been fianchettoes his king's bishop, recaptures
made on the white side, we need to be on a6 and the opening moves flow nicely
more careful before making an assessment. along. The two old main lines illustrate
Black's ideal development. Note how in
The Gambit Accepted (4 cxb5 a6) each case the black forces move effort­
The standard position now arises after the lessly onto ideal squares and he gains a
continuation: useful lead in development:
5 bxa6 g6! a) 6 lt:'lc3 i.xa6 7 lt:Jf3 i.g7 8 e4 .ltxf1 9
What does Black get for his sacrificed 'it>xf1 d6 10 g3 0-0 11 'it>g2 lt:Jbd7 12 h3
material? Three things: easy development, 'ili'aS 13 l:te1l:tfb8
the initiative and perhaps surprisingly As you can see from the diagram over­
given that Black is a pawn down, a more leaf, all of Black's pieces are on good
comfortable endgame. Let's deal with each squares and he has obvious pressure along
of these in turn: the a- and b-files.

5
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

to neutralise Black's pressure. However,

Watson found a good way to utilise his
advantage in development:

b) 6 tLlc3 �xa6 7 tLlf3 �g7 8 g3 d6 9

�g2 tLlbd7 10 0-0 0-0

14....tc4! 15 lbd2 .txa2 16 l:l.a1

Naturally 16 tLlxa2 l:txa2 leaves White
with a sickly b-pawn.
16....txc3 17 bxc3 .txd5 18 l:l.b1 'lfc6
19 e4 .tee 20 e5 d5
20 ... �d5 was also possible.
21 l:l.xb8 l:l.xb8 22 c4 lUb6 23 tUn 'lfc8
24 cxd5 lUxd5 25 'lfd2 lUb4 26 'ifh6
lbd3 27 l:l.d1 c4 28 .tg5 'lfc5 29 lUe3
'lfxe5 30 .txe7 'lfg7 31 'lfh4 'lfb2 32 :n
:tea 33 .i.d5 'lfe5 34 .txc4 .txc4 35
lUxc4 'lfe6 36 lbd2 lUeS %-%
Black will find an appropriate square Here is another typical Benko trick.
for his queen, either at c7, b6 or aS and
follow up with . .. l:fb8. Vaisser-T.Georgadze
Kieu 1973
The Initiative
Black has many avenues of attack in the
Benko Gambit. For the price of a single
pawn, he can pound down with his major
pieces while his bishops gaze into White's
position along the open diagonals.
Witness how White is pushed around in
the following extract.

Speelman-W.Watson
Commonwealth OJampionship 1 985

Here we see a typical position from the

Gambit Accepted. White is steadily trying 15...l:l.xb2!! 1 6 'lfxb2 .txc3 17 'lfb7

6
 In tro duc tio n

'i'a7!!
A superb move. White manages to keep
the material balance, but he has no option
other than to enter a bad ending.
18 'ii'xa7
18 1ic6 f6 19 l:.ab 1 .ixe1 20 l:.b7 1ia4!
21 l:txd7 1ixc6 22 dxc6 .iaS is much better
for Black.
1 8...l:txa7 19lDd2
White's bishop is trapped after 19 .ixe7
i.xa1 20 l:.xa1 f6.
1 9...i.xa1 20 l:txa1 f6

It's crucial not to allow White to un­

ravel with .ie2 and 0-0. Black would then
just be a pawn down for nothing with a
retarded centre. Instead Alburt opens up
the game in consistent fashion.
11 ...axb5 12 i.xb5
Or 12 axb5 l:txa3! 13 bxa3 'ii'aS ! 14 'ii'd2
lLlg4! when Fedorowicz gives:
a) 15 .ib2 .ixf3 16 gxf3 l:.xf3 and
b) 15 lLld1 1ia4 16 h3 lLle5 17 lLlxe5
.ixe5 in both cases with a middlegame
initiative for Black.
The passed c-pawn and more active
pieces give Black a clear advantage, which
he eventually converted to victory.
Sometimes Black's initiative takes on a
different form. Observe the opening of the
next game, where White tries to put a
clamp on the black position.

Burger-Alburt
New York 198J

1 d4 tt'lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb!;i a6 5
e3 g6 6 tt'lc3 i.g7 7 tt'lf3 0-0 8 a4 i.b7!
9 l:ta3 e6!? 12...tt'le4 13 tt'lxe4 i.xe4

see following diagram

Here Alburt sees little future on the
queenside - White is just too strong there.
But if he can organise a central distrac­
tion ...
10 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 'ii'd6!?
Suddenly the white queen feels awk­
ward. If 14 1ixc5 then 14 ... lLlc6 15 .ie2
l:.c8! exposes the queen still further. Bur­
ger tried:
14 0-0 l:tf5 15 l:ld1 'ii'f6 16lDd2 i.c2 17
l:lf1 'ii'd8 18 tt'lf3 i.f8 19 'ii'g3 d5!
and Black was on the attack.

7
Th e B e n k o Ga m b i t
Time an d again i n the Benko Gambit
Accepted you will see the Black player
trying to exchange one or other (or both)
of the white knights, either by ...ltJg4-e5,
...ltJe8-c7-b5, ...ltJd7-b6-a4 or some other
means. In fact White's knights hold the
key to many of these Benko positions.
Here we see a skeleton pawn structure
with only the king's knight and the two
kings on the board. The knight on f3 not
only serves the usefully purpose of defend­
ing the white king, but is also fundamental
in supporting White's key e4-e5 advance.
Furthermore, in some situations the
knight is able to relocate to the powerful
c4 outpost (via d2) where it both supports
e4-e5 and keeps everything under wraps
on the queenside. When Black exchanges
the white king's knight he takes away
these possibilities.
8
And here is a fragment with the white
queen's knight on the board. As it stands
the knight blocks the diagonal to b2 - if
Black could only exchange it for his own
knight then the black bishop would have a
free run of the long diagonal.
Summing up, Black should aim to util­
ise his initiative and advantage in devel­
opment to exchange all the knights in the
Benko Gambit. As a rule this will leave
him with very active pieces and keep
White on the defensive.
The Better Endgame
For me, this is one of the beauties of the
Benko. It confirms that the opening is an
amazing and magnificent idea. Despite the
fact that Black goes a pawn down early
on, he is often able to exchange off pieces
and emerge with the better endgame.
The key to Benko endgame lies in two
important features of the position: Black's
superior pawn structure and his safe king.
Take a look at this diagram:
There are five separate 'soft spots' in
the white pawn structure. Black can and
does target the pawns on a2, b2, dS, e2 and
f2. His pieces come raining down on these
vulnerable pawns. And if White loses one
of these pawns, others may follow as well.
There is little hope of escape after even
one small mistake.
Contrast this with Black's position. He
 In troduc tion

has only one 'soft spot' on e7 and this

particular pawn is very difficult to get at.
The pawn on cS is also crucial, controlling
the important squares on b4 and d4. If
White's pawn on b2 drops under fire from
the black pieces, then the cS-pawn be­
comes a tower of strength.
Tucked in behind these compact pawns
lies the secure black king, usually sup­
ported by a bishop on g7. White would
have to be a very fine juggler indeed to be
able to consolidate his shaky pawns and at
the same time attack this king position. It
is virtually impossible. This pos1t1on is most unpleasant for
Let's confirm this endgame paradox White. If his a-pawn drops, and it looks as
with some examples. though it will, he has the usual disadvan­
tageous exposed pawns. In the game
Gavrilov-Lomaya White's attempts to hold his opponent off
USSR 1972 were unsuccessful:
37 �2 ..tb5 38 a4 ..td7 39 �e2 �c3 40
..td 1
Or 40 <t>d1 i..xh3 41 aS i.. fl.
40...�b4 41 �d3
41 g4 gS and ... i..xa4 wins.
41 .....txh3 42 g4 ..tf 1 + 43 �e3 f6 44 f4
h6 45 �d4 ..ta6 46 e5 ..tn 47 ..tc2 ..te2
48 exf6 exf6 49 g5 hxg5 50 fxg5 fxg5
51 ..txg6\t>xa4 52 �e4'it>b4 53 ..tf7 lt>c4
54 lt>f5 g4 55 �f4 �d4 56 ..te6 ..tf3 57
�g3 �e5 58 ..txg4 ..txg4 0- 1

Van der Sterren-Adams

Here White's pieces, particularly his Ter Ape/ 1992
rooks, are very passive. With the pawn on
c4 freezing the white queenside, Black is
quite happy to allow exchanges...
21 ... ..td7! 2 2 ..txg7 �xg7 2 3 ltld2 ltlxb2
24 :Z.ec1 :Z.b5! 25 :Z.c3 :Z.c8 26 :Z.bc 1 :Z.b7
27 ..tn ..tb5 28 :Z.b 1 ..ta6 29 e4 �6! 30
J:.c2 :Z.cb8
Possibly White was feeling optimistic
here, but in fact Black has an enormous
advantage thanks to his advancing king.
31 ltlxc4 ltlxc4 32 :Z.xb7 J:.xb7 33 ..txc4
J:.c7 34 ..td3 :Z.xc2 35 ..txc2 �e5 36 f3
�d4

9
Th e B enko Ga m b i t
Black h as just played 2 4... .l:tb4!, turning
up the heat on White's pawns. Van der
Sterren abjectly agrees to further piece
exchanges but, in the long run, he cannot
hold his pawns together - they are quite
simply too exposed.
25 .tn 'ii'xa4! 26 'ii'xa4 .txa4 27 i..d3
i..b3 28 �2 .ta2! 29 l:tc1 i..b2 30 l:tc2
i..b1 31 l:td2 i..xd3 32 l:txd3 J:xc4 33
l:b3 l:b4 34 J:xb4 cxb4 35 �e2 b3 36
�d3 .tt6 37 t5 �f8 38 g4 �e8 39 .td2
�d7 40 .ta5 g5 41 i..d2 �c7 42 i..e3 h6
43 i..d2 �b7 0-1
Pitfalls
So far we have only been looking at some
of the typical ways in which Black may be
successful in the Gambit Accepted. But
many fine players, not least Anatoly Kar­
pov, have taken this gambit pawn and
lived to tell the tale, managing to consoli­
date and secure victory.
Let's take a look at some of White's
strategic goals when faced with Black's
awkward gambit.
The e4-e5 Break
Marin -Zsu.Polgar
Stara Zagora Zona/1990
So far White has played carefully and
has succeeded in covering his weak spots.
Furthermore, Black is not in a position to
10
consider ...e7-e6, trying to loosen White
up on the long diagonal. So Marin takes
action.
18 e5!
When White plays e4-e5 in a position
like this (and there are many), it is make
or break time for Black. Either White is
over-exposing himself or the pawn on eS
will perform the dual function of stifling
the bishop on g7 and threatening to ad­
vance to e6, starting an attack. It is a big
moment in the game!
18...dxe5 19 i.xe5
If 19 ltJxeS then 19 ....l:txf4 20 gxf4 liJf6!
gives Black chances.
19...ltlxe5 20 ltlxe5 l:d4 21 l:cd2 e6 22
l:xd4 cxd4 23 'ii'xd4lt:'lxd5 24 'ii'e4 ltlxc3
25 bxc3
White stands clearly better.
Consider now the following, where
Black gets smashed off the board.
Hoi-Conquest
Naestved198 7
1 d4 lt:'lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 ltlc3 i..xa6 7 f4
This hyper-aggressive line is ideal
against Benko 'robots'. It is easy to get
wrong - for both players. But it is a classic
illustration of the e4-e5 break and its abil­
ity to completely disrupt Black's pieces.
7. . .tg7 8 ltlf3 0-0?!
.
Black's mechanical play leads to oblit­
eration, as we shall observe. 8 .. .'i'a5 is the
theoretically recommended move, as we
shall see in Chapter 2. After 9 i.d2 0-0 10
e4 Black should then hold off from ex­
changing on f1 with 10 ... d6!, when both
1 1 i.xa6 'ii'xa6! and 1 1 eS liJe8! 12 h4liJd7!
13 e6 fxe6 14 dxe6liJdf6 are fine for Black.
9 e4 .txf1 10 l:xt1 d6 11 e5
see following diagram
11...dxe5
1 1...liJe8 was more modest. Black

should sit on the ropes for a while and
hope to work up play with ... lt::ld7 and
... 'i'a5-a6, although White is still on top.
12 fxe5llJg4 13 'ife2llJd7
13 .. .'iic7 is no better after 14 d6!, e.g.
14 ... exd6 15 'i'e4 or 14 ...'i'b7 15 h3 with a
big plus for White.
1 4 e6
Now Black goes wrong, but even after
14 ... lt::lde5! 15 lt::l g5! White is better, since
the black units are tripping on one an­
other's toes. For example, Bangiev-Devcic,
Pula 1990, concluded 15 ... fxe6 16 lt::lxe6
lh£1+ 17 'iitxf 1 'iid6 18 .tf4 .th6 19 i.xh6
llJxh6 20 lt::lb 5 'iia6 21 'iixe5 'iixb5+ 22
c;i.lgl l-0.
1 4...'ifa5?!
15 i.d2! llJde5 16 llJxe5 llJxe5 17 i.f4
'i'a6 18 i.xe5 'ifxe2+ 19 �xe2 i.xe5 20
exf7+ :xt7 21 :xt7 �xf7 22 a4!
In t roduc tion
This is one endgame which is certainly
not favourable for Black! White has
turned the tables on the whole opening
with his caveman approach.
22 .. i.xh2 23 aS �e8 24 �d3 i.d6 25
�c4 �d8 26llJb5 h5 27 a6 g5 28 a7 h4
29llJxd6 exd6 30 �b5 �c7 31 �a6 1 -0
The e4-e5 break is very dangerous.
Watch out!
A Sudden Kingside Attack
Malinin-Andreev
Leningrad 1989
1 d4llJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 i.xa6 6 llJc3 d6 7 llJf3 g6 8 g3
i.g7 9 h4!?
9 ... 0-0 10 h5 llJxh5 11 :xh5 gxh5 12
'ifc2
11
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

It is hard to believe this attack, unless e3 d6?! 6 .!Dc3 g6 7 a4 i.g7 8 'ifb3!?

you are playing against your granny, but
Malinin, remarkably, makes something of
it.
Central to White's play is the psycho­
logical situation over the board. If Black
was expecting to take the initiative as his
normal Benko right then he is hardly likely
to make the best out of this situation,
where he has to defend for a while. And
this leads us to a very important Benko
lesson:
A void routine moves. Black cannot play
the same way against every single line.
Actually, in our featured game Black Now 8 .. 0-0?? 9 b6 .i.b7 10 a5 would be
.

went wrong when he castled. Much better practically winning for White, but it is
was 9 .. h5, stopping the attack dead in its
. unlikely that Black can equalise in the
tracks. Black could then follow up with diagram position in any case. For example,
... 4Jbd7-b6 and obtain a fine position. Korchnoi gives 8 . axb5 9 .i.xb5+ .i.d7 10
..

Frankly, in the rest of the game Black ltJge2 with a clear edge for White.
defends poorly. We shall see later that 5 ... d6?! is super­
12 lbd1 13 .tg5 .!Dt6 14 i.g2 .:b8 15
... fluous.
0-0-0 'ifa5 16 .:h1 .!Dxd5 17 .!Dxd5 .:xb2? White's a-pawn can be a "formidable
17 ... .i.xb2! 18 'W'xb2 .:.Xb2 19 ltJxe7+ weapon if it is unleashed. The following
�g7 20 ltJf5+ is equal. configuration would be particularly un­
18 .!Dxe7+ �h8 19 'ifxh7+ �xh7 20 pleasant for Black:
.:xh5+ i.h6 21 .:xh6+ �g7 22 .!Df5+ �g8
23 i.f6 .:c2+ 24 �xc2 'ifxa2+ 25 i.b2
'ifc4+ 26 i.c3 f6 27 .!Dg5 .:e8 28 i.d5+
'ifxd5 29 .:hS+ �xh8 30 i.xf6+ �g8 31
.!Dh6+ �8 32 .!Dh7 mate
What can one say except that there was
absolutely no need for the whole thing to
happen. Don't fall into the trap of playing
by rote.

The Queenside Pawn Squeeze

Black must avoid the advance of White's
queenside pawns like the plague. In this
regard, an old innovation of Korchnoi's
comes to mind.
Korchnoi-Calvo
Palma de Mal/orca 1972
1 d4 .!Df6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
Here the white knights stifle the life out
of Black's game. Unless Black is in a posi­
tion to strike out with either ... c5-c4 or
...e7-e6, he must fight tooth and nail to
prevent this formation.
Finally, note the opening of the next
game.

12
 In troduc tion

Holland -Martin Black must fight hard against the ad­

London (Chessfor Peace} 198 7 vance of White's queenside pawns. If they
are advancing he must destabilise them as a
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 matter of priority.
b6!? d6 6 lLlc3 lLlbd7?! 7 a4! ii'xb6 8 a5! Black's pressure depends on square con·
troland piece activity.

For White
Aim for e4-e5 in the middlegame to neu­
tralise the bishop on g7 and start an attack.
This usually requires careful preparation.
Aim for a b2-b3, a2-a4 queenside pawn
formation, stifling the black major pieces.
Retain the knights if at all possible.
Look to establish them on bS and c3.
Gradually try to advance the central
pawns, e.g. by e2-e4, f2-f4 and e4-e5.
Be patient. If you accept the Benko Gam­
I have to say that I did not really under­ bit, you must resign yourself to a gradual
stand this position at the time. Already strategy of sapping Black's initiative.
White completely controls the game. He And with this in mind, we shall now go
will follow up with lt'lf3-d2-c4 and perhaps on to:
even e2-e4 and f2-f4. Alexei Shirov has
crushed many opponents with this kind of The Gambit Declined
plan. One improvement for Black is If White does not capture on bS, the game
6... 'ii'xb6 7 a4 aS!? takes on a very different character. Typi­
cally White will play either an early a2-a4
Summary to resolve matters on the queenside or
Let's bring together a few ideas: 'ii'c2/lt'lbd2, aiming to force through e2-e4
with strong control of the centre.
For Black
Aim to pressurise the white pawns. The An early a2-a4
soft spots are a2, b2, d5, e2 and f2.
Since the white knights are key offen­
sive and defensive pieces, Black should aim
to exchange them. If this cannot be achiev­
ed, then d3 is often a great square for a
black knight after White has played e2-e4.
Going into the endgame, Black can rely
on his fireproof pawn structure and active
pieces. The one weak spot {on e7) is very
difficult to get at.
Black's king should be safe, as long as he
avoids routine moves. If White makes to
attack early it is often better for Black to
delay castling.

13
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

Here we see the position after 1 d4 lbf6

2 c4 cS 3 d5 bS 4 a4 (4 lbf3 g6 5 a4 and 4
llJf3 .tb7 5 a4 are very similar). White's
intention is to force Black to either play
4 ... bxc4, allowing the white knight to take
up its natural post on c3, or 4 ... b4, when
the queenside is blockaded and White can
hope to exploit his better central control.
However, as we shall see in Chapters 9-1 1 ,
Black h as various ways o f achieving satis­
factory counterplay.

An early 'ifc2 or lt:\bd2

White's other main plan if he decides to
decline the gambit is to keep the tension
on the queenside and aim for an early e2-
e4 with either 4 'ifc2, 4 llJbd2, 4 llJf3 g6 5
'ifc2, 4 lbf3 g6 5 lbbd2, 4 llJf3 .tb7 5 'it'c2
or 4 llJf3 .tb7 5 lbbd2. If Black takes on
c4 White can simply reply e2-e4 and
.txc4, while otherwise White can consider
capturing on bS after he has played e2-e4.
The drawback of these lines is that neither
'i'c2 nor lbbd2 really fits in with White's
optimal plan of development. The queen
is not particularly well placed on c2, while
ideally White would like to play his
knight to c3.
See Chapters 9-1 1 for more information
on these lines.
How this Book is organised
There are three main ways for White to
meet the Benko Gambit:
1. White accepts the gambit with 4 cxbS
a6 5 bxa6 (see Chapters 1-3).
2. White takes the first pawn but not
the second with 4 cxbS a6 and some
other fifth move apart from 5 bxa6 (see
Chapters 4-8).
3. White declines the gambit (see Chap­
ters 9-1 1).
Chapters 1-2 and 7-1 1 were written by
Andrew Kinsman and Chapters 3-6 by
Byron Jacobs. The Introduction and the
notes to Games 7, 8, 1 1, 14 and 54 are
largely based upon material contributed
by international master Andrew Martin.

14
 CHAPTER ONE I
Castling by Hand
with e2-e4: Main Line

1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 ing with ... ti:Jg4-e5, while at the same time
bxa6 g6 6 ltlc3 .i.xa6 7 e4 .i.xf1 8 �xf1 waiting for Black to commit himself.
d6 9 ltlf3 ltlbd7 10 g3 .i.g7 11 �g2 0-0
One of the most crucial factors in the
main line of the Benko Gambit Accepted
is White's decision whether or not to play
an early h2-h3. Until recently it was

thought that this move was necessary to

prevent ... tl:Jg4 followed by ... ti:Jge5, but
this theory has since been disproved, as we
shall see in Games 7 and 8. It may well be
that h2-h3 is a luxury that White can well
do without. Nevertheless, this move con­
tinues to be popular, so we shall first deal
with systems with h2-h3 (Games 1-6) be­
fore moving on to attempts by White to
get by without it (Games 7-10).
Gamel
Beliavsky-Khalifman
Linares 1995
1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 ltlc3 .i.xa6 7 e4 .i.xf1 8 �xf1
d6 9 ltlf3 ltlbd7 10 g3 .i.g7 11 �g2 0-0
12 h3
For a long time this move (either here
or on the next tum) was considered al­
most automatic in this position. The point
of h2-h3 is to prevent Black from regroup-
12...".a5 13 .:te1
The actual move order of the game was
12 l:.e1 'ii'aS 13 h3, but with this move
order White can also consider 13 e5!? - see
Game 9.
13....:tfb8
Continuing the natural queenside build­
up, see the section on 'Easy Development'
in the Introduction. The sloppy 13 ... ti:Jb6?
allows White to counter with the thematic
14 e5!, while 13 ... ti:Je8 14 .ig5! is also un­
pleasant for Black.
14.:te2
This rather slow plan has fallen out of
fashion as a result of this game. The criti-

15
Th e B enk o Ga m b i t
cal 14 e5!? is the subject of Game 3, while
the old 14 'ii'c2 leads to typical play after
14 ... tt:le8 15 �d2 (15 �g5? .l:.xb2! was seen
in Vaisser-Georgadze in the Introduction
to this book) 15 ... tt:lc7 16 tt:ld1 'ii'a4! 17
'ii'xa4 .l:.xa4 18 �c3 tt:lf6! 19 tt:ld2 tt:lbS and
Black was fine in Van Wely-Leko, Gron­
ingen 1996.
1 4...lLle8
Unleashing the g7-bishop and preparing
... tt:lc7-b5 (or even ... tt:lb6-a4), exchanging
the most important defender of White's
queenside - the knight on c3 (see the In­
troduction) . For example, the simplistic 15
'ii'c2 tt:lc7 16 �d2 tt:lbS 17 tt:lxb5 'ii'xb5 18
�c3 �xc3 19 bxc3 'ii'c4 20 .l:.e3 .l:.a3 21
tt:ld2 'ii'a4 led to a promising endgame for
Black in Vegh-Markotic, St Ingbert 1987.
The drawback of this move is that it
somewhat exposes the soft spot on e7,
which White can try to exploit with a
timely �g5.
Note that the careless 14 ... tt:lb6 again al­
lows White to get in 15 e5! The alternative
14 ... 'ii'a6 is considered in the next game.
1 5 :c2
Here 15 �g5 is more critical, as
15 ... .l:.xb2?? 16 .l:.xb2 �xc3 fails to 17 �d2
and 15 ... h6 16 �xe7 f6 17 'ii'c2 �g7 18 e5!
is too risky for Black, while 15 ....l:.a7 gives
White time to consolidate with 16 .l:.cl
(but not 16 .i.xe7? .i.xc3 17 bxc3 f6!) with
the idea of .l:.cc2, �f4 and e4-e5. In
Grabliauskas-Khalifman, Mikenas memo­
rial open 1997, Black instead chose the
strange-looking 15 ... �xc3!? 16 bxc3 f6 17
.i.d2 'ii'a4 18 'ii'el (the endgame after 18
'ii'xa4 .l:.xa4 provides Black with excellent
counterplay) 18 ...it'c4 with pressure on
the light squares. Of course, it does rather
go against the grain for Black to voluntar­
ily exchange his dark-squared bishop on
c3, but this may be one of those rare occa­
sions on which such a strategy is justified.
1 5... lLlb6
15 ... tt:lc7 is also playable. After 16 �g5
16
h6! (16 ... .l:.xb2?? 17 .l:.xb2 �xc3 fails to 18
�d2) 17 �d2 (17 �xe7 .l:.b6 offers Black
good compensation for the sacrificed ma­
terial according to ECO, as it is hard for
White to extricate his bishop) 17 ... tt:la6 18
'ir'e2 tt:lb4 Black had full compensation for
the pawn in Haba-Weindl, Kecskemet
1992.
1 6 'ii'e2 'ii'a6!
A new move at the time in this precise
position (although it had been played
more than 20 years previously in an al­
most identical situation - see the notes to
Black's 15th move in Game 12). As usual
in the main line Benko, Black is not afraid
to exchange queens. On the other hand,
16 ...it'b4?! is too slow due to 17 �f4 tt:lc7
18 .l:.dl, when White was ready for the e4-
e5 break in M.Gurevich-D.Gurevich, Lu­
cerne 1989. However, 16 ... tt:la4 17 tt:lxa4
'ir'xa4 18 .l:.c4 'ii'a6 19 'ii'c2 (or 19 a3 �xb2
20 .i.xb2 .l:.xb2 2 1 'ii'xb2 'ii'xc4) 19 ... lt'lf6
20 .l:.c3 tt:ld7 2 1 .l:.e3 lt'lb6 worked out fine
for Black in Van der Sterren-Blees, Neth­
erlands 1993.
17 lLlg 1 ?!
Khalifman prefers 17 it'xa6 .l:.xa6 18
tt:ld2 f5 19 f3 tt:la4 with compensation for
the pawn.
1 7 ..lLla4 1 8 'ii'xa6
.
Both 18 lbxa4 'ii'xa4 and 18 lt'ld1 lbc7
offer Black considerable pressure on the
queenside.
 Cas tling by Hand with e 2 - e4 : M a in Lin e
18 .. J:ba6 19 .!lJge2 .!iJc7 20 a3 f5! 2 1 f3
fxe4 22 fxe4 .!tJxc3 23 .!tJxc3 .!iJb5 24
tt:lxb5 .:xb5
Black has succeeded in his goal of ex­
changing both pairs of knights. Although
he is still a pawn down, Black's remaining
pieces are so active that his opponent is
the one striving for a draw.
25 .:c4?
According to Khalifman, 25 l:ta2 l:tb3
26 l:te2 l:ta4 27 Si.f4 would have main­
tained the balance. However, it is perhaps
understandable that Beliavsky was reluc­
tant to place his rook passively on a2.
25 ..• .txb2 26 .:b1 .:ab6 27 a4 .:b3 28
a5 i.xc1 29 .:bxc1 .:b2+
As so often in the Benko, if White gives
up the b-pawn he stands worse as his a­
pawn is weak and Black has a powerful
passed c-pawn. In the game Black is able to
round up the a-pawn, leaving White with
a very difficult ending which he is unable
to hold.
30 .:1c2 .:6b5 31 a6 .:b6 32 e5 .=.xc2+
33 l:!.xc2 l:!.xa6 34 exd6 exd6 35 .:e2 �f7
36 .:es c4 37 .:e4 c3 38 .:c4 .:a3 39
�f3 c2+ 40 lti>e2 :a2 41 �e3 �f6 42
Wd2 .:a3 43 lti>xc2 .:xg3 44 .:e4 :xh3
45 .:e6+ �7 46 lbd6 �e7! 47 :e6+
lti>d7 48 .:as l:th5 49 �c3 .:xd5 50 :a7+
�e6 51 l:!.xh7 g5 52 l:!.h 1 lti>t5!
Black avoids the last trap: 52 ... g4? 53
l:th4! l:tg5 (or 53 ... �f5 54 l:th5+ with a
draw) 54 �d3 g3 55 l:th 1 Wf5 56 �e2 �g4
(or 56 ... Wf4 57 l:ta1) 57 Wfl and White
scrambles a draw. After the game move
White's king remains cut off and his task
is hopeless.
53 l:!.f1+ �e4 54 J:l.g 1 'iti>f3 55 lfi>c4 l:!.a5
0- 1
Gamel
M .Gurevich-Azmaiparashvili
Euro. Club Cup, Strasbourg 1994
1 d4 .!iJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 .!iJc3 .txa6 7 e4 i.xf1 8 �xf1
d6 9 g3 .i.g7 10 �g2 0-0 11 .!iJf3 .!iJbd7
12 h3 'i'a5 13 .:e1 .=.tbB 14 .:e2 'i'a6?!
We have now reached a position which
also commonly arises after 12 ...'ii'b 6?! 13
l:te1 l:tfb8 {13 ... ltJe8 can be met by Atalik's
original concept 14 'ii'd2!?, intending b2-b3
17
Th e B enk o Ga m b i t
and �b2) 14 l:te2! 'Wa6 (note that here
14 ... lt:Je8 is met by 1S �gS! and 14 ... 'it'b7
by 1S �f4), which was in fact the move
order of our main game. Incidentally, the
main point of the 12 ...'ili'b6?! move order
is quickly seen after 13 .:.e1 .l:.fb8 14 eS?!
dxeS 1S lt:JxeS lt:JxeS 16 :XeS 'Wb7! (with
the threat of ... lt:JxdS) 17 1i'f3 .l:.d8 and
Black has obtained good pressure against
the d-pawn.
1S l:.b 1 !
A new move at the time and probably a
big improvement over the older 1S �gS?!
(or 1S �f4 lt:JhS 16 �gS .:.xb2! with equal­
ity) 1S ... h6 16 �xf6 (16 �e3 lt:Jb6 is also
fine for Black) 16 ... �xf6 17 .:.ct l:b4 18
l:tcc2 l:ab8 19 'Wd2 �g7, which was okay
for Black in Kiese-Lazarev, German Bun­
desliga 199 1/92.
Gurevich's move exploits the fact that
Black has delayed opening the g7-a1 di­
agonal in order to achieve an ideal queen­
side piece configuration.
1 5 ...tbe8 1 6 i.d2 c4
16 ... �xc3?! 17 �xc3 1i'xa2 18 b3 'Wa6
19 eS was obviously too risky. With the
game move Black takes steps to prevent
b2-b3, but in so doing he cedes the impor­
tant d4-square to his opponent.
1 7 i.e3! :b7 1 8 i.d4 i.h6
18 ... �xd4 19 'Wxd4 .l:.ab8 20 eS dxeS 21
lt:JxeS lt:JxeS 22 .l:.xeS would obviously be
ideal for White.
18
1 9 eS! dxe5 20 tbxe5 tbxeS 2 1 :xeS?!
Here Mikhail Gurevich suggests that he
missed a chance with 21 �xeS!? .l:td8
(threatening .. .f7-f6) 22 .l:.e4! lt:Jd6 23
�xd6! .l:.xd6 24 'i'e2. After the game move
Black is able to achieve a highly desirable
exchange of his knight for the white
knight rather than the white bishop.
21 ...tbd6 22 'ifg4 lbb5!
As so often in the Benko, the exchange
of the key knight on c3 enables Black to
achieve an equal position.
23 lbxbS 'ifxb5 24 a4 'ifd7 2S 'ifxd7
:xd7 �-�
Game 3
Beliavsky-Leko
Cacak 1996
1 d4 tbf6 2 c4 cS 3 d5 b5 4 cxbS a6 S
bxa6 g6 6 tbc3 i.xa6 7 e4 i.xf1 8 �xf 1
d6 9 tbf3 tbbd7 1 0 g3 i.g7 1 1 �g2 0-0
1 2 h3 'ifaS 1 3 :e 1 :tb8 1 4 eS!?
This is the most testing move, taking
the initiative and refusing to allow Black
to dictate the game.
1 4...dxeS
It is hard to believe that Black can get
away with 14 ... lt:Je8?! 1S e6 fxe6 16 l:xe6,
e.g. 16 ... �f6 17 lt:Je4 �xb2 18 �xb2 .Uxb2
19 .:.Xe7 or 16 ... �xc3 17 bxc3 1i'xc3 18
�h6 with excellent play for White in both
cases.
1 5 tbxe5 tbxeS 1 6 :xeS :b7
It is a moot theoretical point whether
Black should play this move or 16 ... l:a7.
However, 17 1i'f3, intending to unravel
with l:te2 and �f4, appears to be a good
reply to the latter continuation, e.g.
17 ... l:tb4 18 l:te2 l:tab7 19 �gS 1i'd8
(19 ... :Xb2 20 l:xb2 l:txb2 21 d6!) 20 d6!?
'Wxd6 2 1 l1d1 'ili'b8 22 lt:Jd5 lt:JxdS 23 .UxdS
f6 (23 ...l:txb2 24 �xe7) 24 �cl 'i'c8, as in
Epelbaum-Fominyh, Alushta 1994. ECO
assesses this position as slightly better for
White, but after 2S l:ed2! Black appears to
 Ca s tling by Hand with e 2- e4: Ma in Line

be in some trouble, e.g. 25 ....l:.d4 26 .l:.xc5! open 1995.

'i'xc5 27 l:txd4 'iixd4 28 'ii'xb7 or 25...l:tb8
26 'iie3 e5 27 .l:.xc5.

19...lLlxe4
For no apparent reason ECO only
17 'i'f3 mentions the illogical 19 ... lbf5 20 .id2
White has two other moves here: 'ii'b 5 2 1 .ic3 lbd4 22 .ixd4 cxd4, as in
a) 17 'iie2 l:laa7 18 a4 (or 18 i.f4 lbh5) Naumkin-Manca, Cappelle Ia Grande
18...lbe8 19 l:le3 lbd6 with a very solid open 1993, which should be somewhat
position for Black in Spassky-Ivanchuk, favourable for White after 23 d6.
Linares 1990. 20 'i'xe4 'i'a6! 21 a4 i..f 6 22 'i'f3 .l:.dB
b) 17 d6 exd6 18 'ii'xd6 l:lc8! with ideas Not 22 .. J:tb4?! 23 d6! (Chekhov) .
of ...l:td7, ...'iia8 and ...lbe8 in Piket­ 23 .l:.c2 i..d4! 24 a5
Topalov, Amsterdam 1995. A.Shneider-Lazarev, Paris open 1998,
17 ..• lLle8!? provided further evidence that Black is
The knight manoeuvre to d6 is a stan­ doing fine here: 24 .ig5 l:tdd7 25 l:ta2 l:tb4
dard theme in this line. After 17...l:td8?! 18 26 a5 l:.db7 27 .ie3 l:tb3 28 'ii'e4 l:t3b4 29
l:te2 l:tbd7 19 .if4 White was comfortably .ixd4 l:txd4 30 'ii'f3 l:td3 3 1 'ii'e2 l:td7 and
able to consolidate his extra pawn m Black was again able to round up the d­
Legky-Riemersma, Paris open 1996. pawn.
18 .l:.e2 lLld6 19 lLle4?! 24....l:.bd7 25 i..e3 .l:.xd5 26 i..xd4 cxd4
Leko gives this move an exclamation 27 b4 d3
mark in his notes in Infomzator 68, but in
view of the fact that it is invariably to
Black's advantage to exchange knights in
the main line Benko, it is surely more
consistent to play to restrict the black
knight with 19 g4!?, e.g. 19...l:lab8 (it
might have been more prudent to protect
the e-pawn with 19 ...l:laa7!?, but White
should still be slightly better) 20 .if4 l:lxb2
21 l:txe7 'iixc3 22 .ixd6 'ii'xf3+ 23 'ii>xf3
l:td8 24 .ic7 l:txd5 25 l:le8+ with a slight
advantage for White in the endgame in
Naumkin-O.Johansen, Cappelle Ia Grande

19
Th e B enko Ga m b i t
Black is now on top, since if 28 l:td2 e5
29 l:tad1 f5 he is in complete control of the
centre. Beliavsky sensibly decides to bail
out and eventually he is able to salvage a
draw.
28 J:.c5 J:.xc5 29 bxc5 d2 30 lld 1 'ifxa5
31 'i'e3 'ii'a4 J:.xd2 33 'ii'xd2 'i'c6+ 34
�g 1 'ii'xc5 35 'ii'b 2 'ii'f5 36 'ii'bS+ �g7
37 'ii'b 2+ 'i'f6 38 'i'b7 'ifa 1 + 39 �g2
'ife5 40 �g 1 g5 41 'ii'b4 h6 42 h4 'ot>g6
43 hxg5 hxg5 44 'ifb 1 + �g7 45 'i'b4
'i'e6 46 'i'd4+ f6 47 'ifb4 f5 48 'i'b5
'ife1 + 49 �g2 'ife4+ 50 �g 1 �f7 5 1
'it>h2 'ii'e 6 52 'ot>g 1 'ot>f6 5 3 'ii'bS 'itg7 54
'ii'b5 'iff6 55 'it>g2 �h6 56 'ii'd5 �g7 57
�g 1 e6 58 'ii'd7+ 'iff7 59 'ii'c 6 �f6 60
'ii'c3+ e5 61 'iic5 'iie 6 62 'ii'c 2 e4 63
'ii'd 2 'itg6 64 �h2 'iib 6 65 'ii'a 2 �f6 66
'iid 2 'ii'e 6 67 �g2 �g6 68 �g 1 f4 69
gxf4 'ii'g4+ 70 �f 1 'ifxf4 7 1 'ii'd7 �h5 72
'iih3+ 'ii'h4 73 'ii'f5 'iif4 74 'iih3+'it>g6 75
'ii'e6+ �-�
Game4
Tisdall-Fishbein
Gausdal 1990
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 tt:Jc3 �xa6 7 lLlf3 d6 8 e4
�xf 1 9 'it>xf 1 .i.g7 1 0 g3 0-0 1 1 'itg2
tt:Jbd7 1 2 h3 J:.a7
This quiet-looking move, which was I
believe introduced by the American
grandmaster Joel Benjamin in 1986, has
become more and more popular in the last
few years. Black intends to follow up with
... 'ii'a 8 and perhaps ... l:tb8 and/or ... l2Jb6,
with the standard pressure down the a­
and b-files. Furthermore, on a8 the queen
also eyes the white king down the a8-h1
diagonal, preventing e4-e5 and sometimes
supporting either of the advances ... e7-e6
or ... f7-f5.
1 3 J:.e 1
White invariably plays this move
sooner or later, although in Legky-
20
Dunnington, French Team Championship
1998, White preferred to place the rook
on d1, which has the advantage of dis­
couraging ... e7-e6. That game continued
13 'ii'c2 'ii'a8 14 l:td1 l:tb8 15 l:tb1 l2Je8 16
a3 l:tab7 17 b3 'ii'a5 18 l2Ja2 lDc7 19 a4
with a slight advantage for White.
1 3...'iia8
1 4 'ifc2
One of the main points of the 12 ... l:ta7
and 13 ... 'ii'a8 system, is that White can
hardly ever get in his desired e4-e5 break,
e.g. 14 e5? dxe5 15 lDxe5 lDxe5 16 l:txe5
l2Jxd5! 17 l:txd5 e6. However, White has
several playable moves here:
a) 14 i-g5 is best met by the simple
14 ... h6 15 .txf6 .txf6 16 'ii'd2 'iti>h7 fol­
lowed by ... l:tb8, as the immediate
14 ... l:tb8 is met by 15 'ii'd2.
b) 14 l:te2, following a similar strategy
to Games 1 and 2, is quite popular. After
14 ... l:tb8 15 l:tc2 Black can follow the fa­
miliar plan of offering to exchange knights
with 15 ... lbb6! 16 'ii'e2 lba4, when 17
.tg5? runs into 17 ... l:txb2! 18 l:txb2 lbxc3
19 'ii'c2 l2Jfxe4 20 l:tb3 lbxg5 2 1 lbxg5
lbxd5 0-1 Grabuzova-Hendriks, Gronin­
gen open 1995, and after 17 lDd1 l:tb4! 18
l:tc4 l:tab7, as in Brunner-Kotronias, Ge­
neva 1990, White is struggling to unravel
his pieces.
c) The point of 14 l:tb1 is to clear the
rook from the vulnerable a1-h8 diagonal
 C a s tling b y H a n d with e 2 - e4: Main Lin e

and prepare a2-a3 and b2-b4. Although 20 a5 .C.bc8 21 'ifd3 lbc5 22 'ife2
this idea is perfectly viable, White went The solid 22 'ii'fl would have allowed
badly wrong in the game V.Alterman­ White to meet the reply 22 ...liJc7 by 23 e5
Stangl, Tel Aviv 1987: 14 ...liJe8!? (or dxe5 24 lLlxe5 i.xe5 25 l:txe5 with good
14 ...liJb6 15 a3 lLla4!?) 15 g4? liJb6 16 a3 prospects.
ll:Jc7 17 lLlg1 f5 18 f3 e6 19 f4liJc4 20 liJf3 22...lbc7
l:tb7 2 1 'ii'd4 liJe5 22 'ii'd 1 i.f6 23 liJh4 As usual Black should avoid giving up
ll:Jf3 24 e5 lLlxe5 25 l:thl liJd7 26 'it>fl i.e7 his dark-squared bishop just to regain the
27 l:tg 1 l:tf6 28 'it>g2 c4 29 b4 'it>g7 30 'it>f2 pawn, e.g. 22 ... bxc3 23 i.xc3 lLlxe4 24
ll:Jb5 0-1 . This is a graphic example of how i.d4 and White is better. After the game
things can quickly go awry for White if he move Black is ready to play ... e7-e6, so
weakens his kingside prematurely. White decides that the time has come to
1 4....C.b8 strike in the centre himself.
By analogy to note 'b' above, 14 ... lLle8
is interesting, preparing ...liJc7 and/or
... f7-f5. However, 14 ...liJb6 15 a4! lLle8?!
(15 ...l:tb8 or 15 ... e6 would have been bet­
ter) 16 'ii'b 3, as in Yusupov-Benjamin,
Winnipeg 1986, leaves Black rather awk­
wardly placed.
15 b3
15 a4 is far less effective here, as Black
has not yet committed his knight to b6.
However, 15 i.g5 is an interesting alterna­
tive to the game move, and if 15 ...liJb6
only now 16 a4, e.g. 16 ...liJe8 17 l:ta2 h6
18 i.cl lLlc7 19 b3 liJd7 20 l:te2 l:tab7 21 23 e5!?
ll:Jd2 'ii'a6 with compensation for the 23 l:tb 1 was the safe course.
pawn in Hjartarson-Brynell, Malmo 1995. 23...dxe5 24 l:.b 1
1 5...lt::\e8 16 a4 Of course 24lLlxe5 allows 24 ... i.xe5 25
It seems logical to cut across Black's 'ii'xe5 liJd3 winning the exchange.
plan of ...liJc7-b5. ECO only mentions 16 24... e4 25 lt::\g5 .bc3 26 .C.b6 'ifaS 27
i.b2 lLlc7 17 l1ab 1 lLlb5 18 lLlxb5 l:txb5 19 'ifxc4
i.xg7 'it>xg7 20 l:te2 l:ta3 21 l:tb2, when a
draw was agreed in Yusupov-Adams, Am­
sterdam 1994. White's pawns are firmly
blockaded.
1 6...c4?!
This sacrifice of a second pawn rather
rebounds on Black. White is able just to
calmly give one pawn back and retain a
good position. Perhaps Black should have
tried 16 ...liJc7 and if 17 i.b2 then
17 ...'ifb7 18 lLld2 e6 with counterplay
against the white centre.
17 bxc4 .C.c7 1 8 i.d2 .C.xc4 1 9 .C.a3 'ifa6

21
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
27... lbxd5?
Black gets carried away in the complica­
tions. After 27 ... i.xd2! White cannot play
28 'ii'xc5 ltJxdS or 28 lbxf7 'ii'xd5, so he is
forced into the spectacular 28 l:.c6!, threat­
ening both the knight on c5 and lbxf7!,
but after 28 ... ltJ7a6 29 l:.xc8+ 'ii'xc8 30
lbxe4 i.b4 Black is just about able to hold
everything together.
28 i.xc3 e3 29 �h2
After this calm but obvious move Black
is left counting the cost of his ruinous
27th move. In fact 29 f3 looks even
stronger than the game move.
29 .. .lbd7
29 ...exf2 was Black's last chance to
muddy the waters.
30 'ifa2 lb7xb6 31 axb6 'ifb7 32 i.d4
exf2 33 i.xf2 h6 34 l:.a7 'ifc6 35 b7 l:.b8
36 l:.a8 'ifxb7 37 l:.xb8+ 'ifxb8 38 lbxf7
e6 39 lbxh6+ 1-0
Game 5
Minzer-Khalifman
Linares open 1997
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 lbc3 i.xa6 7 e4 i.xf 1 8 �xf1
d6 9 lbf3 i.g7 1 0 g3 0-0 11 �g2 lbbd7
1 2 h3 l:.a6
On the surface, this move would appear
to have practically the same ideas to
12 ... l:ta7: to swing the queen to a8 and
follow up with ... l:.b8 and ... lbb6. Al­
though it is useful to be able to defend the
e7-pawn laterally using the rook on a7, on
the other hand the rook on a6 defends the
d-pawn which makes it easier for Black to
hit back in the centre with ... e7-e6. It is a
moot point whether the rook is better
placed on a7 or a6, but 12 ...l:.a6 appears to
be more flexible. Here we shall focus on
plans for Black involving ... e7-e6, since
that is what gives this variation its indi­
vidual flavour.
1 3 l:.e 1
22
The actual move order of the game was
12 l:.el l:.a6 13 h3, reaching the standard
position. However, the move order has
been changed for our purposes, in order to
deal with White's alternatives to l:.el :
a) After 1 3 'ii'e2 'ii'a8 1 4 l:.bl e6! 15 dxe6
fxe6 16 l:.el d5 17 a3 d4 18 lba2 lbe8 19
i.g5 h6 20 i.d2 ltJd6 2 1 l:.bdl e5 Black
had achieved his dream position in this
variation with complete central control in
V.Martin-Magem Badals, Spanish Team
Championship 1995.
b) 13 l:.b l 'ii'a8 (not 13 ... lbb6?! 14 b3!)
with the standard idea of ... e7-e6 Adams.
-
c) If White wishes to steer clear of the
main line then 13 'ii'c2 'ii'a8 14 l:.dl makes
most sense, although Black can still try
14 ... e6!? here.
13...'ifa8
14 i.g5
The critical move, forcing Black to
weaken his kingside if he wants to get in
... e7-e6. Black has no problems after 14
'ii'c2 e6 15 dxe6 fxe6, as in Yakovich­
P.Cramling, Stockholm open 1999; 14
l:.e2 e6 (or 14 ... l:.b8!?) 15 i.f4 exd5 16
ltJxdS (16 exd5 ltJh5!) 16 ... ltJxd5 17 'ii'xd5
'ii'xd5 18 exd5 l:.b8, as in Bratchenko­
Kalegin, Russian Team Championship
1994; or 14 i.f4 lbb6 {threatening ... lba4)
15 b3 ltJh5 16 i.d2 f5!? 17 'ii'e2 fxe4 18
'ii'xe4 ltJf6! 19 'ii'e6+ �h8, as in Mitenkov­
Nesterov, Moscow 1995.
 C a s tlin g b y H a n d with e 2 - e 4 : Main Lin e
1 4...h6
It is not too late for Black to play
14 ...l:b8!?, planning the standard queen­
side manoeuvres, but the immediate
14... e6?! is slightly risky because of 15
'ii'd2!? exd5 16 exd5 with a grip on the
position in Ricardi-Giardelli, Buenos Aires
1995.
15 j,d2
15 �xf6 �xf6 and 15 �f4 tZ::lh 5 16 �e3
�h7 seem harmless.
1 5...e6
Here too 15 ... l:b8 is still perfectly play­
able, e.g. 16 b3 tZ::le8 17 l:e2 tZ::lc7 with the
usual play in Karpov-Gelfand, Candidates
match, Sanghi Nagar 1995.
16 dxe6 fxe6
1 7 e4
Two other moves have been tried here:
a) The sharp 17 'ii'c2 d5 18 e5 {18 a4 g5!
transposes to the main game) 18 ...tZ::le8 is
unclear, since White cannot play 19 'ii'xg6?
due to 19 ... d4 20 tZ::le4 l:xf3!
b) If White wishes to have the option of
exchanging on d5 then 17 �g1!? is cer­
tainly prudent, removing the king from
the dangerous long diagonal. Haba­
Riemersma, German Bundesliga 1996,
continued 17 ... d5?! {17 ... g5!? looks more
testing) 18 exd5 exd5 19 tZ::lh4! d4 20 'ii'b3+
�h7 21 'ii'c2 dxc3? {this loses; 2 l ...tZ::ld5
would have kept Black very much in the
game) 22 'ii'xg6+ �g8 23 �xc3 l:f7 24 tZ::lf5
'oii>f8 25 l:tad1 tZ::lh5 26 l:d6 l:xd6 27 �xg7+
tZ::lxg7 28 'ii'xd6+ �g8 29 tZ::lxh6+ 1-0.
Black's downfall in this game can largely
be attributed to the loosening of his king's
position caused by 14 ... h6.
1 7...g5!
An important move, denying White
use of the f4- and h4-squares. In an earlier
game Khalifman had rushed in with
17 ... d5?! 18 exd5 exd5 19 tZ::lb 5 'ii'b 7 20
�f4! g5 21 �d6, when White was clearly
on top in Beliavsky-Khalifman, Novo­
sibirsk 1995.
18 Wc2 d5 1 9 exd5
An unfortunate exchange. White
should try to keep the a8-h 1 diagonal
closed as long as possible. Previously 19
l:ta3 had been played and now:
a) 19 ...l:f7? 20 exd5 exd5 21 tZ::lb5 'ii'b 7
22 �xg5! hxg5 23 tZ::lxg5 with very danger­
ous compensation for the sacrificed mate­
rial m Atalik-Khalifman, Hastings
1995/96.
b) 19 ...l:b6 20 �cl l:f7 21 tZ::ld2 l:tb4 22
l:b3?! {White hurries to exchange pieces
when 22 �g1 followed by tZ::lb5 would
have been better) 22 ..l:txb3 23 'ii'xb3 c4 24
tZ::lxc4 {or 24 'ii'b5 lbe5) 24 ...dxc4 25 'ii'xc4
tZ::le5 26 'ii'xe6 tZ::ld3 and Black had the bet­
ter of it in Ljubojevic-Topalov, Linares
1995.
19 ...exd5 20 lbb5 Wb7
21 j,xg5?
23
Th e B en k o G a m b i t
This is a tactical error. White may have
mistakenly believed that he was still fol­
lowing the Atalik-Khalifman game above.
In any case Black has a good game after 21
l:r.adl lLle4 or 2 1 lLlh2!? lLle4 22 f3 lLlxd2 23
'i6'xd2 lLle5 {Stohl).
21 ...hxg5 22 tl:lxg5 d4+ 23 �g1 Wd5!
The most convincing. Black returns
some material to seize the initiative.
24 tl:lc7 Wxg5 25 tl:lxa6 tl:le5!
Now Black not only threatens ... lLlf3+,
but also ...lLlh5. The white knight is com­
pletely out of the game, so White decides
to give up more material. However, he is
soon swamped by the marauding black
p1eces.
26 .l:.xe5 Wxe5 27 tl:lxc5 Wd5 28 tl:ld3
tl:le4 29 We2?! tl:lg5 30 f4 tl:lxh3+ 31
�h2 .l:.f6! 32 Wg2
32 �xh3 l:lh6+ 33 �g4 'ii'h 5 is mate.
32...Wf5 33 Wt3 tl:lg5 34 Wn l:l.h6+ 35
�g1 We4! 36 tl:lt2 tl:lt3+ 0-1
It is mate next move: 37 'it>g2 l:th2 mate.
Game 6
Goldin-Fominyh
Russian Championship 1995
1 d4 tl:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 tl:lc3 �xa6 7 e4 �xf1 8 �xf1
d6 9 g3 �g7 10 �g2 tl:lbd7 11 tl:lf3 0-0
12 h3 tl:lb6!?
An interesting alternative to the stan­
dard lines. Note, however, that 12 ... lLlb6 is
much less effective against 12 l:.el than
against 12 h3. White would effectively be a
tempo up on the game as he can simply
dispense with h2-h3 altogether.
1 3 l:l.e1
The natural move. 13 'ii'e2 allows Black
to carry out the desirable 13 ...lLla4! 14
lLldl (after 14 lLlxa4? :Xa4 15 lLld2 1i'a8 16
a3 e6 Black would already have a powerful
initiative) 14...'ii'd7 or 14 ...:e8, intending
...e7-e6, when White is very passively
placed.
24
13 . . .Wd7
Black can also use the d7-square for his
knight by 13 ...lLlfd7 with the idea of
. .. lLlc4 and ...lLlce5, trying to exchange a
pair of knights. However, this looks too
time-consuming here, e.g. 14 .tf4 {14 :e2
lLlc4 15 :c2 'ii'aS 16 'ii'e2 can be met by
the standard trick 16 ... lLla3! with a very
good game) 14 ... lLlc4 15 'ii'e2 lLlce5 16
lLlxe5 lLlxeS 17 11acl 'ii'aS 18 :c2 'ii'a6 19
.txe5 .txeS 20 1i'xa6 l:xa6 2 1 :ee2 and
White was able to consolidate his extra
pawn in Mitkov-Kutirov, Struga Champi­
onship 1993.
14 Wc2!
A sensible prophylactic move, prevent­
ing ... lLla4 due to 15 e5! The tempting
immediate 14 eS?! dxe5 15 lLlxe5 runs
aground after 15 ... 1i'b7 16 'ii'b3 (or 16 'ii'f3
lLlfxd5) 16 ... e6 17 .te3 :fc8 18 lLld3 lLlfxd5
19 lLlxdS c4! 20 'ii'xb6 'ii'xdS+ 2 1 �gl
cxd3, as in Taylor-Benko, Philadelphia
open 1975, while 14 a4 presents Black
with a clear target. In D.Gurevich­
Greenfeld, Beersheva 1982, Black wasted
no time in ganging up on the exposed a­
pawn with 14 ... l:r.a6 15 'ii'h3 :faS 16 aS
'ii'd8!, when rather than just allow Black
to play ...:XaS, White decided to head for
dubious complications with 17 e5 dxe5 18
axb6 :Xal 19 lLlxe5 and eventually lost a
messy game.
14...Wb7
 C a s tling b y Hand with e 2 - e4 : Ma in Lin e
Since Black is unable to achieve his de­
sired ... ltla4, this move is as good as any.
Black prepares ... e7-e6 and is ready with
... ltlc4 if White tries to play 15 .i.f4, e.g.
15 ...ltlc4 16 b3 ltla3 17 'ii'd2 l:.a6 with a
blockade of the queenside in Grabliauskas­
Fominyh, Cappelle la Grande open 1998.
15 l:.b1
15 b3 is well met 15 ... e6.
15...lLlfd7
15 ... e6 is also playable here of course,
and may in fact be an improvement over
the game, e.g. 16 .i.f4 exd5 17 .i.xd6 l:.fc8
18 exd5 ltlbxd5 with equality in Fokin­
Lanka, USSR 1986.
16 ..i.f4?!
This allows Black to carry out his
planned ... ltlc4. However, 16 b3 can be
met by 16 .. .f5!?, as in D.Gurevich-Alburt,
Philadelphia 1982, when White's d-pawn
is a source of some concern.
16...lLlc4 17 We2 Wb4 18 l:.ec1 J:fb8 19
lLld1 lLlde5 20 ..i.xe5 lLlxe5 21 lLlxe5
..i.xe5
A typical Benko pos1t10n has arisen.
Black has succeeded in achieving his pri­
mary goal of exchanging his knights, leav­
ing him with an uncontested dark-squared
bishop. Furthermore, White's pieces are
all very passively placed. Although White
is a pawn up, it is he who is struggling to
draw.
22 a3
22 b3 :a3 23 l:.c2 :ba8 leaves Black
with a total grip on the queenside.
22 ...Wb5!
Clearly, an exchange of queens would
only help Black. White decides to keep the
queens on and try and exchange some
pawns.
23 Wf3 ..i.d4 24 b4 Wa4 25 l:.b3 cxb4 26
l:.cb1 ..i.c5 27 lLlc3?!
Falling for a neat tactical trick. 27
axb4!? .:.Xb4 28 :.Xb4 .i.xb4 29 'ii'b3 .i.c5
30 'W'xa4 l:.xa4 3 1 �f3 l:.a3+ 32 ltle3 would
have liquidated to a draw according to
Chekhov.
27 ...Wxa3! 28 l:.xa3 l:.xa3 29 Wd3 l:.ba8
30 l:.c1 l:.xc3 31 l:.xc3 bxc3 32 Wxc3
l:.a2 33 h4 l:.xf2+
In this instance the queen is much
worse than the rook and bishop. All of
White's pawns are weak whereas the
queen has nothing really to attack.
34 �h1 l:.e2 35 Wf3 J:e3 36 Wf4 h5 37
�g2 l:.e1 38 Wf3 ..i.d4 39 g4 l:.g1+ 40
�h2 hxg4. 41 Wd3 g3+ 42 �h3 .te5 43
Wf3 l:.b1 44 h5 gxh5 45 �h4 l:.b2 46
�xh5 l:.h2+ 47 �g5 ..i.f6+ 48 �g4 g2 0-1
In the rest of this chapter we shall con­
sider lines for White in which he tries to
dispense with h2-h3. It used to be thought
that ... ltlg4 should be prevented, but as we
shall see in the next two games, this is not
true. The first game is a rare example of a
successful expansionist strategy for White.
25
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
Game l
Huss-Vaisser
Swiss Grand Prix 1990
1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJf3 c5 3 d5 g6 4 c4 b5 5
cxb5 a& 6 bxa6 .ixa6 7 ltJc3 .ig7 8 e4
.ixf1 9 �xf1 d6 10 g3 ltJbd7 11 �g2
0-0 12 :e1!
12 ...ltJg4?!
I am doubtful about this move. The
point is to wait and see what White is up
to before moving the queen. Black doesn't
know whether aS, b6, c7 or a8 is the cor­
rect square. However, White has .a choice
of promising ways in which to continue.
13ltJd2
13 'ii'e2 tl:Jge5 (not 13 ...'it'aS 14 i.g5) 14
tt:Jd2 transposes to the game, while the
recent improvement 14 tDxeS! is seen in
the next game. Note that 13 l:te2 tl:Jge5! is
far less effective as Black can meet 14 tt:Jd2
with 14 ... tt:Jd3.
13...lbge5 14 ._e2! lbb6 15 f4! ltJed7
Now Black would like to play
16 ... tl:Ja4, offering an exchange of knights,
e.g. 16 ti:Jf3 tl:Ja4! 17 ti:Jd1 l:ta7 18 l:tb1 'it'a8
19 'ii'c2 ti:Jab6 20 a3 e6! with a very pleas­
ant game for Black in Hort-Ermenkov,
Tunis Interzonal 1985.
16 a4!
White thus avoids an exchange of
knights. Although he has loosened his
26
position somewhat with so many pawn
moves, he manages to keep control. It is a
knife-edge situation for Black. White is
threatening to assume total domination
with a4-aS, tl:Jc4 and e4-e5!
16 ...:a7
Black shows that he intends to soak up
the pressure. Perhaps 16 ...l:te8!?, intending
17 a5 tl:Jc8 18 tl:Jc4 e6!?, was possible in­
stead, putting a different complexion on
the game.
17 a5lba8
The attempted improvement 17 ...'it'a8!
was introduced in the game Lugovoi­
Khalifman, St Petersburg 1996. The use­
fulness of placing the black queen on the
same diagonal as the white king is seen
after 18 ti:Jb3?! i.xc3 19 bxc3 tl:Jxd5!, while
18 a6 l:tb8!? 19 tt:Jb5 :Xa6 20 tl:Jc7 :Xa1 2 1
tl:Jxa8 l:tbxa8 is unclear according to Stohl.
Lugovoi tried the alternative 18 'it'bS!?,
when after 18 ...l:tb8 19 axb6 l:txa1 20
'it'xd7 l:txb6 a very messy position was
reached.
However, two years later Lugovoi
reached the same position against Sivokho
(St Petersburg 1998) and unleashed 2 1
'it'xe7! i.xc3 22 bxc3 :Xcl 2 3 :Xcl l:tb2,
when he claims to have missed a win with
24 'it'xd6 :Xd2 + 25 �h3 'it'c8 + 26 g4.
18ltJc4ltJc7 19 e5
Showtime! You will get similar posi­
tions in your own games. If Black cannot
 C a s tling b y Hand w i t h e 2 - e4: Ma in Lin e
prove the d5-pawn to be weak, he will be
stifled off the board.
1 9 ...'i'a8 20 'i'f3 .:l.a6 21 J:.a3!
White's strategy comes together beauti­
fully. The black knights have nowhere to
go. Vaisser could now have tried 21...l:tb8,
intending ... ti:lb5, but in that case White
would exchange knights and follow up
with l:.a3-e3. It is that knight on c4 you
see, controlling matters.
21...e6!
Best, under the circumstances.
22 exd6lbxd5 23 .:l.d 1 ! lb7f6 24 l:.b3!
Huss is using virtually every anti-Benko
idea in this game.
24 . . .'i'c6 25 .:l.b6 'i'aS 26 .:l.b5 'i'a7
The exchange sacrifice 26 ... l:tb8 27
.:.Xb8 'ii'xb8 28 ti:lxd5 exd5 29 .:.Xd5 seems
to win for White, e.g. 29 ... ti:lxd5 30 'ii'xd5
and now 30 ... 'ii'a7 can be met by 3 1 'ii'xa8
l:txa8 32 i..e3! i..d4 32 ti:lb6! l:td8 33 �xd4
cxd4 34 a6!
Under great pressure and in time­
trouble, Vaisser cannot find a decent plan.
27 ..te3 lbxc3 28 bxc3 lbd5 29 ..txc5
.ii'd7 30 .:l.db 1 lbxc3 31 .:l.b7! 'i'a4 32 d7 !
The d-pawn decides.
32. ..'i'c2+ 33 �h 1 lbxb 1 34 ..txf8 .:!.aS
35 ..txg7 �xg7 36 lbe5 'i'c 1 + 37 'it>g2
'i'd2+ 38 �h3 .:l.xa5 39 d8'i' 'i'xd8 40
.:l.xf7+ �g8 41 'i'b7 'i'e8 42 .:l.g7+ 'iil>f8
43 .:l.f7+ q;,9s 44 J:.g7+ 1 -o
A magnificent game by Huss.
The next game is the one that really
casts 12 ... ti:lg4?! into serious doubt.
Game 8
Hjartarson-Zuger
Winterthur 1996
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 lbc3 ..txa6 7 lbf3 d6 8 e4
..txf 1 9 'it>xf1 lbbd7 1 0 g3 ..tg7 1 1 �g2
0-0 1 2 l:l.e 1 ! lbg4?! 13 'i'e2! lbge5
Virtually forced since the natural­
looking 13 .. .'ii' a5?! is strongly met by 14
ti:ld2! i..xc3 15 l!bc4 'ii'a6 16 bxc3 and
likewise 13 ... 'ii'b 6?! runs into 14 ti:ld2!
1 4 lbxe5!
A theoretical novelty, which Hjartar­
son claims he devised over the board. In
fact, he believes that it may cast serious
doubt on the correctness of Black's 12th
move. In principle the exchange of knights
is desirable for Black, but Hjartarson's
ambitious play shows that this is not the
case in this particular instance.
1 4...lbxe5 1 5 f4
Naturally 15 i..d2 c4! is fine for Black
(Hjartarson).
1 5. ..lbd7 16 ..td2! 'i'b6 1 7 b3!
The point. White is able to consolidate
the queenside and he can now think about
a kingside attack and/or e4-e5. Black must
react sharply to maintain any sort of bal­
ance in the game.
27
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
17 . . .l:!.fb8?!
Too mechanical. According to Hjartar­
son it was time for either 17 ...'ii'a6!? 18
'ii'xa6 l:.xa6 19 a4 l:.b8 or 17 ...'ii'b7 18 l:tacl
e6 19 dxe6 fxe6 20 l:.c2 when White has a
slight edge, but Black has at least organised
a distraction.
18 l:!.ac1 "ii'b7 19 l:!.c2!
White tidies up on the queenside and
prepares an attack on the other front.
19 ...lLlb6 20 h4! "ii'a6
Black had to try a central break with
20 ... e6, but after 2 1 dxe6 fxe6 Hjartarson
gives 22 hS dS 23 hxg6 hxg6 24 exdS exdS
25 'ii'e6+ 'iff7 26 'ifxf7+ 'it>xf7 27 ti.JbS! as
clearly better for White. In the light of
this variation, we must conclude that
Black has fatally delayed his counterplay.
The rook on b8 plays no part.
21 "ii'f3 c4?!
It was better for Black to admit his mis­
take with 21...:e8(!) 22 hS e6, although
even here Black's chances must be re­
garded as minimal.
22 b4! "ii'c8 24 a3
see following diagram
Unfortunately Ziiger now has nothing
to show for his pawn. Both of White's
queenside pawns are passed and they sim­
ply prevent Black from working up any
play at all. Hjartarson wraps things up
cleanly.
28
24 ...lLlf6 25 .i.b2 e6 26 dxe6 "ii'xe6 27
l:!.ce2! "ii'd7 28 e5
Crunch!
30 e6! fxe6 31 l:!.xe6 l:!.a7 32 lLld5! .i.xb2
33 l:!.e7!
The final attack is very incisive. This is
a model performance by White.
33..."ii'f5 34 "ii'xf5 gxf5 35 l:!.xa7 c3 36
l:!.e2 l:!.d8 37 b5 �8 38 lLlf4 l:!.d2 39
l:!.xd2 cxd2 40 lLle6+ �g8 41 l:!.d7 1-0
White's queenside pawn duo are mere
onlookers as the heavy pieces wreck the
black position. Yet they were the catalyst
behind the whole project - they made the
crushing attack possible.
Game 9
Van der Sterren-Topalov
Wijk aan Zee 1998
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 lLlc3 .i.xa6 7 e4 .i.xf1 8 �xf1
d6 9 g3 .i.g7 10 �g2 lLlbd7 11 lLlf3 0-0
12 l:!.e1! "ii'a5!?
Although 12 ... 'W'b6 leaves Black well
prepared to meet 13 eS with 13 ...dxe5 14
lt.JxeS lt.JxeS 15 .:XeS 'ifb7, White can play
13 h3!, transposing to the note to Black's
14th move in Game 2.
13 e5!?
Surprisingly this natural move has only
recently become fashionable. The slower
13 h3 leads back to Games 1-3, while 13
 C a s tlin g b y H a n d w i t h e 2 - e4 : Ma in Lin e
l:le2 l:lfb8 14 l:lc2 lDg4 1S _.e2 1i'a6 gives
Black a typical Benko endgame with no
real problems (see the Introduction). Note
also that 13 �gS can be met by 13 ... h6! 14
�xf6 �xf6 1S _.d3 l:lfb8 16 l:le2 l:lxb2! 17
l:lxb2 _.xc3 18 _.xc3 �xc3 19 l:lab1 �xb2
20 :Xb2 l:la4! with a clear plus for Black
in P.Parr-Browne, Adelaide 1971.
13...lLig4!
Since White has omitted h2-h3, why
not make use of the g4-square? Here both
13 ... dxeS 14 lDxeS lDxeS 1S l:lxeS l:la7 16
_.e2 and 13 ... lDe8 14 �f4 give White an
ideal position, as by analogy to Game 3
White has not wasted time on h2-h3.
14 exd6
Not 14 e6?! fxe6 1S dxe6 lDb6 16 �gS
l:la7 with good counterplay for Black.
14...exd6
As Dautov points out, the open e-file
gives White more chances of active play
than he normally gets in the Benko. He
may be able to launch a kingside attack or
attack the weak d6-pawn.
15 .i.f4 :fbS!
After 1S ...lDgeS 16 lDxeS lDxeS White
can play 17 l:le4! with the idea of l:la4
(Dautov).
16 :e2 'ifa6
White's possibilities in this line were
well illustrated in Gyimesi-Gershon,
WorldJunior Championship, Zagan 1997:
16 ...lDgeS 17 lDxeS lDxeS 18 :ct c4?!
(18 ...1i'a6 would have transposed to the
game) 19 �xeS �xeS 20 l:td2 �xc3 21
bxc3 l:tbS 22 _.f3 l:te8 23 l:te2 l:txe2 24
1i'xe2 l:.xdS 2S 1i'xc4 l:ld2 26 a4 and White
eventually converted his extra pawn to
victory. Instead, Black surprisingly chose
to grab the c-pawn with 16 ... �xc3?! 17
bxc3 _.xc3 in Yakovich-Solozhenkin,
Russian Championship 1996. In general
Black should not exchange his dark­
squared bishop unless there is no choice.
17 :c1 lt:\ge5 18 lt:\xe5 lt:\xe5 19 .i.xe5
.i.xe5
Although Black is still a pawn down,
his active pieces should be sufficient for
him to hold the balance with accurate
play, albeit with no real winning chances.
20 b3
The first new move of the game. After
20 :eel 1tb4 21 'i'd2 (the game Karolyi­
Vajda, Balatonbereny 1996, led to a quick
draw after 21 b3 �xc3 22 l:txc3 :d4 23
1td2 l:.xd2 24 1i'xd2 ..xa2 2S _.f4 'h-lh)
21...l:td4 22 'iVgS <li>g7 23 'iVcl l:.d3 Black
had full compensation in Rogozenko­
Vajda, Bucharest 1996. After this game
Rogozenko suggested that 20 l:.d2 with
the idea of 21 'iVf3 might be better for
White. However, this seems fine for Black
after 20 ... l:tb4 21 'i'f3 :d4! 22 l:tcd1 l:txd2
23 l:txd2 _.c4! (A.Martin).
20 ..:b4 21 :d2 c4 22 lt:\e2 �g7 23
.
bxc4
29
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

White could also consider the more White in Muir-Arduman, Pula 1997.
ambitious 23 lL'ld4!?
23 . . .J:.xc4 24 J:.xc4 'i'xc4 25 'i'c2 'i'b4
26 ltJg1 J:.a3 27 lLif3 .tf6 28 J:.d3 'i'e4
29 J:.c3 'i'xc2 30 J:.xc2 J:.a5 31 J:.d2 .tc3
�-�
Black will finally win back his pawn,
leaving a dead level position.

Game 10
Stohi-Zuger
Prague 1996
1 d4 lLif6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 ltJc3 .txa6 7 lLif3 d6 8 e4
..bf1 9 �xf1 .tg7 10 g3 lLibd7 11 �g2
0-0 12 J:.e1! J:.a6
12 ... l:ta7 is less effective here because of
13 'ii'c2! 'ii'a8 14 b3 lL'lb6 15 i.b2 lL'le8 16
16 'i'e2
Stohl recommends 16 1i'f3!? l:tb8 17
l:te2, when White is close to completing
his development with 18 i.f4 and l:tael .
1 6 J:.a7 17 'i'c4?!
. . •

a4, when Black did not have enough coun­ 17 1i'f3, retaining some control over the
terplay in Todorovic-Maksimovic, Yugo­ h1-a8 diagonal, was still the right idea.
slav Team Championship 1989. 17 ...'i'b7! 18 �g1
13 e5! ? Necessary as both 18 1i'xc5?? lLld7 and
This was a new move at the time. 13 h3 18 i.g5? lLlxdS! 19 l:txdS e6 are very bad.
would transpose to Game 5, while after 13 18 ...J:.d8! 19 .tg5ltJg4?
'ii'c2 1i'a8 14 b3 (it was perhaps more pru­ Over elaborate. The simple 19 ... h6! 20
dent to avoid this loosening of the long i.xf6 (or 20 i.f4 g5) 20 ... i.xf6 was per­
diagonal with, for example, 14 l:te2 e6 15 fectly reasonable for Black.
dxe6 fxe6 16 i.f4) 14 ... e6! 15 dxe6 fxe6 16
l:tb 1 d5 17 a4 lLlg4 Black had sufficient
counterplay in Van der Sterren­
Riemersma, Dutch Championship 1995.
13 ...dxe5
Not 13 ... lLlg4? 14 e6 lLlde5 (or 14 ... fxe6
15 1i'e2!) 15 lLlg5, intending f2-f4 (Stohl).
14ltJxe5 ltJxe5 15 J:.xe5

see following diagram

Although White's d-pawn is very ex­

posed, he has counterplay against the soft
spot on e7. This enables White to distract
his opponent before the usual black
queenside domination can be established.
15 ...'i'd7
If 15 ...1ld6 (threatening ...e7-e6) then 16
1i'f3 1i'd7 17 i.f4 l:tb6 18 l:tae1 favoured
20 J:.xe7! 'i'xb2 21 J:.f1! .td4 22 J:.xa7 !
lLixf2 23 'i'e2 'i'xc3 24 J:.xf2 J:.f8 25
J:.axf7! 1-0
Black resigned due to 25 ....:xf7 26 1We8+
or 25 ... i.xf2+ 26 l:txf2.

30
 C a s tlin g b y H a n d with e 2 - e 4 : Ma in Lin e

Summary
It is far from clear why White players invariably elect to play 12 h3 in the main line
position, as this move is often a waste of time. Black can achieve a reasonable game
with 12 ... 16'a5 (Games 1-3), 12 ... l:.a7 (Game 4), 12 ... l:.a6 (Game 5) or even 12 . . . lLlb6
(Game 6).
Instead of 12 h3, 12 l:.e1 is much more problematic for Black since the old remedy of
12 ...lLlg4?! (Games 7 and 8) is considered unsatisfactory nowadays. Black should prefer
12 ...16'a5 (Game 9) or 12 ... l:.a6 (Game 10), although after 13 e5!? in both cases he must
play accurately to maintain the equilibrium.

1 d4 li:)f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 li:)c3 ..txa6 7 e4 ..txf1 8 �xf1 d6

9 lt)f� ..tg7 10 g3 0-0 11 �g2 li:)bd7

12 h3
12 l:.e1 (D)
12 ... lLlg4
13 lLld2 - Game 7
13 'i6'e2 - Game 8
12 ... 16'a5 - Game 9
12 ... l:.a6 - Game 10
12 ...Wa5 (D)
12 . . . l:.a7 - Game 4
12 . . . l:.a6 - Game 5
12 . . . lLlb6 Game 6
-

13 l:.e1 l:.fb8 (D) 14 l:.e2

14 e5 - Game J
14 ... li:)e8
14 ... 16'a6 - Game 2
15 l:.c2 - Game 1

1 2 l:.e 1 1 2 . 'i6'a5
. . 1 3. . . l:.fb8

31
 CHAPTER TWO I
Castling by Hand with e2-e4:
Other Variations

1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 tLlc3 .ixa6 Game 11
In this chapter we shall consider other Voiculescu-Ghinda
variations in which White plays an early Romania 1973
e2-e4, forgoing the right to castle nor­
mally. These lines come in all shapes and 1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
sizes, and can lead to very different types bxa6 .ixa6 6 tLlc3 d6 7 e4 .ixf1 8 �xf1
of position. However, they do offer a se­ g6 9 g3 .ig7 10 �g2 0-0 11 f4?!
rious challenge and Black must avoid tak­
ing them at face value. If there is one is
one thing that Black should take on
board, it is the fact that routine moves
may be - and often are - ruthlessly pun­
ished.
There are three main elements to this
chapter: the plan of running the king to
h2 (Games 12 and 13), the sharp 9 g4
(Games 14-16) and the ultra-aggressive 7 f4
(Game 17). Each of these should be re­
garded on its merits. Over the years they
have all caused Black problems, although
satisfactory antidotes have been found. Ugh! One of the attractions of the
But first let us take a look at the sort of Benko is Black's fireproof king, and here
thing that White should avoid at all costs. Ghinda gets a chance to demonstrate it. 1 1
Below international level one can expect f4?! is really a disgusting move. With little
all sorts of nonsense against the Benko. or no development White lashes out. Here
The following game is very instructive, Ghinda could have played 1 1...lbbd7 12
although it is without doubt a horrible lLlf3 'l'b6 13 .l:e1 'i'b7!, intending ... lbb6,
affair. White's pseudo-aggressive attempts which would more or less paralyse the
are mercilessly punished. white centre. Black can then build up in

32
 C a s tlin g b y H a n d w i t h e 2 - e4: O t h e r Va ria tio n s
the usual way with . . .l:.fb8 an d ...tbe8-c7,
with ... e7-e6 hanging over White's head
like the sword of Damocles.
That would have been good enough,
but Ghinda played
11 ...lba6!? 12 ttlf3 •b6 13 e5?
I don't know how strong White was,
but to my eye this is a weak club player's
move. There is simply no justification for
this advance and White's d-pawn now
becomes very weak. After that comes the
king.
Surely a better chance was 13 l:.e1, in­
tending maybe l:.e2, showing some respect
for the black position.
13...lba8!
Here rather than d7 because Black is
targeting the d-pawn.
14 •e2 ttlec7 15 l:l.d1 ttlb4 16 .i.e3 •b7 !
By now White must have been having
some serious regrets about his lack of de­
velopment. However, it is already too late
to do anything about it, e.g. 17 'ii'd2 c4!
with a big advantage for Black.
17 .i.f2 dxe5 1 8 fxe5
18 a3 is met by 18 ... e4!
18 ...ttlbxd5 1 9 .i.xc5
The deciding factor after 19 tbxd5
li:Jxd5 20 �xeS l:.fc8! 2 1 �f2 li:Jb4 {intend­
ing ... l:.c2) is still the looseness of White's
king. The pin on f3 is particularly horri­
ble, e.g. 23 �g1 lLlc3!
19...l:l.fc8 20 ttle4lba6!
With the dual threat of ...li:Jf4+ and
... tbxcS. Add to the mix 2 1 .li.e3 lk2! 22
l:.d2 'ii'xb2 and you see that White's reply
is forced.
21 l:l.xd5 •xd5 22 .i.xe7 l:l.xa2 23 l:l.e1
. 23 l:.d1 is met by 23 .. J1xb2! winning.
23...l:l.a4 24 �g1 ttld4 25 •d1 l:l.a1! 0-1
A neat finish. After 26 'ii'xa1 lLlxf3+ 27
q;.g1 tbxe1 28 'ili'xe1 'ili'xeS Black wins eve­
rything.
This game is a salutary lesson for all
White players - it is unwise to accept the
Benko Gambit unless you have a very
clear idea of what you are doing.
In the next game White knew exactly
what he was trying to do and was able to
reap the benefits.
Game 12
Nenashev-Van der Weide
Groningen open 1997
1 d4 ttlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 ttlc3 .i.xa6 7 e4 .i.xf1 8 �xf1
d6 9 ttlf3 .i.g7 10 h3!?
En passant it is worth mentioning the
unusual 10 eS!? dxeS 1 1 lLlxeS 0-0 12 lLlc4
llJbd7 13 g3 li:Jb6 14 li:Jxb6 'ili'xb6 15 cj;g2
l:.fd8 16 'ii'f3 'ii'b7 17 l:td1 llJd7 18 'ili'e2
lLlb6 19 'ii'e4 llJc8 20 a4 lLld6 with an un­
clear position in Anastasian-Martinov,
Frunze open 1989. Some Black players
prefer to eliminate the possibility of 10 eS
with 9 ... llJbd7 and only then to play
... �g7 and ... 0-0, reaching the standard
position.
10...0-0 11 �g1 ttlbd7
1 1...lLla6!? is the subj �ct of the next
mam game.
12 �h2
Here White has spent an extra move
compared to the main line {g2-g3 and
�g2) to get his king to the safer-looking
h2-square. However, given that White
often plays h2-h3 in the main line anyway,
it could be argued that this move order
33
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
does not represent a loss of time at all .
12 ...Wa5
By analogy to Games 4 and 5, 12 ...l:.a7
13 l:te1 'ifaS and 12 ...l:ta6 13 l:te1 'ifaS
make less sense here, since ... e7-e6 is much
less effective with the white king on the
safe h2-square rather than on g2, while
after 12 ... 'ifb6 White continues 13 l:te1
.Ufb8 14 .Ue2 (protecting the b-pawn and
thereby freeing his dark-squared bishop)
14 ... tlJe8 15 .i.g5 h6 16 .i.f4 tlJc7 17 .Ucl
tlJb5 18 tlJxb5 'ifxb5 19 b3 with a com­
fortable advantage in Blees-Zso.Polgar,
Netherlands 1990. However, 12 ... tlJb6,
along the lines of Game 6, is perfectly
playable, e.g. 13 .Ue1 (13 'ife2 tlJa4! or 13
'ifc2 'ifd7) 13 ... 'ifd7 again with the idea of
... tlJa4.
13 :Z.e1 :Z.fb8 14 :Z.e2
We have now reached the exact same
position as in Games 1 and 2, except that
the white king stands on the h2-square and
he has not played g2-g3. His set-up is more
solid as a result.
14...liJe8
As we saw in Game 1, the point of this
move is to carry out the desirable ... tlJc7-
b5 manoeuvre, exchanging the key white
knight on c3. By analogy to Game 2,
14 ... 'ii'a6 is also playable as here 15 .Ub1
(15 .Uc2 tlJe8 16 .i.g5 :Xb2! or 15 .i.g5 h6
16 .i.xf6 .i.xf6) 15 ...tlJg4+!? 16 hxg4 .i.xc3
should be okay for Black, so White should
34
possibly consider 15 �g1!?, intending 16
.Ub1 or 16 'ifel.
Both ECO and Fedorowicz recommend
the sharp 14 ... .Ub4, planning to double
rooks on the b-file and hoping to provoke
White into weakening his queenside with
a2-a3. However, White then has the clever
regrouping manoeuvre 15 'ife1! tlJe8 16
tlJd1! followed by .i.d2 with a clear advan­
tage in Garcia Palermo-Nogueiras, Cien­
fuegos 1984. Instead of 15 ... tlJe8 ECO sug­
gests that Black should follow Garcia Pal­
ermo's suggestion of 15 ... l:tab8, but White
can still simply play 16 tlJd1! and 17 .i.d2.
15 :Z.c2
15 .i.g5 provides a rare example where
it may pay Black to exchange his dark­
squared bishop for the knight on c3. After
15 ... .i.xc3 16 bxc3 f6 17 .i.d2 'ifa4! 18
'ifxa4 l:txa4 19 .i.cl tlJc7 20 tlJd2 tlJb5 21
.Ue3 tlJa3 Black had a powerful initiative in
the endgame in Arkell-J .Sorensen, Hast­
ings 1990.
15 liJc7
. . .
15 ... tlJb6! may be better here. Play is
very similar to Game 1 after 16 'ife2 (or 16
l:tb 1 tlJc4 17 tlJd2 .i.xc3 18 l:txc3 \.-2-\.-2 Sa­
kaev-Khalifman, St Petersburg Champion­
ship 1996; Black regains his pawn after
18 ... tlJxd2 19 .i.xd2 'ifxa2) 16 ...'ii'a6! 17
'ii'xa6 (the simplest reply to 17 e5 is
17 ...'ifxe2 18 .Uxe2 tlJc4) 17 ...l:txa6 18 b3
(not 18 .i.g5 tlJc4! 19 .i.xe7 :Xb2 20 :Xb2
 C a s tlin g b y H a n d with e 2 - e 4 : O th e r Varia tio n s
lt:lxb2 2 1 e5 lt:ld3! when White w as totally
over-stretched in Blees-Greenfeld, Tel
Aviv 1988) 18 .. .f5! 19 eS? (19 exfS was
obviously better, when Black can choose
between the calm 19 ....i.xc3 20 :Xc3
lt:lxdS 2 1 l:r.d3 lt:lb4 22 l:r.d1 gxfS and the
speculative 19 ... lt:lxd5!?) 19 ...dxe5 20 .i.b2
e4 21 lt:le1 lt:ld6 with a massive plus for
Black in Wosselman-Ghizdavu, Nether­
lands 1974.
16 i.g5! �8
The usual remedy to 16 .i.gS, 16 ... h6,
fails here to 17 .i.xe7 'i6'a6 18 .i.h4, when
the bishop cannot trapped by 18 ... g5. As a
result White has enough time to unravel
his queenside.
17 .l:.ac1! �b5
Carrying out the thematic exchange.
17 ... lt:la6?! 18 l:r.e2 lt:lb4 19 a3 lt:la6 20 'ii'd2
l:r.b3 was much too slow in Nenashev­
Permiakov, Russian Cup 1996: 21 .i.h6
l:r.ab8 22 l:tc2 'ii'd8 23 'ii'f4 (preparing for
the caveman-like 'ii'h4 and lt:lgS) 23 ... .i.xh6
24 'ii'xh6+ �g8 25 lt:lgS lt:lf8 26 f4 lt:lc7 27
eS lt:lbS 28 e6 fxe6 29 lt:lxbS l:r.8xb5 30
l:txe6 .:txb2 31 lt:lxh7 lt:lxe6 32 dxe6 :Xc2
33 'ii'xg6+ �h8 34 lt:lg5 1-0.
18 �xb5 Wxb5 19 b3 :tal 20 .l:.e2!
Excellent play. White prepares to dou­
ble rooks on the second rank, which will
provide the a-pawn with all the protection
it will . ever need. At the same time the
rook on e2 supports White's eventual plan
of e4-e5.
20 ...Wa6?! 21 .l:.cc2 �e5?!
Black loses patience and is soon
swamped by the onrushing enemy pawns.
Having said that, it is hard to see a decent
plan for Black.
22 �xe5 i.xe5+ 23 f4 i.g7 24 e5 h6 25
i.h4 g5 26 i.g3 gxf4 27 i.xf4 i.xe5 28
i.xe5 dxe5 29 .l:.xc5 .l:.d8 30 Wc2 e4 31
.l:.c6 Wd3 32 Wb2 1-0
Game 13
Hjartarson-P . Cramling
Nordic Zonal 1992
1 d4 �f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 �c3 i.xa6 7 �f3 d6 8 e4
i.xf1 9 �xf1 i.g7 10 h3 0-0 11 �g1
�a6!?
In the main line with g2-g3 and �g2
Black rarely plays the knight to a6. How­
ever, here this move can be justified on
three counts:
a) White's h2-h3 and �gl-h2 takes him
more time than g2-g3 and �g2. so Black
has an 'extra' tempo to play with.
b) Here Black need not be so fearful of
e4-e5 as the white king would then be
exposed on the h2-b8 diagonal.
c) The move h2-h3 took away the g4-
square from the black knight, so the
common ... lt:lbd7 and ... lt:lg4-e5 manoeu­
vre is already ruled out.
35
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
However, despite the fact that
1 1...tiJa6!? has been played by some strong
players, notably Judit Polgar, Pia Cram­
ling and Pal Benko himself, it does seem
slightly fishy as it loosens Black's grip on
the centre.
12 �h2 1i'b6 13 1i'e2
A new move in this particular position,
planning l:td1 and e+e5. Pia Cramling was
obviously not too disappointed with the
outcome of the opening in this game, as
she chose to repeat this very same varia­
tion the following year: 13 l:te1 tlJd7 (this
seems better than 13 ...llfb8 14 l:Ie2 tlJb4
15 .i.e3 ttJd7 16 l:td2 'ii'a6 17 a3 'ii'a5 18
l:tcl tlJa6 19 'ii'e2 with a slight plus for
White in Schoen-J .Polgar, Reykjavik open
1988) 14 l:te2 tlJe5 15 tlJxe5 .i.xe5+ 16 <li>g1
tlJb4 17 .i.e3 'ii'a6 18 l:td2 l:tfb8 with good
counterplay in Bernal Moro-P.Cramling,
Spanish Team Championship 1993.
13 . . . ll:\b4
13 ...l:tfb8 led to a typical Benko end­
game after 14 tiJd2 tlJc7 15 tlJc4 'ii'a6 16
.i.d2 tiJd7 17 l:r.he1 tlJe5 18 tlJxe5 .i.xe5+
19 f4 .i.d4 20 .i.cl 'ii'xe2 21 l:txe2 in
Camara-Benko, Sao Paulo 1973. However,
14 l:td1 is a more consistent move for
White.
14 a4
Stohl gives 14 l:r.d1 'ii'a6!? with compen­
sation. After the game move White is
threatening to achieve his ideal set-up with
36
tiJb5 and .i.d2, so Black must act quickly.
14 . . . e6! 15 l:l.d1
Or 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 e5 ttJfd5 17 tlJxd5
exd5 with compensation.
15 . . . exd5 16 exd5 l:l.fe8?!
Stohl suggests 16 ...'ii'a6!? 17 'ii'xa6 :Xa6,
intending ... c5-c4 and ... ttJd3, with com­
pensation. The rather lazy game move
gives White time to organise a kingside
attack.
17 1i'c4 1i'a6 18 'i'h4! 1i'c8 19 i..h6 i..h8
20 l:l.ac1 1i'f5 21 1i'f4 1i'd7
Having wasted so many tempi with his
queen, Black would stand much worse in
the endgame after 21...'ii'xf4+ 22 .i.xf4
l:ted8 23 b3.
22 i..g5 ll:\h5 23 1i'd2 liJf6 24 1i'f4 ll:\h5
25 1i'g4!? f5?
Fatally weakening the e6-square for no
good reason. After 25 ... 'ii'xg4 26 hxg4 tiJf6
Black would still have had drawing
chances.
26 1i'c4 i..g7 27 l:l.e1 f4 28 l:l.e6 h6 29
i.. h4 g5
Desperation. Although Black wins a
piece, his king is now devoid of protec­
tion.
30 i..xg5 hxg5 31 ll:\xg5 l:l.xe6 32 dxe6
1i'c6
Or 32 ... 'ii'e7 33 'ii'e4!
33 l:l.d1 i.. d4 34 1i'e2 liJf6 35 ll:\ce4 ll:\xe4
36 ll:\xe4 l:l.a7 37 l:l.xd4! cxd4 38 1i'g4+
l:l.g7
 C a s tlin g b y Ha n d with e 2 - e 4 : O th e r Va ria tio n s
The white queen and knight combine
to deadly effect after the alternatives
28...�f8 29 1Wxf4+ and 28 ... �h8 29 lbf6.
39 .!iJf6+ �8 40 e7+! �xe7
Or 40 ... �f7 41 e81W +! 1Wxe8 42 1Wxg7+
�xg7 43 lbxe8+ �f7 44 lbxd6+ �e6 45
lLlc4.
41 'i'xg7+ �dB 42 'i'hB+ �e7 43 .!lJgS+
�7 44 'i'h7+ �8 45 .!lJe7 1-0
Modern chess is a real dogfight. Master­
pieces, games that flow from start to fin­
ish, are hard to come by because the de­
fender will always find some way of mess­
ing things up - of spoiling the clarity of
the winner's performance. The next game
is like a classic from an earlier age. It is
obvious that Y asser Seirawan is markedly
stronger than his opponent and this en­
ables him to produce a really beautiful
attack.
Game 14
Seirawan-Belotti
Lugano 1988
1 d4 .!iJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 i.xa6 6 .!lJc3 d6 7 e4 i.xf1 8 �xf1
g6 9 g4
Seirawan's speciality. White could be
thinking of a kingside attack, or on the
other hand he may just be setting up a
favourable pawn structure as a prelude to
a positional squeeze. Certainly he will
play his king to g2.
One thing is for sure: Black must be in­
cisive with his reply. The need to avoid
routine moves in the Benko was stressed
in the Introduction. Belotti's mistake here
is that he plays only 'normal' moves and 9
g4 does not fit into that category.
9 . ..i.g7 10 �g2
The immediate 10 gS is the subject of
Game 16.
10 ... 0-0
10 ...1Wc8!? is perhaps better, intending
either to combine harassment of the white
king with queenside play after 1 1 gS lbhS,
with a transposition to Game 16, or to
increase the queenside pressure with
...1Wa6. Also possible is Fedorowicz' sug­
gestion 10 ... lbbd7 1 1 f3 lbeS 12 lbge2 1Wc8
and ...1Wa6, with an eye on the d3-square.
11 g5 .!iJfd7?!
It is more logical to block the advance
of the white h-pawn with 1 1...lbh5 - see
the next game.
12 h4
12 ....!iJa6?
If Black's last move was risky then this
is almost fatal. 12 ... c4! had to be played,
intending ... lbc5-d3 or ... lbe5-d3. At least
then Black would have some counterplay.
13 h5 'i'c7 14 'i'g4!
Direct and extremely effective.
14...l:l.fb8 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 'i'h4 .!iJfS 17
37
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

li:lf3 'iFd7
17 ... lLlb4 would be met by 'route one'
chess, i.e. 18 lLlh2 lLlc2 19 lLlg4 lLlxa1 20
lLlh6+ i.xh6 2 1 'ifxh6 f6 22 gxf6 exf6 23
'ifh8+ �f7 24 :h7+.
18 lt::lh2 lt::l b4 19 lt::lg4 li:ld3 20 :lh3!
lt::lxc1 21 :lxc1 :lxb2 22 :lch1
There is no sensible advice to offer
Black. Belotti at least sets a last trap.

13 gxf6
After 13 lLlg3 Black can try 13 .. .f4!? 14
lLlxh5 f3+ 15 �f1 gxh5 16 l:.g1 lLld7 17 g6
h6 18 i.e3 lLle5, when the powerful
knight on e5 enabled Black to score a very
quick victory in Nutu-Vajda, Romanian
Women's Championship 1994: 19 'ifd2
'W'c8 20 i.xh6 'ii'a6+ 21 �e1 lLlc4 22 'W'g5
i.f6 23 'ifxh5 i.xc3+ 24 �d1 lLle5 0-1.
22 . . .:lab8(! ) 23 li:lf6+! 13 ...:lxf6!
Grandmasterly control. Not 23 lLlh6+? Andruet had previously tried 13 ... exf6?!
i.xh6 24 'ifxh6 'ii'g4+ 25 l:.g3 l:.xf2+ 26 14 lLlg3 lLlxg3 15 hxg3 lLld7 16 i.h6 i.xh6
�2 l:.b2+ 27 �fl 'W'f4+ and the tables are 17 l:.xh6 'ifb6 18 'W'g4 l:.f7 19 l:.ah 1, when
turned. White was well on top in Gulko-Andruet,
23 . . .exf6 24 gxf6 .i.xf6 25 'iFxf6 • Amsterdam 1988. The game is much more
The difference is that now the f-pawn is logical as it keeps the long diagonal open
covered. for the bishop, while allowing Black to set
25 . . . lt::lh7 26 'iFf4! g5 27 'iFg3 1-0 up a battery of major pieces on the f-file.
14 .i.g5 :lf7 15 'iFd2 'iFf8 16 :laf1 li:ld7
Game 15 17 f4 lt::lb6
Haba-Andruet
Toulouse open 1990
1 d4 li:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a& 5
bxa6 g6 6 lt::lc3 .i.xa6 7 e4 .i.xf1 8 �xf1
d6 9 g4 .i.g7 10 �g2 0-0 11 g5 lt::lh5 12
lt::lge2 f5
It is too late for 12 .. 'ifc8 13 lLlg3 as
there is no check on g4. However,
12 ... e5!? {preventing 13 lLlg3? due to
13 ...lLlf4+} has been seen a few times. I
prefer the game move as it seems rather a
shame to block the bishop on g7.

38
 C a s tlin g b y Ha n d with e 2 - e 4 : O th er Va ria tio n s
Black evidently h as full compensation
for the pawn as White's position is rather
over-stretched and Black has ideas of
.. .'i'c8 or ... tt:la4. However, White's next
move is a bad blunder which leaves the f­
pawn seriously lacking in protection.
18 llJg3? ..ixc3! 19 'ii'xc3 h6 20 llJxh5
hxg5! 21 'ii'b3
Bizarrely, this whole game until this
point had occurred in the earlier game
Haik-Hauchard, Val Thorens 1988, which
concluded 2 1 tt:lg3 gxf4 22 tt:le2 l:txa2 23
'i'b3 l:ta4 24 tt:lc3 l:tb4 25 'i'c2 tt:lc4 0-1. It
is very possible that Andruet · was even
familiar with this game, in which case he
was able to collect a practically effortless
point!
21 ...gxh5 22 fxg5
Utter desperation, but 22 'i'xb6 l:tb8!
23 'i'a5 l:txb2+ was obviously also hope­
less.
22...llJd7 23 'ii'h3 llJe5 24 l:l.hg1 llJg4 25
g6 l:l.f2+ 26 l:l.xf2 'ii'xf2+ 27 �h1 'ii'f4 0-1
Game 16
Seirawan-Aiburt
US Championship 1986
1 d4 llJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 llJc3 ..ixa6 7 e4 ..ixf1 8 �xf1
d6 9 g4 ..ig7 10 g5 llJh5 11 llJge2
1 1 �g2 0-0 transposes to Game 15,
while the alternative 1 1 ... 'i'c8!? is also
worth considering.
1 1 ...'ii'c8
The immediate 1 1 ...h6!? 12 gxh6 .ixh6
13 .ixh6 lhh6 14 'i'd2 l:th8 leads to very
similar play to the game.
12 �g2
It looks too risky to allow the black
queen to come to h3 with 12 tt:lg3?! 'i'h3+
{12 ... h6!? 13 gxh6 'i'h3+ 14 �g1 .ixh6 15
i.xh6 l:txh6, as in Vokac-Sergeev, Slova­
kian Team Championship 1995, is also
promising for Black) 13 �g1 ti:ld7 14
lt:Jxh5 gxh5 15 'i'fl 'i'h4, which led to a
quick win for Black in Kaminik­
Zsu.Polgar, Israeli Team Championship
1996: 16 'i'g2 .ixc3 17 bxc3 l:ta4 18 .id2
l:tc4 19 f3 l::.a4 20 'i'e2 'i'h3 21 f4 0-0 22 c4
l:tb8 23 �f2 l:tb2 24 l:thd1 'i'xh2+ 25 �fl
'i'h 1+ 26 �f2 'i'h4+ 27 �fl l:ta3 28 'i'f2
'i'g4 0-1.
1 2 ...h6!?
In the early days of this variation White
enjoyed a fair degree of success in the forc­
ing variation 12 ...'i'g4+ 13 tt:lg3 tt:lf4+ 14
.ixf4 'i'xf4 15 h4 0-0 16 l:th3. For exam­
ple, his caveman tactics paid off in the
most spectacular fashion in Knaak­
Pokojowczyk, Polanica Zdroj 1979, after
16 ... lt:Ja6 17 tt:lge2 'i'g4+ 18 l:tg3 'i'd7 19 h5
c4 20 'i'h 1 l:tfb8 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 'i'h4
lt:Jc5 23 l:th 1 tt:ld3 24 l:tgh3 f6 25 'i'h7+ 1-0
(after 25 ... �£7 the neat 26 'i'xg7+! leads to
mate}.
Alburt's move puts a stop to White's
kingside aspirations, albeit at the price of
an exchange of his important bishop.
1 3 gxh6 ..ixh6 1 4 ..ixh6 l:l.xh6 15 f3
I prefer 15 h3, as White soon plays this
move m any case.
15 ...llJd7 16 'ii'd2 l:l.h7 17 h3 c4 18 llJd1
llJe5 19 liJf2 g5! 20 a4 f6 21 a5 �7 22
l:l.a3 llJg6
White's slow play has enabled his op­
ponent to stake a firm claim on the dark
squares on the kingside. It is hard for
White to find anything to do, but the plan
39
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

of walking the king over to the queenside 44 tl:lxe6 .:te5 45 Wg3, when White's queen
seems highly dubious, given that Black and knight, in combination with the
already has the a- and b-files to play with! passed a-pawn, offer him excellent win­
ning chances.

23 �1 'ii'a6 24 �e1 :thhB 25 �d1 :tabS

26ltJd4 liJhf4 27 �c2ltJe5 28 �b1 :thcB
29 :tc1 c3!
Exploiting the lack of co-ordination in
White's pieces. 30 l:taxc3 allows 30 ... 1i'xaS.
30 :tcxc3 :txc3 31 :txc3 ltJc4 32 :txc4
'ii'xc4 33ltJc6 :tb3 34 'ii'c2 'ii'f 1 + 35 �a2
35 'iVdl 1Vb5 36 1Vc2 also looks pretty
grim for White.
35...:txf3 36 e5!?ltJg6
This move blocks the c2-h7 diagonal
but allows White a perpetual check. At
first sight 36 .. .'�g7 37 tl:lxe7 l:tx£2 looks
hopeless for White, but he has the last­
ditch resource 38 'iVc8! (not 38 tl:lf5+ �g6
39 tl:lh4+ �h6 40 tl:lf5+ �h5 and wins),
when the best that Black can do is to force
a draw with 38 ... l:txb2+! 39 �b2 1Vh5+.
37 liJdB+ �g7??
37 ... �e8 38 Wc6+ �xd8 39 1Va8+ �d7
40 1Vc6+ is a draw.
38 ltJe6+ �h7
39...�g8 40 'ii'xg6+
White could still have kept the game
going with 40 tl:lxg6!? l:txf2 41 tl:lxe7+ �f8
42 'iVc7! fxe5 (not 42 ... dxe5? 43 d6) 43
tl:lc8, but even then it is unlikely that he
would achieve more than a draw after
43 ...1i'e2. His own king is vulnerable too!
40...�xf8 41 'ii'h6+ �gB 42 'ii'g6+ �8
43 'ii'h6+ �gB �-�
Carnell
Naumkin-V .Ivanov
Moscow 1992
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6ltJc3 .i.xa6 7 f4 .i.g7 8 liJf3

see following diagram

39 liJf8+?
White misses the spectacular 39 exf6!!
:x£6 (39 ... exf6 40 'iVc7+ leads to mate) 40
lL!e4!, when the white pieces are superbly
co-ordinated. For example, 40 ... .:tf5 41
tl:l4xg5+ �h6 42 'iVd2! tl:lf4 43 1Vc3 tl:lxe6

40
 C a s tlin g b y H a n d with e 2 - e 4 : O th e r Varia tio n s
8 .Wa5!
. .
We have already seen in the Introduc­
tion to this book, that Black is likely to
run into great peril if he plays routinely
with 8 ... 0-0?! here. The game move pre­
vents the immediate 9 e4 because of the
pin on the knight.
9 .i.d2
9 �f2?! is pointless, as after 9 ...0-0
White still cannot play 10 e4 because of
10 ... ltlg4+ 1 1 �g3 .i.xc3 12 �g4 (not 12
bxc3? ltlf6 13 'ii'e 1 'ii'xc3! 14 'ii'xc3 ltlxe4+)
12 ... .i.g7, when the white king has to beat
a hasty retreat. In Murey-Fedorowicz,
Paris 1989, 10 h3 was met by some very
fine and original play: 10 ... e6! 1 1 e4 exdS
12 eS (or 12 exdS d6 with good play)
12 ... ltle4+ 13 ltlxe4 dxe4 14 ltlgS c4! 15
ltlxe4 d5 16 ltlgS f6! 17 exf6 .i.xf6 18 ltlf3
ltlc6 19 �g3 'ireS 20 l:.b1 .i.c8 2 1 .i.e3
'ii'xe3 22 'ii'xdS+ .i.e6 23 'ii'xc6 .i.h4+ 24
'ii;lxh4 'ii'f2+! 0-1 (25 g3 l:.xf4+ 26 �gS
'ii'xg3+ 27 c.t>h6 l:th4+ 28 ltlxh4 'ii'xh4
mate).
9 . 0-0 10 e4 d6!?
. .
Zsofia Polgar prefers 10 ....i.xf1, al­
though after 1 1 l:txf1 d6 White can play in
standard fashion with 12 eS!?, which still
looks quite dangerous. The point of
10 ... d6!? is that after 1 1 eS dxeS 12 fxeS
ltlg4 White does not have the usual 13
'ii'e2 at his disposal.
11 .i.xa6
Recent attempts to rehabilitate this line
for White have focused upon 1 1 .i.e2!? For
example:
a) 1 1....i.xe2?! 12 'ii'xe2 'ii'a6 13 lld1
ltlbd7 14 .tel 'ii'xe2+ 15 <itxe2 ltle8 16 a3
lbc7 17 �d3 with a large advantage for
White in the endgame in Naumkin­
Kerkhof, Ostend open 1992.
b) 1 1...'ii'h4 12 eS! dxeS 13 fxeS ltlg4 14
i.xa6 ltlxa6 15 'ii'e2 'ii'xb2 16 0-0!? (or 16
J:b1 'ii'c2 17 0-0 'ii'fs 18 ltlg5 'ireS 19 ltlxf7
J:x£7 20 :xf7 q.,xf7 21 e6+ �g8 22 'ii'xg4
ltlb4 with a very complicated game in
Kozul-Kochiev, Palma de Mallorca 1989)
16 ... ltlxe5 17 ltlxeS .i.xeS 18 'ii'xeS 'ii'xd2
19 l:tad1 'ii'h6 (19 ... 'ii'h2 looks more logi­
cal, but after 20 l:tb 1 'ii'a3 21 l:tb3 'ii'aS 22
l:tb7! White still has the best of it) 20 'ii'xe7
l:tae8 21 'ii'f6 and White's passed d-pawn
gave him the advantage in Naumkin­
Borgo, Amantea 1994.
c) 1 1...'ii'h 6 !? 12 0-0 c4+ (12 ... e6 is also
possible, but not 12 ... ltlbd7?! 13 �h1 l:.fb8
14 eS ltle8 15 e6 fxe6 16 dxe6 ltldf6 17 fS
and White crashed through in Kozul­
lvanovic, Kladavo 1990) 13 �h 1 'ii'xb2
(13 ... ltlg4? fails to 14 'it'cl! and if
14 ... ltlf2+?? 15 l:txf2! 1i'xf2 16 .i.e3 traps
the queen) with a very messy position.
11 . . .Wxa6 12 We2
White heads for the endgame, but all
these exchanges cost time and this enables
Black to develop sufficient counterplay.
12 . . . lLlbd7! 13 Wxa6 l:l.xa6
14 l:l.d1
Naumkin's attempted improvement,
preparing to meet ... l:tb8 with .tel. The
older moves have given Black excellent
practical results:
a) 14 0-0-0 fails to 14 ... ltlg4! 15 l:thfl
.i.xc3 16 bxc3 l:txa2, although Black actu­
ally spumed this opportunity in Bayer­
Fedorowicz, Porz 1988.
b) 14 �d1 ltlg4! 15 �c2 c4 16 :he1
ltlcs 17 l:te2 ltld3 18 h3 ltlgf2! 19 a3 l:tb8
20 l:ta2 l:.ab6 and White's position was
41
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
creaking at the seams in Skembris­
Andruet, Montpellier 1989.
c) 14 �e2 l:.b8 15 l:.ab 1 (15 b3 l:.b4!? 16
�d3 c4+ or 16 ... ltJg4) 15 ...ltJb6 16 �d3 (16
b3 ltJh5! threatens ... ltJxf4+ and ... .i.xc3)
16 ... ltJa4 was already very pleasant for
Black in Degerman-Berg, Gausdal 1990.
d) 14 0-0 l:.b8 and whether White de­
fends the b-pawn with 15 b3, 15 l:.ab 1 or
15 l:.fb 1 Black has good counterplay with
the standard Benko manoeuvre ... ltJe8-c7-
b5. With the white pawn on f4 he must be
especially careful of ... f7-f5 by Black, as the
e-pawn can no longer be supported by f2-
f3, which in tum leaves the white d-pawn
highly vulnerable.
14 ...J:I.b8 15 .i.e1 J:l.b4
16 a3
White is provoked into weakening his
queenside, but 16 e5 ltJe4 was obviously
undesirable.
16...J:I.b7 17 0-0 ttJe8
17 ...ltJb6!? was equally playable, al­
though in that case Black would have
probably been better off playing
16 ...l:.b8!? instead of 16 ... l:.b7.
18 J:l.fe1 .i.xc3! 19 bxc3 l2Jc7
Here we see one of those rare examples
where it pays Black to exchange his dark-
42
squared bishop. He is threatening both
... ltJb5 and ... ltJb6-c4, when the knight
would completely dominate the white
bishop (20 c4 ltJb6 21 ltJd2 fails to
21...rla4).
20 e5 liJb5 21 exd6 exd6 22 J:l.e8+ �g7
23 c4 lt:Jxa3 24 J:l.e7 h6
White was threatening ltJg5.
25 f5!? gxf5 26 lt:Jh4 �6! 27 J:l.e8 J:l.b1
28 J:l.f1 lDe5 29 J:l.xf5+ �g7 30 J:l.f1 �h7!
Not 30 ... ltJaxc4? 3 1 .i.xh6+.
31 h3 lDaxc4 32 �h2 J:l.aa1?
Black would have been winning on ma­
terial after 32 ... ltJe3! 33 l:.g1 ltJxdS or 33
:xfl+ ltJxf7 34 .i.xe3 l:.a7. After the
tempting game move White is able to gen­
erate some swindling chances.
33 J:l.f6! J:l.xc1 34 liJf5 J:l.h1+ 35 �g3
J:l.a3+ 36 �2 J:l.a2+ 37 �g3 J:l.a3+ 38 �2
J:l.a2+ 39 �g3 J:l.a3+ 40 �2 Yz - Yz
Perhaps Black's flag was hanging, or
else he would surely have realised that he
was winning with the continuation
40 ... ltJg4+ 41 hxg4 ltJe5 42 :Xd6 ltJxg4+ 43
'ite2 :h2 or even better 40 ... ltJd3+!! 41
'itg3 (41 �e2 l:.e1+ or 41 �f3 ltJce5+ 42
�g3 ltJe1+ 43 �f2 l:.a2+) 41...ltJe1+ 42
�g4 ltJe5+ 43 'it>h5 :hxh3 44 gxh3 l:.xh3+
45 ltJh4 ltJg2 46 l:lxh6+ �g7.
 C a s tlin g b y H a n d with e 2 - e 4 : O th e r Varia tio n s

Summary
None of the variations in this chapter should present Black with any problems, pro­
viding he avoids playing in routine fashion. Game 1 1 is a sharp reminder of how
quickly White's position can fall apart if he fails to take the Benko on its merits. A
much more sensible approach for White is the plan of running the king to h2, as in
Games 12 and 13. However, Black can still achieve a reasonable game either with the
conventional 1 1 .. .lDbd7, 12 ... 'ifa5 and 13 ... .1:.fb8 or, my own personal preference, the
enterprising 1 1 ...lDa6!? and 12 ... 'ifb6.
Moving on to the sharper lines, Seirawan's pet favourite, 9 g4, initially led to some
good results for White, as we saw in Game 14. However, once Black players recovered
from the shock of this thrust they were able to find several reasonable antidotes (Games
15 and 16}. Finally, 7 f4 has been completely defused by 7.: ..�.g7 8 lDf3 'ifaS! (Game 17}.

1 d4 ltlt6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6 6 ltlc3 .txa6

7 e4
7 f4 - Game 1 7
7 . . . .txf 1 8 �xf 1 d 6 (0} 9 ltlt3
9 g3 i.. g7 10 �g2 0-0 1 1 f4 - Game 1 1
9 g4 i.. g7
10 �g2 0-0 1 1 g5 (D)
1 1...lDfd7 - Game 14
1 1...lDh5 - Game 15
10 g5 - Game 16
9 . . . .tg7 10 h3 0-0 11 �g 1 (0} ltlbd7
1 1 ...lDa6 - Game 13
12 �h2 - Game 12

8 . . . d6 1 1 g5 1 1 �g 1

43
 CHAPTER THREE I
Fianchetto Variation

1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 lbc3 i.xa6 7 lbf3 d6 8 g3 Game 18
lbbd7 9 i.g2 Van der Sterren-Hertneck
In the early days of the Benko Gambit, German Bundesliga 1994/95
before the development of more sophisti­
cated systems, the fianchetto variation was 1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
a very popular counter for White. It bxa6 g6 6 lbc3 .ba6 7 lbf3 d6 8 g3
avoids the problem of wandering around lbbd7 9 i.g2 i.g7 10 0-0
with the king and allows White to com­ Recently 10 l:tb1!? has become fashion­
plete his development whilst retaining a able, intending to transpose to Game 20
sound position. However, the kingside after 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0.
fianchetto is not much of a challenge to 10 ...lbb6
Black's gambit idea and the line has waned
in popularity in recent"'years.
After the opening moves Black can
choose between two distinct plans:
9 ... �bd7 10 0-0 �b6 (Game 18) attempts
to hamper White by pressing quickly
against the d-pawn; while after 9 ... 0-0
(Games 19 and 20) Black prefers to await
developments. White can also try various
ideas, including fianchettoing both bish­
ops and/or developing the king's knight
on h3. These possibilities are examined in
Game 2 1 . If you have ever wondered why
Black usually plays 5 ... g6 in the Benko The point of this move is to hinder
rather than 5 ... .ixa6, you will find the White's natural development by pressing
answer here. It is not just a move-order against the d-pawn.
quirk but an important way for Black to 11 :e1
keep his options open. By far the most popular move in this

44

posttlon. Here 1 1 l:.b 1 allows Black to
regain the gambit pawn immediately via
11...i.c4! 12 tbd2 i.xa2 13 tbxa2 l:.xa2 14
b4 cxb4 15 e4 tbfd7 16 l:lxb4 0-0 17 tbf3
"i'c7 with an equal position in Lima-De la
Villa, Leon 1997.
1 1 ...0-0 12 ..tt4
Black has enjoyed fantastic practical re­
sults after the routine 12 e4 tbfd7 13 'W'c2
llJc4 14 i.f4 (or 14 b3 'W'a5!) 14 ...'W'a5 15
l:.ac1 l:.tb8 16 b3 tbce5! 17 tbxe5 tbxe5 18
i.xe5 i.xe5, when the two bishops pro­
vide full compensation for the pawn.
1 2 ...lLlh5
The plan of chasing the white bishop
immediately is a good one for Black, but
also possible is immediate queenside action
with 12 ... tbc4 13 'W'ct 'W'a5 14 tbd2 tbd7
(Not 14 ... l:.fb8 15 tbxc4 i.xc4 16 .td2
ll:ld7 17 b3 i.a6 18 tba4, when White is
well on top as Black has achieved very
little by moving the king's rook to b8.
P.Nikolic-Vaganian, Sarajevo 1987, con­
tinued 18 ... 'W'd8 19 i.c3 'W'f8 20 i.h3 f5 21
i.g2 tbf6 22 i.b2 c4 23 i.d4 tbe4 24 'W'e3
and White was in command.) 15 ltJxc4
i.xc4 16 .td2 i.a6 (Black carefully retreats
the bishop to prevent White from gaining
time with b2-b3 and tba4, as in the Niko­
lic-Vaganian reference above) 17 i.h3 (17
b3 can be met by 17 ... c4 with counter­
play) 17 ... l:.a7 18 tbd1 'W'b5 19 i.c3 itJb6
20 i.xg7 �xg7 2 1 e4 'W'b4 22 ...c3+ ...xc3
23 tbxc3 tbc4 24 b3 tbe5 25 l:.e3 l:.b8 with
an equal position in Gyimesi-Honos,
Hungarian Team Championship 1995.
13 ..tg5
13 .td2 runs into 13 ... tbc4.
1 3 ... h6 14 ..tc1 lLlt6
see following diagram
Bizarrely we have reached the same po­
sition as after move 1 1 - but with Black's
pawn on h6 rather than h7, which is a
slight concession.
1 5 .:tb1
Fia n c h e t t o Varia tio n
15 tbd2 ...c7 16 l:.b1 'W'b7 puts pressure
on the d-pawn, while 15 e4 tbfd7 16 'W'c2
tbc4 17 .tfl tbde5 18 ltJxe5 tbxe5 19 �g2
...aS 20 i.f4 l:.fb8 21 l:.ac1 .txf1+ 22 l:.xf1
c4 23 i.xe5 i.xe5 gave Black sufficient
pressure to regain the pawn with equality
in Gyimesi-Jukic, Mitropa Cup 1995.
15 .....tc4
This is a risky continuation whereby
Black regains his pawn on a2 but leaves
himself open to strong central pressure
from White. In fact White often invests a
pawn himself in order to pursue his initia­
tive. If Black feels nervous about following
this course then a reasonable alternative is
15 ...tbfd7, when White is left slightly
hampered while Black maintains the pos­
sibility of ... .tc4. Practice has seen 16 'W'c2
(or 16 i.f4 ltJc4 17 'W'c2 'W'aS 18 .l:tbcl
l:.fb8 19 b3 ltJa3 20 ...d2 �-� Greenfeld­
Alterman, Beersheva 199 1) 16 ... .tc4 17 a3
i.xd5 18 tbxd5 tbxd5 19 tbh4 e6 20 l:.d1
llJ7b6 21 e4 lt:Jc7 22 J..e3 lt:Jb5 23 e5 l:.c8
24 'W'b3 (24 exd6 tbd4 25 'W'e4 ...xd6 is fine
for Black) 24 ... tbd4 25 i.xd4 cxd4 26 exd6
'W'xd6 27 ltJf3 l:b8 28 l:.bcl ltJdS and
Black's central pawns give him an edge in
Van der Sterren-Alterman, Munich 1992.
16 e4 ..txa2
In P.Nikolic-Kotronias, Bled 1991,
Black now had second thoughts and re­
traced his steps with 16 ... tbfd7 17 a3 i.a6.
However, he had now lost far too much
45
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

time and White quickly got on top with
18 'W'c2 tbc4 19 l:tdl 'W'a5 20 b4 cxb4 21
axb4 'W'b6 22 b5 J.b7 23 tba4 'W'a5 24
'W'xc4 l:tfc8 25 1i'b3 'W'xa4 26 'W'xa4 l:txa4
27 J.h3 l:td8 28 J.b2 and went on to win.
17 tlJxa2 :txa2 18 e5 lLlfxd5
White as 30 l:txb2 fails to 30 ... 'W'fl mate)
30 1i'h5+ 'it'd8 3 1 .:tal tbxd5 32 'W'h3 1i'f3+
33 �gl 1i'f2+ 34 �hl �c7 and Black won.
20 lLlh4
It was probably more accurate to play
20 exf7+ l:.x:f7 21 J.h3 tbc7 22 tbh4 J.d4
{this weakens the kingside; better was
22 ...l:tf6) 23 .te3 .txe3 24 l:txe3 �g7

19 e6
Now we see the justification of White's
earlier perambulations with his queen's 25 b4! {White exploits the loose posi­
bishop - he is now able to force serious tion of the knight at b6, as capturing the
weaknesses in the black kingside. If the b-pawn allows 'W'd4+ and 1i'xb6) 25 ... tba6
black pawn were still on h6 he would have 26 l:te6 l:tf6 27 l:tx:f6 exf6 28 1i'c2 and Black
no real problems, but the concession had many problems to solve {his kingside
forced by White's J.f4-g5-cl dance now is weak and his knights are exposed on the
takes on real significance. queenside) in Lazarev-Erdelyi, Austrian
19 ...:ta4 Team Championship 1993.
This immediate regrouping of the black 20 ...:td4
rook is the most recent try. Others:
a) 19 ... tbb4 20 exf7+ l:txf7 21 .th3 �h7
22 J.e6 1i'f8 23 .txf7 'W'xf7 24 l:te4 'W'd5 25
1i'e2 e5 26 l:te3 'W'c4 27 'W'xc4 tbxc4 28 l:tc3
d5 29 tbd2 left Black with insufficient
compensation for the exchange m
P.Nikolic-Fedorowicz, Lucerne 1989.
b) 19 ... fxe6 20 l:txe6 'W'd7, as seen in
Grivas-Mastrokoukos, Nea Makri 1990, is
a very risky way for Black to play, e.g. 21
l:txg6 1i'f5 22 tbh4 1i'xf2+ 23 'it'hl �h7 24
l:txg7+ �xg7 25 'W'g4+ �h8 26 tbg6+ �g7
27 tLlxfS+ �xf8 28 .txh6+ �e8 29 .txd5?
(until now White has conducted the attack Black immediately exploits the way­
well, but here he blunders - 29 l:[fl wins ward knight on h4 to further activate his
for White) 29 ... l:txb2! (a nasty surprise for rook.

46

21 exf7+ .:lxf7 22 •c2 g5
White should now have tried 23 �f3
l:.c4 24 We2 (Hertneck).
23 lt::lt5?! .:lc4 24 •xc4 lt::l xc4 25 i.xd5
�e5 26 .:ta1
White's initiative looks dangerous but
his own king is far from secure.
26 . . ..d7 27 .:laS+ �h7 28 i.xf7 lt::lf3+
. 38 cS .ic4 39 d6 exd6 40 cxd6 .ixf7 1-0
29 �f1 •xf5 30 .:txe7 •h3+ 31 �e2
�d4+ 32 �d2 ..g2 33 i.gS+ �g6 34
i.f7+ �f6 0-1
...-----,
Game 19
Servat-Van Riemsdijk
Capablanca Memorial 1994
1 d4 lt::lt6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 lt::lc3 i.xa6 7 lt::lt3 i.g7 8 g3
0-0 9 i.g2 d6 10 0-0 lt::l bd7
Here we see an early kingside castling
by Black. This allows White many more
options. The most common of these is 1 1
'i'c2 and 1 2 l:td1 (seen here) . White's other
possibilities are considered in the next
mam game.
11 •c2
11 .....85
11...�b6 is less effective here: 12 l:td1
l:.a7 13 h3 WaS 14 e4 l:b8 15 l:tb 1 �e8 16
b3 �d7 17 .if4 .ixc3 18 Wxc3 .ie2 19
.:tel (Black has regained his pawn but, as
so often in this type of position, he finds
that the initiative that White develops in
Fia n c h e t t o Varia tio n
the centre is more relevant) 19 ...l:txa2 20
�d2 'ii'a6 21 l:ta1 l:txa1 22 l:txa1 Wb6 23 eS
dxeS 24 .ixeS �xeS 25 'ii'xeS Wf6 26
Wxb8 'ii'xa1+ 27 �h2 �f8 28 �e4 Wd4 29
'ii'c8 c4 30 �cS 'itg7 3 1 �d7 Wxf2 32
'ii'xe8 hS 33 Wf8+ �h7 34 �eS .ifl 35
Wxf7+ 'ii'xf7 36 �x:f7 .ixg2 37 bxc4 .ifl
Van Wely-Verdier, Mulhouse 1998.
12 .:ld1 .:lfb8 13 h3
13 b3 is perhaps the most critical move
here, e.g. 13 ... �g4 14 .ib2 and now:
a) 14 ...'ii'b4 15 h3 �geS 16 �d2 (This is
a further example of the often repeated
theme that it is actually Black who is look­
ing for exchanges in the Gambit Accepted
variations of the Benko. Here, however,
there is a more specific point, as White
threatens to trap the black knight with f2-
f4. Black now sacrifices a piece in the hope
of tying White up but it proves to be in­
sufficient.) 16 ... c4 17 f4 �d3 18 exd3 cxd3
19 Wet l:tc8 20 �db1 l:tc7 21 Wd2 �b6 22
�a4 Wd4+ 23 .ixd4 .ixd4+ 24 �h2 �xa4
25 �a3 .ixa1 26 l:txa1 �b6 27 We3 and
White was winning in Van Wely-Kogan,
Antwerp 1998.
b) 14 ... .ic8!? (sensibly clearing the way
on the queenside for his major pieces) 15
�d2 �b6 16 h3 �eS 17 'it>h 1 c4!? with a
very unclear position in Milos-Van
Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo 1997.
13 ...lt::le8
47
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
Following the familiar plan of coming
round the back to exchange off the white
knight on c3. Also possible is 13 ... tt:'lb6 14
tt:'ld2 c4 (This advance is not always a good
idea in such positions as the bishop on a6
now plays a much reduced role and an
avenue has been opened up for a white
knight to manoeuvre to c6 via d4. Black is
hoping to create play against the white d­
pawn but this rarely amounts to anything
as White has his own tricks along the e1-a5
and h 1-a8 diagonals. 14 ... tt:'lc4 looks bet­
ter.) 15 tt:'lfl ..ib7 16 ..td2 'ii'a6 17 ..te3
tt:'lf:xd5 (there is an element of desperation
about this, but Black is already stuck for
something to do) 18 tt:'lxd5 tt:'lxd5 19 ..ixdS
..txdS 20 �xd5 �xb2 2 1 'ii'e4 'ii'b7 22 ..td4
e6 23 ..txg7 exdS 24 'ii'd4 �xe2 25 tt:'le3
�e8 26 tt:'lg4 1-0 Krizsany-Deak, Hungary
1995.
14 .i.d2 l:De7 1S e4 l:DbS 16 l:DxbS 'ii'x bS
17 .i.e3 .i.xe3 18 bxe3 'ii' b2
Endgames like this are usually fine for
Black despite the deficit of a whole pawn,
as the initiative is usually sufficient to re­
gain the material. The main danger for
Black comes if he is rushed into winning
the white c-pawn (or perhaps e-pawn) and
then finds himself struggling to cope with
a rampant passed a-pawn.
19 'ii'xb2 ltxb2 20 ltd2 ltbb8 21 .i.f1
.i.xf1 22 'iii> xf1 l:Db6 23 ltb2 l:Da4 24
ltb3 e4 2S lta3 !DeS
48
Now the impending trick with ... tt:'lb3
means that Black will inevitably achieve
material equality.
26 ltxa8 ltxa8 27 t:Dd2 l:Db3 28 ltd1
ltxa2 29 t:Dxe4 lta4 30 t:Dd2 l:Dxd2+ 31
ltxd2 ltxe4 32 lte2 ltxe2 33 �xe2 �f8
34 �d3 �e8 3S �d4 �d7 36 e4 �e7
37 eS dxe5+ 38 �xeS hS 39 f4 �d7 40
�e4 �d6 %-%
Game 20
Piket-Topalov
Wijk aan Zee 1999
1 d4 l:Df6 2 e4 eS 3 dS bS 4 exbS a6 S
bxa6 g6 6 l:De3 .i.xa6 7 l:Df3 .i.g7 8 g3
d6 9 .i.g2 l:Dbd7 10 0-0 0-0
11 ltb1
As we saw in the previous game the
most common move is 1 1 'ii'c2, but this
simple rook move has much to recom­
mend it. White is planning to play rather
unadventurously but very solidly on the
queenside with b2-b3 and either ..td2 or
..ib2. Black must be careful to form a con­
structive plan of counterplay before the
white position becomes completely im­
pervious to attack. A couple of other tries
are also possible:
a) With 1 1 ..tf4 White makes an at­
tempt to mimic Van der Sterren's play
against Hertneck (see Game 18). However,
Black is not obliged to try and chase the

white bishop around, e.g. 1 1...'i'b6 {there
is nothing wrong with the standard idea of
...'i'aS and ... l:.fb8, while 1 1...l:.a7 heralds
an interesting means of development in
the fianchetto variation - Black is going to
place his queen and bishop on the long
diagonal to press against the white d­
pawn: 12 h3 'i'a8 13 l:.e1 l:.b8 14 b3 i.b7
15 e4 t£lxe4 16 t£lxe4 i.xa1 17 'i'xa1 i.xdS
18 i.h6 f6 19 'i'd1 i.xe4 20 l:Xe4 'i'xe4 21
tlJg5 'i'd4 22 i.dS+ cii>h 8 23 t£lf7+ cii>g8 24
tlJxd6+ cii>h 8 25 t£lf7+ cii> g8 26 t£lg5+ e6 27
i.xe6+ cii>h 8 28 t£lf7+ cii> g8 29 t£le5+ ..t>h8
30 t£lf7+ lh-lh Spraggett-Mohr, Zagreb
1993) 12 l:.b1 'i'b7 13 l:.e1 i.c4 14 b3
i.xd5 15 t£lxd5 'i'xd5 16 t£Jd2 'i'h5 17
i.xa8 l:.xa8 and Black did not have
enough for the exchange in Lalic-Wilder,
St John 1988.
b) 11 l:.e1 'i'b6 (or 1 1...'i'a5 and
12...l:.fb8 as usual) 12 h3 l:.fb8 13 l:.b1 t£le8
14 'i'c2 (White's play is rather passive)
14 ... i.c4 15 t£ld2 i.xa2 16 l:.a1 i.xc3 17
bxc3 i.xdS 18 l:.b 1 'i'c6 19 e4 i.e6 and
Black stood very well in Speelman­
Watson, London 1985.
11 . . . ltlb6
Others:
a) 11...t£le8 12 i.d2 t£lb6 13 b4 (White
changes tack and aims to snuff out Black's
initiative on the queenside before it gets
going. However, opening up the position
is very dangerous.) 13 ...cxb4 14 :xb4 t£lc4
15 i.e1 'i'c7 16 t£ld4 'i'c5! 17 t£lcb5 i.xb5
18 t£lxb5 l:.xa2 and Black had regained his
pawn with a good game in Arkell­
Mortazavi, Cappelle la Grande open 1991.
b) 1 1 ...'i'a5 and:
b1) 12 'i'c2 t£lb6 (12 ... l:.fb8 seems more
consistent) 13 l:.d1 (now White is very
solid and it is difficult to see what Black
can undertake) 13 ... i.b7 14 e4 t£lfd7 15 a3
tlJc4 16 b4! cxb4 17 axb4 'i'b6 18 'i'b3
l:.fc8 19 t£le2 'i'a6 20 t£led4 'i'a2 21 'i'xa2
l:.xa2 22 i.h3 and White was a pawn up
for nothing in Baburin-Fedorowicz, San
Fia n c h e t t o Va ria tio n
Francisco 1997.
b2) 12 i.d2!? l:.fb8 13 'i'c2 t£lg4 14 a4
t£lge5 15 t£lxe5 t£lxe5 16 b3 'i'd8 17 :fd1
:a1 18 i.e1 .l:.ab7 19 t£la2 'i'c8 20 b4
(Black must always be wary of this move.
Here he may have thought it to be impos­
sible as White will now lose the e-pawn.
However, the more relevant feature of the
position is the dynamism that the white
queenside pawns now acquire.) 20 ...cxb4
21 'i'xc8+ l:.xc8 22 t£lxb4 i.xe2 23 t£lc6
l:.xb1 24 l:.xb1 t£lxc6 25 dxc6 e6 26 i.a5
i.d3 27 l:.b7 i.d4 28 i.c7 and White was
close to winning, in Skomorokhin-Eliseev,
St Petersburg 1996.
12 b3
Or 12 a3 t£lfd7 (perhaps the patient
12 ...'i'c7 would be better) 13 t£ld2 l:.a7 14
'i'c2 e6 (White is well placed to meet this
central counter and it does not tum out
well for Black) 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 t£lf3 d5 17
h4 t£le5 18 t£lxe5 i.xe5 19 i.h6 l:.e8 20
l:.fd1 .l:t£7 2 1 t£le4 i.d4 22 e3 dxe4 23 i.xe4
'i'f6 24 exd4 cxd4 25 i.g5 'i'e5 26 l:.e1
'i'd6 27 l:.bd1 and White was a pawn
ahead with a good position in Lazarev­
Verdier, France 1998.
12 . . . .1:.a7
Again the flexible 12 ... 'i'c7 should be
considered.
13 a4 Was
1 4 ltlh4
Black has driven the white knight out
49
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
of play on h4 but it is surprisingly difficult
for him to make anything of this.
1 4 . . . J:.b8 1 5 .i.b2 lll b d7 1 6 .i.a 1
This is typical white play for this varia­
tion. He is in no hurry to exploit the extra
pawn but instead concentrates on making
his position fireproof.
1 6 . . . llle 5 1 7 'ii'c 2 J:.ab7 1 8 J:.fd 1 'ii'a 7
1 9 .i. f1 lll e 8
Topalov is reduced to treading water.
However, 19 ... c4 is met by 20 b4! (not 20
bxc4 .ixc4 2 1 l:.xb7 l:.xb7 which is fine
for Black) 20 .. J:hb4 2 1 lLlb5 and White
wins the exchange.
20 llle4 J:.b6
21 lll d 2
Again White is unconcerned about hav­
ing his pieces passively placed. He is a
pawn up and is determined to deprive
Black of counter-chances before moving
forwards himself.
21 . . . lll d 7 22 .i.xg7 �xg7 23 lllhf3 lllef6
24 e4 J:.b4 25 .i.xa6 'ii'x a6 26 lll c4
White has an ideal position against the
Benko. He now manoeuvres carefully to
effect the advance e4-e5.
26 . . . lll b 6 27 lllfd2 lllfd7
It is still difficult for White to force the
pace but he now finds the excellent plan of
dislodging the black rook from b4.
28 lll a 3 lllf 6 29 'ii'c 3 lll bd 7 30 lll c 2
J:.4b7 31 lll c4 �g8 32 f3 J:.a8 33 J:.b2
lll b 6 34 lll 2 e3 lll xc4 35 lll xc4 J:.b4 36
50
e5 dxe5 37 'ii'x e5 'ii'b7 38 d6 'ii'xf3 39
J:.f 1 'ii'e4 40 dxe7 'ii'x e5 41 lll x e5 J:.e4
42 J:.d2 J:.e8 43 lllc4 J:.e6 44 J:.xf6 1 -0
Game 21
lllescas-De Ia Villa
Pamp lo na1 998
1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
bxa6 g6 6 g3
For a while 6 b3 .ig7 7 .ib2 0-0 8 g3
was regarded as a quite decent line against
the Benko. If Black now captures on a6
with the bishop White can complete de­
velopment with .ig2, lLlh3, 0-0 and lLlf4
and look to the future with confidence.
However, the following plan has put the
idea out of commission for White:
8 ... lLlxa6! 9 .ig2 .ib7, e.g.
a) 10 e4 e6 (10 ...Wa5+ 1 1 .ic3 lLlb4 12
lLle2 Wb5 is also attractive for Black) 1 1
lLle2 (1 1 dxe6 fxe6 1 2 f3 lLlxe4! is a nice
trap, e.g. 13 .ixg7 �xg7 14 fxe4 Wf6 15
'ifxd7+ l:.f7 and Black was winning in
Marchand-Stomer, Paris 1989) 1 1...exd5 12
exd5 lLlb4 13 a3 .ixd5 14 .ixd5 lLlbxd5 15
0-0 l:.e8 and Black stood very well in Schi­
enmann-Marinkovic, Biel 1989.
b) 10 lLlh3 lLlb4 11 a3 .ixd5 12 .ixd5
lLlbxdS 13 0-0 d6 14 e4 lLlc7 15 .l:.e1 Wc8
and again Black had a fine position in
Halldorsson-Conquest, Gardaboer 1996.
6 . . . .i.g7

7 i.g2
An interesting try for White is Suba's
aggressive 7 d6, e.g. 7 ... 0-0 (7 ...1i'a5+ is
risky for Black: 8 .i.dl 1i'xa6 9 dxe7 1i'b7
10 tDf3 tDe4 1 1 tt::\c3 1i'xb2 12 tDxe4 1i'xal
13 tDd6+ �xe7 14 .i.g5+ �e6 15 .i.h3+ f5
16 0-0 1i'xdl 17 l:txdl .i.a6 18 e4 and
White had fiye active pieces pursuing the
black king in Suba-Pasman, Beersheva
1984) 8 .i.g2 l:txa6 9 .i.f4 tt::\c6 10 dxe7
liJxe7 1 1 .i.d6 (this does not work out for
White but the position had got away from
him anyway as Black was planning ...d7-
d5 with excellent play for the pawn)
1 1...tDfd5 12 .i.xdS l:txd6 13 .i.xf7+ l:txf7
14 Wxd6 .i.xb2 15 tDdl .i.xal 16 1i'xc5
.ib7 and Black was winning easily in
Fant-Hartvig, Lyngby 1988.
7 . d6 8 ltlc3
. .
8 tDf3 .i.xa6 9 0-0 is likely to transpose
back to normal lines, .but in this example
White had a different idea in mind:
9 ...tDbd7 10 :tel 0-0 1 1 h3 (by delaying
liJc3 White is trying to force his opponent
to commit himself but he is wasting too
much time for this to give any chance of
an advantage) l l...tDb6 12 e4 tDfd7 13 tDc3
liJc4 14 .i.fl 1i'b6 15 1i'c2 tt::\ce5 16 tDxe5
liJxe5 17 �g2 l:tfb8 18 .i.xa6 Wxa6 19 l:td1
liJc4 with good play for the pawn m
Aseev-Khalifman, St Petersburg 1995.
8 . ltlbd7
. .
A typical theme in the variations where
Fian c h e t t o Varia tion
White plays g2-g3 but delays tDf3 is that
Black can gain good play by recapturing
on a6 not with the bishop but with an­
other piece - usually the knight but possi­
bly the rook. Two examples are:
a) 8 ... tDxa6 9 tDf3 0-0 10 0-0 Wb6 1 1
tDdl tDc7 (the knight has good possibili­
ties from this square: there is greater pres­
sure against the pawn on d5 and ... tDb5,
exchanging off the key defender of
White's queenside, is also in the air) 12
l:tb l tt::\d7 13 1i'c2 .i.a6 14 a3 l:tfb8 15 l:.el
Wb7 {Black is well co-ordinated, so White
decides to offer back the d-pawn in order
to regain the initiative) 16 b3 .i.xc3 17
Wxc3 tDxdS 18 1i'c2 .i.b5 {Black hastens to
bring the bishop round to c6 to nullify
pressure on the long diagonal) 19 e4 tDc7
20 .i.b2 .i.c6 2 1 b4 .i.a4 22 Wc3 e5 23 1i'e3
cxb4 24 axb4 Wa7 with a balanced posi­
tion in L.B.Hansen-P.Cramling, Biel 199 1 .
b) 8 ... 0-0 9 tDf3 tDbd7 10 0-0 :.xa6 1 1
:tel tt::\ g4 1 2 h3 tDge5 1 3 tDdl tDb6 1 4 f4
tDec4 15 tt::\xc4 tDxc4 16 1i'd3 tt::\ b6 17 e4
tDa4 {Black's play demonstrates a typical
theme in the Benko Gambit - White is
encouraged to advance in the centre as
Black hopes that he will be able to cope
with the assault and will later be able to
exploit weaknesses in the white camp) 18
e5 tt::\xc3 19 Wxc3 .i.b7 20 Wc4 WaS 2 1 a4
dxe5 22 fxe5 e6 23 .i.f4 .i.xdS 24 .i.xdS
exdS 25 Wxc5 l:tc8 and Black had good
play in Hrivnak-Krivoshey, Frydek­
Mistek 1997.
9 lLlf3 ltlb6 1 0 0-0 :Z.xa6
Again we see the rook recapture on a6.
This is certainly a logical way to play as
Black often opts for a set-up with ... :a7
(or ... l:ta6), combined with ... .i.b7 and
...WaS against the fianchetto. He also
keeps slightly more flexibility by having
the queen's knight on b6 rather than c7
(after ... tDxa6). From b6 the knight can
challenge White's queen's knight with
... tt::\a4, but ... tDc4 is also a possibility.
51
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
1 1 e 4 .i.b7 1 2 .i. g 5 0-0 1 3 l:1c 1 h 6
If the white bishop retreats to either e3
or d2 then ... tt:'lc4 creates good counter­
play from Black. White therefore opts to
exchange immediately and hopes to
weaken the black kingside.
1 4 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 5 ..d2 �h7 1 6 l:1fe 1
-.as 1 7 l:1c2
1 7 . . . .i.xc3
This looks like another one of these
dubious decisions where Black is overly
anxious to regain the gambit pawn. It was
probably better, and certainly more test­
ing for White, to continue with the the­
matic 17 ... tt:'la4 and if 18 tt:'ld1 then
18 ... l%c8, planning ... c5-c4 and ... tt:'lcS.
1 8 bxc3 ltlc4 1 9 •e2 l:1a4 20 h4 .i.a6
2 1 ._d 1 .i.b5 22 e5 l:1xa2 23 l:1xa2
-.xa2 24 exd6 exd6 25 h5
Black has material equality but has
completely lost the initiative. This game is
a perfect example of why Black must con­
centrate first and foremost on staying ac­
tive in the Benko and not worrying over­
much about regaining the gambit pawn.
25 . . ... a7 26 ..b3 l:1b8 27 hxg6+ fxg6
28 l:1e6
The d6- and g6-pawns are weak and the
black king is very exposed. White has a
clear advantage.
28 . . . -.a 1 + 29 �h2 l:1b7 30 ltlh4 ltle5 3 1
l:1xe5 !
This is a good sacrifice from White
52
which enables him to play for a win at
little risk. Once his queen becomes active
he will always have the option of perpet­
ual check.
3 1 . . . dxe5 32 d6 c4 33 ..b4 .i.c6 34 d7
l:1xb4 35 dB• .i.xg2 36 •e7+ �g8 37
-.e8+ �g7 38 �xg2 l:1b 1 39 ..e7+ �g8
40 •e8+ �g7 41 •xg6+ �f8 42 •f6+!?
Illescas loses his way here. The best
plan, as he himself points out, is 42
"ii'xh6+! �e8 43 "ii'e6+ �d8 44 "ii'dS+ �c7
45 "ifxc4+ �b8 46 tt:'lf3 when the white
king is well defended and a path has been
cleared for the g-pawn to advance up the
board.
42 . . . �e8 43 ltlf3 l:1c 1 44 •xe5+ �7 45
•d5+ �e7 46 -.c5+ �f6 47 •f8+ �e6
48 ltld4+ �d7 49 ._f7+ �c8 50 •xc4+
�b7 51 ..d5+ �b8 52 ..d8+ �b7 53
•d7+ �aS 54 -.e8+ �b7 55 -.e7+ �b6
56 •b4+ �c7 57 •c4+ �b7 58 •b5+
�c7 59 •e5+
Black has now had to face fifteen con­
secutive checks and finally loses his way.
59 . . . �b6??
59 .. /.ii> c8 would have kept Black in the
game, although White obviously has very
good chances.
60 ..b8+ 1 -0
Suddenly it is all over. 60 ... �c5 and
60 ... �a5 allow a decisive knight fork on
b3 while 60 .. /�a6 61 "ifbS+ leads to
checkmate.
 Fia n c h e t t o Varia tion

Summary
The plan with 9 ...ttJbd7 10 0-0 tiJb6 appears to be fine for Black. The main line of Game
18 is a good way for Black to play for complications, but there are other ways for Black
to secure decent counterplay such as 12 ... tlJc4. 9 ...0-0 10 0-0 ttJbd7, on the other hand,
seems to leave White slightly better, especially if he chooses the move 1 1 lib 1. Black then
needs to play very accurately to create counter-chances against White's very solid struc­
ture. In view of this, many White players are switching to 10 l:tb1!?, hoping for a trans­
position to this line after 10 .0-0 1 1 0-0. The plans with b2-b3 and/or delaying tiJf3 have
..

had their day. If Black knows what he is doing, he can play for an advantage against
these.

1 d4 lBf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6

6 tt:\c3
6 g3 - Game 21
6 ....ba6 7 lBf3 ..tg7 8 g3 d6 9 ..tg2 0-0
9 ... ttJbd7 10 0-0 tiJb6 (D) - Game 18
10 0-0 lBbd7 (OJ 1 1 'it'c2
11 l:tb 1 - Game 20
11 'it'a5 (OJ
... - Game 19

10 0 -0 1 1 . . 'fla5
.

53
 CHAPTER FOUR I
4 cxb5 a6 5 b6
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
b6
Over the years many different systems
have been developed to counteract the
Benko Gambit, some of which have
even, at least for a time, been hailed as
'refutations'. Usually these involve
White hanging on to the pawn in deter­
mined fashion or playing for a quick at­
tack. 5 b6, however, has no pretensions
towards either of these methods. White is
more or less acknowledging that the
Benko is a reasonable opening and de­
clines to attempt to gain a big advantage.
Instead he steers the game into channels
that he hopes will set more long-term
problems for the second player.
At first sight it appears that this is a du­
bious strategy. It looks as if Black will gain
all the advantages of the Benko without
having to gambit a pawn. However,
Black's queenside play is actually rather
hampered by the pawn on a6 and if he is
not careful, White can gain a stranglehold
on the queen's wing. White will then be
free to pursue the initiative in the centre
and on the kingside without having to be
so concerned about his opponent's coun­
terplay on the opposite wing.
Benko players are often used to either
54
playing a long-term gambit strategy or
fending off a vicious white onslaught.
Thus a slow manoeuvring game may not
be to their taste.
Black has various methods of dealing
with this approach: Games 22-26 see Black
broadly following a normal Benko strat­
egy, while in Game 27 Black blows open
the centre with 5 ... e6 at once. Finally, in
Game 28, Black makes a priority of acti­
vating his bishop with 5 .. a5 and ... .i.a6.
.
Game 22
Kir . Georgiev-Topalov
E lenite 1 992
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
b6 'i'xb6
5 ... d6, reserving the option of a knight
recapture, is seen in Game 25, whereas
5 .. g6 is considered in Game 26.
.
6 lLlc3 g6 7 lLlf3 .ig7 8 e4 d6 9 .ie2
The immediate 9 l2Jd2 is the subject of
Game 23 and 9 .i.c4 is seen in Game 24.
Incidentally, the actual move order of the
game was 4l2Jf3 g6 5 cxb5 a6 6 b6 ..xb6 7
l2Jc3 .i.g7 8 e4 0-0 9 .i.e2 d6, but this has
been modified for our purposes.
9...0-0 1 0 lLld2
This is a familiar theme in those varia-

tions of the Benko where White declines
the pawn. White has identified a powerful
square for the king's knight on c4 and
hastens to transfer it there. On c4 the
knight performs two useful functions: it
defends the vulnerable b2-square while
supporting the potential e4-e5 advance.
10 . .. ltlbd7
Black prepares to meet .!bc4 with a re­
treat of the queen followed by ....!bb6.
11 0-0
Instead 1 1 .!bc4 'ii'c7 12 i.. f4 .!bb6 13
ltle3 is a very logical response to Black's
attempt to exchange knights. The white
pieces are the more valuable and so White
is happy to retreat for the moment, even
though the knight is not ideally placed on
e3. Play can continue 13 ... a5 14 a4 i.. a6 15
i.xa6 l:.xa6 16 0-0 'ii'b 7 17 l:.cl l:.aa8 18 b3
l:.ab8 19 i.. g5 l:.fe8 20 i..xf6 {It may appear
surprising that White is prepared to give
up this bishop for a knight but it is logi­
cally grounded. Although the position is
open - which traditionally favours the
bishop - the pawn structure is quite rigid
and in such situations the knights can of­
ten operate more effectively than bishops.
The further course of this game indicates
that Alterman's judgment in making this
exchange was excellent.) 20 ... i.. xf6 21.!bb5
l:tbd8 22 :l.c2 e6 23 l:.d2 i.. e5 24 g3 h5 25
'i'c2 exd5 26.!bxd5 .!bxd5 27 l:.xd5 l:.e6 28
l:tfd1 (Black's central break has merely left
4 cxb 5 a6 5 b6
him with a weak pawn on d6) 28 ... l:tde8
29 'ii'd3 h4 30 �g2 i.. d4 3 1.!bxd6 l:.xd6 32
l:.xd6 l:.xe4 33 'ii'b 5 and White soon won
in Alterman-Adams, Cap d'Agde 1994.
1 1 ...l:l.b8
Black has two main alternatives here:
a) 1 1...'i'c7 12 a4 .!be8 13 a5 'i'd8 14
.!bc4 .!bel 15 .!ba4 l:b8 16 l:.b 1 .!bf6 17 f3
.!bb5 18.!bab6 .!bd7 19 i..e3 .!bxb6 20.!bxb6
i..d7 was slightly better for White in
Georgiev-Adams, Yerevan Olympiad
1996.
b) However, Black obtained good play
in Fries Nielsen-Plachetka, Rimavska So­
bota 199 1, with an idea borrowed from
the Modern Benoni, i.e. 1 1....!be5! 12 'it'h 1
g5! 13.!bc4.!bxc4 14 i..xc4 g4 15 l:.b1 �h8
16 i..e3 'ii'b4 17 ..td3 .!bd7! 18 a3 'ii'b7 19
'i'xg4.!be5 20 'ii'd 1 f5 21 f4.!bxd3 22 'i'xd3
fxe4 with an active position.
1 2 lLlc4
It may be better to play 12 a4, waiting
for Black to declare his intentions before
deciding whether or not to place the
knight on c4. For example, after 12 ... 'ii'c7
13 a5 l:.b4 the game has transposed to
Rogers-West in the notes to White's
eighth move in the next main game, which
was favourable for White.
1 2 . . . 'i'c7
1 3 ..tf4
White lines up for a big push in the
centre but this plan fails to create serious
55
Th e Benko G a m b it
difficulties for Black. A better approach
was the more restrained 13 a4, trying to
get to grips with the queenside, e.g.
13 ... .:b4 14 a5 lDe8 15 �d2 'i'al 16 lDa4
l:.b7 17 lDab6 lDc7 18 �g4 lDa8 19 lDxa8
'i'xa8 20 �xd7 �xd7 2 1 lDb6 .:xb6 (Black
must act quickly before is opponent con­
solidates with �c3) 22 axb6 �xb2 23 .:b 1
�f6 24 'i'f3 �b5 25 .:fcl 'i'b7 26 �c3
�xc3 27 'i'xc3 'i'xb6 28 h3 .:b8 29 .:b2
'i'd8 30 .:cb1 'i'f8 3 1 f4 l:.d8 32 l:.d1 lh-lh
Seirawan-Shirov, Amsterdam 1995.
13 . • . ttlb6 14 e5
The white bishop is not ideally placed
on f4, as can be seen from the variation 14
lDe3 lDe8! 15 'i'd2 e5 16 dxe6 fxe6 17 �g3
�d4 with an unclear position.
1 4 . . . ttle8 1 5 exd6 exd6 1 6 •d2
16 lDe3, preventing the knight ex­
change, again comes into consideration,
but White's pieces are then rather awk­
wardly placed.
1 6 . . .ttlxc4 1 7 i.. xc4 ttlf6 1 8 J:l.fe1 ttlg4
Black's pieces are now harmoniously
developed and he has every reason to view
the future with confidence.
1 9 J:l.ad 1 i..d4 20 i..g 3 f5 21 J:l.e2
Not 21 h3 f4 when Black storms
through on the kingside.
21 . . . J:I.b4 22 b3 ..g7?
Topalov, possibly concentrating too
much on his own initiative, allows a pow­
erful sacrifice after which the white posi-
56
tion comes to life. The best plan was the
prophylactic 22 .. .'�h8!, side-stepping away
from the dangerous a2-g8 diagonal, e.g. 23
h3 lDe5 24 �xeS+ dxe5! and Black stands
very well.
23 i..xd6!
Georgiev is alert and spots his chance to
seize the initiative.
23 .•. i..xc3 24 •f4 J:l.d8 25 J:l.e7
White's sacrifice has released all the en­
ergy in his position. With his two rooks
controlling the central files and his active
bishop pair, White has excellent compen­
sation for the piece.
25 ••. -.f6 26 .bc5 J:l.b7 27 J:l.xb7 i..e 5
This is a rather desperate lunge from
Topalov, but after 27 ... �xb7 28 �e7!
White wins the black queen. Black would
then have sufficient compensation in
purely material terms, but his forces are so
disorganised that they prove easy prey for
the rampant white queen as the following
variations show: 28 ...'i'xe7 29 d6+ �g7 (or
29 ...'i'f7 30 �xf7+ �xf7 3 1 'i'c4+ and the
bishop on c3 goes) 30 dxe7 l:.txd1+ 31 �fl
lDf6 32 'i'c7 and White threatens both
black bishops as well as promotion with
e8'i' + .
28 d6+ �h8 29 •f3 i..xh2+ 30 � 1 i..e 5
3 1 •d5 i..xb7 32 •xb7 �
A blow in the air. Black creates a threat
to check on h1, but the white king simply
goes to e2 and there is no follow-up.

33 d7 .i.f6 34 a4 Wh5 35 J:l.d6 ltle5 36
Wd5
White deftly avoids Black's last trap: 36
l:.xf6 'i'd1 mate.
36 . . . ltlxc4 37 bxc4 .i.g7 38 J:l.e6 g5 39
i.b6 1-0
.....----,
Game 23
Knaak-Hertnec k
Bad Lauterberg1 991
,______________.
1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
b6 'i'xb6 6 ll'lc3 g6 7 e4
The early advance of the a-pawn with 7
a4 is interesting. After 7 ... d6 8 aS Black
should play 8 ...'ii'b 7!, with similar play to
the next note, as in this particular position
White can meet 8 ... 'ii'b4 with 9 i..d2!,
when the b-pawn is taboo.
7 ...d6
8 ltlf3
Here 8 a4 allows Black to gain equality
by bringing his queen to b4, from where it
disrupts the harmonious development of
White's pieces. The following examples
are instructive: 8 ... i.. g7 (also possible is the
immediate deployment of the white queen
to b4, e.g. 8 ...'ii'b4 9 i.. d3 i.. g7 10 .!Llge2
0-0 1 1 aS e6 12 0-0 exdS 13 exdS .!Llbd7 14
.ic2 l:.e8 and Black had a comfortable
position in Glek-Lorenz, German Bundes­
liga 1990) 9 aS 'ii'b4 (the tame 9 ...'ii'c7 al­
lowed White to build up a promising posi-
4 c x b 5 a6 5 b 6
tion in Rogers-West, Sydney 1999: 10 .!Llf3
0-0 1 1 i..e2 .!Llbd7 12 0-0 l:tb8 13 .!Lld2 .:tb4
14 .!Llc4 .!Lle8 15 'ii'c2 'ii'a7 16 i..g5 f6 17
i..d2 .!Llc7 18 h4 l:tb8 19 h5 with a strong
attack) 10 l:.a4 'ii'b7 1 1 i..c4 i..d7 12 l:ta3
'ii'b4 13 'ii'd3 i..b5 14 i.. xb5+ axb5 15
'ii'xb5+ 'ii'xb5! 16 .!Llxb5 .!Lla6 17 f3 l:tb8 18
o!Llc3 .!Llb4 19 �e2 0-0 and Black had
achieved a very dangerous gambit position
in Quatrini-Hoffman, Mar del Plata 1995,
simply by following some analysis by
Illescas in Informator 60!
8 . . . .i.g7 9 ll'ld2 ll'lbd7
10 ltlc4
Or 10 i..e2 0-0 1 1 .!Llc4 (the more flexi­
ble 1 1 0-0 transposes to the previous main
game) 1 l...'ii'd8 12 i.. f4 .!Llb6 13 .!Lle3 .!Lle8
14 0-0.!Llc7 15 a4 aS 16 'i'd2 i.. a6 17 l:.fd1
.:tb8 18 h4 i..xe2 19 1i'xe2 e5! 20 dxe6
.!Llxe6 and Black had good play in the
heavyweight encounter Gelfand-Ivanchuk,
Belgrade 1995.
1 0 . .'i'c7
.
Here too Black may do better to leave
the c7-square free for his king's knight as
in the Gelfand-Ivanchuk example above,
e.g. 10 ...'ii'd8 1 1 i..e2.!Llb6 12.!Lle3 0-0 with
a balanced position (Dautov).
1 1 .i.e2 ll'lb6 1 2 ll'le3 0-0 1 3 a4 a5 1 4
0 -0 .i.a6 1 5 .i.xa6 J:l.xa6 1 6 .i.d2
White is playing very simply, concen­
trating on eliminating the dynamism from
the black position.
57
Th e Benko G a m b it
1 6 . . . .1:laa8 1 7 .l:lc1 'ii'd 7 1 8 b3 e6 1 9 lLlc4
lbxc4 20 bxc4 exd5 21 exd5
White now has a pleasant advantage as
he has more space and the black pawns on
aS and d6 are useful targets.
21 . . . .1:lfe8 22 'ii'c 2 lbg4 23 h3 lbe5 24
lbe4 f5
Black is trying to play actively (as
Benko players often do, even when it is
inappropriate, as here), but this just gives
White further entry points along the e-file
(especially e6).
25 lLlg5 ..tf6
26 .1:lb1
White has the advantage on both sides
of the board. If Black now plays 26 ... i.xg5
27 i.xg5 he can minimise his disadvantage
on the king's wing, but White can then
switch to a plan of l:tb5 and 1i'c3 and em­
phasise his superiority on the queenside.
58
26 . . .lLlf7 27 lbe6 lbd8 28 lbf4 .i.d4 29
.l:lfe 1 .l:lxe 1 + 30 .l:lxe 1 .l:lb8 3 1 .i.c3 'ii'g 7
This loses at once but 31...i.xc3 32
1i'xc3, intending 1i'f6, was also rather un­
appetising.
32 .l:le8+ �7 33 lbe6 1 -0
Game 24
Epishin-Kir . Georgiev
German Bundesl iga1 997
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lbf3 g6 5
cxb5 a6 6 b6 'ii'xb6 7 lbc3 d6 8 e4
As we have seen, the swift advance of
White's a-pawn is often well met by in an
invasion on the b4-square by the black
queen, e.g. 8 a4 i.g7 9 aS 1i'b4 10 l:ta4
1i'b7 1 1 e4 0-0 12 lLld2 i.d7! 13 l:ta3
13 ... i.b5! (This is a very instructive
moment which tells us much about Benko
Gambit strategy for both players. In the
opening White has chosen - with the
move b5-b6 - to bypass the opportunity
of gaining a pawn in order to keep the
queenside closed. With this manoeuvre,
Georgiev is more or less obliging White to
capture his a-pawn, in order to force open
lines on the queenside. As the game devel­
ops we see that Black does indeed generate
his familiar queenside pressure.) 14 1i'b3
ltJbd7 15 lLlxbS axb5 16 1i'xb5 1i'c7 17 a6
(or 17 1i'a4 e6!?) 17 ... l:tfb8 18 1i'a5 (Here
White seems to have made tremendous
 4 c x b 5 a6 5 b6

progress compared with a normal Benko

where his pawn would still be back on a2.
Nevertheless, the white queenside ad­
vances have created weaknesses in that
sector and Georgiev now skilfully exploits
these.) 18 ...11i'b6 19 .i.e2 ltJe8 20 'ira4 'ird8
21 i.b5 ltJc7 22 .i.e2 .i.xb2 23 .i.xb2 l:.xb2
24 'i'a5 11i'b8 and Black went on to win in
Van Wely-Kir.Georgiev, Groningen 1994.
a . . . .i.g7 9 .i.c4 o-o 1 0 0-0 .tg4 1 1 Wb3
White adopts an unusual plan, hoping
to take the fight to Black on the queen­
side. However, this game confirms that
such a strategy is double-edged at best, as 29 l:l.b1 :as 30 .i.e 1 f5
Black has very natural play on that wing. The classic Benko endgame thrust.
11 . . .lLlfd7! 1 2 lLld2 Wxb3 1 3 axb3 lLlb6 31 g3 l:l.a2 32 .i.b3 l:l.a3 33 .i.c2 �7 34
1 4 l:l.e1 �g2 .i.c3 35 h4 .i.xe 1 36 l:l.xe 1 l:l.c3 37
.i.b1 l:l.xc4 38 h5 fxe4 39 .i.xe4 .i.b7 40
f3 l:l.d4 41 hxg6+ hxg6 42 �f2 .i.xd5 0-1

Game 25
I . Sokolov-Fries N ielsen
Torshavn 1997
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
b6 d6

14 . . . .i.c8!
Black regroups his pieces very effec­
tively and can already think about taking
the initiative.
1 5 .i.f1 lLl8d7 1 6 l:l.a3 :ea 1 7 l:l.d 1 .i.b7
18 lba4 l:l.eb8 1 9 lLlc4 lLlxc4 20 bxc4
.i.c8 21 b3 lLlb6 22 lLlxb6 l:l.xb6 23 .i.d3
a5
Black has achieved an ideal Benko posi­
tion - and he isn't even a pawn down! This move implies that Black plans to
24 .i.d2 .i.b2 25 l:l.a2 l:l.xb3 26 .i.c2 l:l.bb8 recapture the pawn on b6 with the knight
27 l:l.xa5 l:l.xa5 28 .i.xa5 .i.d4 manoeuvre liJb8-d7(x)b6 and will leave the
Although material is equal and there are queen on d8 for the moment. However,
no pawn imbalances, positions like this this plan is quite committal and allows
are very difficult for White, who has White to force some concessions.
weaknesses on c4, e4 and f2. 6 lLlc3 lLlbd7

59
Th e Benko G a m b it
6 ... 'ii'xb6 would lead back to the famil­
iar paths of the first three games of this
chapter.
7 a4 aS
Necessary, as the standard 7 ...'ii'xb6 8
a5 'ii'b 4 is less effective here, now that the
... .i.d7-b5 manoeuvre is no longer possi­
ble, and 7 ... lZ:Ixb6 8 a5 lZ:Ibd7 9 e4 g6 10 f4
.i.g7 1 1 .i.c4 0-0 12 lZ:\f3 was clearly very
passive for Black in Tukmakov­
Zsu.Polgar, Amsterdam 1990.
8 e4 g6 9 .tb5 .tg7 1 0 ltlf3
The more aggressive 10 f4 0-0 1 1 lZ:If3
lZ:Ixb6 12 0-0 is perhaps a little too ambi­
tious, e.g. 12 .. .i.a6 13 'ii'e2 .i.xb5 14 axb5
lZ:Ie8 15 .i.d2 lZ:Ic7 with good play in Soko­
lin-Sagalchik, New York 1994.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0
1 1 . . . .ta6
Or l l ...lZ:Ixb6 12 l:tel lZ:Ie8 13 .i.f4 f6
(fhis move looks strange as it weakens the
kingside and incarcerates Black's usually
potent bishop on g7. However, there is a
certain logic to it as the white advance e4-
e5 is prevented and so White is obliged to
look for activity on the queenside - the
sector of the board where Black is best
placed.) 14lZ:\d2 lZ:Ic7 15 .i.c6 l:.b8 16 lZ:Ib3
lZ:Ic4 17 lZ:Ib5 lZ:Ia6 18 'ii'e2 lZ:Ie5 19 .i.xe5
fxe5 20 lZ:Id2 lZ:Ib4 with an unclear position
in I.Sokolov-Ponomariov, Hastings
1998/99.
1 2 b7 .txb7 1 3 ::te1 ltle8 14 .tf4 ltlc7
60
1 5 .txd7
White plays simple chess. The black
knight on d7 and the bishop on g7 are his
two best pieces so Sokolov now system­
atically eliminates them. Admittedly he
doesn't actually exchange off the bishop,
but Black is forced into time-wasting con­
tortions to hang on to this piece, and
meanwhile White is able to build up a
strong attack. Much less effective was 15
.i.fl l:tb8 16 'ii'd2 'ii'c8 17 i.h6, when
17 ... .i.a6 gave Black a reasonable game in
Oei-Van Haastert, Dieren 1998. After 18
.i.xg7 <iftxg7 19 .i.xa6 'ii'xa6 20 e5 l:.fe8 21
h3 f6 22 exf6+ exf6 23 l:r.xe8 l:txe8 24 l:tel
.:.xel+ 25 'ii'xellZ:Ie5 Black soon won.
1 5 . . .'i'xd7 1 6 'l'd2 ::tfd8 1 7 ::tad 1 'l'e8
1 8 .th6 .th8 1 9 h4
White stands much better as his oppo­
nent has no active plan and must sit
around seeing what White wants to do
next.
1 9 . . ..tc8 20 h5 .tg4 21 hxg6 fxg6 22
::te3 ::tabS 23 ::tde 1 ::tb4 24 e5 dxe5 25
ltlxe5 .tf5
see follo wing diagram
26 ltlc6!
At first sight it looks as if White has
fallen for a beginner's trap, overlooking
the pin on the d-file. However, Sokolov
has seen that this sacrifice is only tempo­
rary and that he will swiftly regain his

material, when his passed pawn and active
rooks will quickly decide the game.
26 . . .'i'xc6 27 dxc6 l:l.xd2 28 l:l.xe7 l:l.dxb2
29 l:txc7 l:l.bS 30 lbb5
The tremendous activity of the white
forces renders the black position hopeless.
30 . . c4 31 l:l.b7 l:l.cS 32 lbd6 l:l.xb7 33
. .ie2, e.g. 9 ... l2Jbd7 10 a4 (or 10 0-0 l2Jxb6
lLlxcS l:tc 7 34 lbd6 1 -0
A neat finish. The black king is incar­
cerated and 34 ...ltxc6 allows 35 lte8 mate.
Game 26
Seirawan -Van Wely
Merr i llville 1 997
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
b6 g6 6 lbc3 ..tg7 7 e4 d6 S lbf3 0-0 ! ?
A provocative alternative to 8 ...1i'xb6,
reaching the standard lines of Games 22-
24. Black does not hurry to regain his pan,
4 c x b 5 a6 5 b 6
keeping his options open.
9 'i'b3
White tries to make it slightly more dif­
ficult for Black to regain the gambit pawn
and, incidentally, threatens 10 b7 winning
at once. An alternative is the simple 9
1 1 lte1 .ig4 12 h3 i.xf3 13 .ixf3 l2Jfd7 14
1i'c2 1i'c7 15 .ie2 l:r.fb8 16 :.b 1 c4 17 .ie3
l2Jc5 and Black had fine play in Tozer­
Manor, Oakham 1990) 10 .. a5 1 1 0-0
.
l2Jxb6 12 .if4 l2Je8 {Black struggles to find
play after this; perhaps better is the imme­
diate 12 ... .ig4 planning ...l2Jfd7 and ... c5-
c4) 13 1i'd2 .ig4 14 l:tfe1 l2Jc7 15 h3 .ixf3
16 .ixf3 l2Jc4 17 1i'c2 l2Ja6 18 l2Jb5 l2Je5 19
.ie2 l2Jb4 20 'it'd2 1i'd7 21 .ig3 1i'b7 22
l:tad1, as in Shaked-Shirov, Tilburg 1997.
Black's knights have been very active but
they have not achieved anything concrete.
Meanwhile White has co-ordinated his
forces and plans to advance with f2-f4.
9 . . ..tb7 1 0 lbd2 lbbd7 1 1 lbc4
.
For the moment the b6-pawn is· solidly
protected, but it is a simple matter for
Black to recapture it with the following
manoeuvre.
1 1 . . . a5 1 2 a4 l:l.a6 1 3 ..td2 lbxb6 1 4
lbe3 l:l.aS 1 5 ..tb5
If White were allowed a couple more
moves he would be able to strangle Black's
queenside aspirations and gain the advan­
tage. However, Van Wely acts promptly
61
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
and exchanges some pieces.
1 5 . . . .i.a6 1 6 0-0
An alternative idea worth considering is
1 6 f3, meeting 1 6 ...�xb5 with 17 lbxb5 to
keep more control on the queenside.
However after 17 ...llJfd7 with ideas of
...llJe5 and ...c5-c4 Black has fully adequate
counterplay.
1 6 . . . .i.xb5 1 7 axb5?
17 ii'xb5 would have preserved a small
plus for White according to Van Wely.
1 7 . . . a4 1 8 'iic 2 'iid 7 1 9 l:.a3 l:.fb8 20
.l:l.fa 1
20 . . . ll:\g4
Black continues with the well-known
Benko strategy of exchanging pieces.
21 ll:\xg4 'iixg4 22 h3 'iid 7 23 ll:\xa4
'iix b5 24 ll:\c3 l:.xa3 25 l:.xa3 'iid 7 26
ll:\d 1 ll:\c8
The start of a clever regrouping rna-
62
noeuvre by which Black brings his knight
into the heart of the white position.
27 .i.c3 ll:\a7 28 .i.xg7 �xg7 29 ll:\e3
ll:\b5 30 'iia4 'iic7 3 1 l:.b3 lLld4 32 l:.xb8
'iixb8 33 ll:\c4 'iib7 34 f3 �8 35 �2 h5
36 h4
36 . . . 15
Again we see this typical endgame
thrust.
37 �e 1 fxe4 38 fxe4 'iic8 39 ll:\e3 �g7
40 'iia 7 'iif8 41 e5 �h6 42 g4?
Seirawan must have overlooked Black's
reply as this loses a pawn for nothing.
However, even after the preferable 42
exd6 exd6 43 ii'd7 White would have his
work cut out to defend his position after
either 43 ...ii'f6 or 43 ...ii'f4.
42 . . . ll:\f3+ 43 �d 1 ll:\xe5 44 g5+ �g7 45
�c1 �7 46 'iib7 'iid8 47 'i'b5 'iia8 48
�b1 �g7
Black now has only to activate his
queen and the white position will become
hopeless.
49 b3 �h7 50 �b2 'iif8 51 �a3 lLlf3 52
'iia4 'iig 7 53 �a2 'iie 5 54 'iie8 �g7 55
ll:\c4 'iie2+ 56 �a3 'iie 1 57 �a2 lLld4 58
�b2 'iie4 59 �a3 ltlf5 60 'iic6 'iixh4 0-1
Game 27
Lautier-Richter
German Bundesliga1 998
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5

b6 e6
This is a very logical counter to 5 b6.
The main problem with 5 ... e6 after 5 bxa6
is that Black ends up a pawn down and
cannot quite generate enough play to jus­
tify the gambit. Here, however, Black
reasons that he will almost certainly regain
the pawn on b6, so why not counter in
the centre?
6 lilc3
The straightforward 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 g3
i.b7 8 lbf3 ._xb6 9 .i.g2 d5 should not
present Black with too many problems.
6 .. . exd5
Another way to treat the position is
6. . .i.b7, e.g. 7 e4 exdS 8 exdS d6 9 a4 a5 10
i.b5+ lbbd7 1 1 lbh3 (As Black will inevi­
tably create pressure against the pawn on
d5, White eyes the f4-square as being a
useful post for his knight. After 1 1 lbf3
i.e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 b3 lbxb6 14 .i.c4 lbe8
Black had an easy game in Balogh-Sergeev,
Swedish Team Championship 1994, i.e. 15
ti:)bS 0.c7 16 lbxc7 ._xc7 17 ..d3 h6 18
i.b2 'Wd8 19 lC!d2 .tf6 20 .txf6 'Wxf6 21
ti:)e4 'Wg6 and Black went on to win.)
11...i.e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 l:.e1 lbxb6 14 lbf4
:c8 15 b3 lbe8 16 l:.a2 .tf6 17 lbe4 .teS
18 :ae2 and White had a small edge in
Barsov-Zsu.Polgar, Wijk aan Zee 1997.
7 lilxd5 llJxd5 8 •xd5 llJc6 9 llJf3
The most testing move. After 9 .tgS
'i'xb6 10 ._e4+ .i.e7 10 .i.xe7 lbxe7 1 1
4 cxb 5 a 6 5 b 6
._xa8 Black can either take a draw with
1 1... ..xb2 12 l:.d1 'Wc3+ 13 l:.d2 ._cl+ or
try for more with 12 ... d5!?, planning to
trap the queen with ... .tb7 and ... 0-0, as in
Zi.iger-Hertneck, Nurenburg (rapid) 1990,
9...l:tb8
This move appears to be necessary as af­
ter 9 ... .te7 (9 ... .tb7 and 9 ..... xb6 are also
met by 10 lbeS) 10 lbeS White acquires a
simple positional advantage, e.g. 10 ... 0-0
1 1 lbxc6 dxc6 12 'Wxd8 .i.xd8 13 e3 .tf6
(13 ... l:.b8 14 b7 .i.xb7 15 .td2 .i.f6 16 l:b 1
.i.c8 17 b3 was also very pleasant for
White in Kumaran-Waitzkin, Oakham
1992) 14 .td2 l:.b8 15 i.aS .i.e6 16 l:.cl
.txa2 17 l:.xcS .td5 18 .i.xa6 .i.xg2 19 l:.g1
.td5 20 b7 and White went on to win in
Lputian-Annageldiev, Awv 1991.
1 0 e4
This direct move is the most popular,
but White has two other important alter­
natives:
a) 10 .td2 .i.e7 (10 ...'Wxb6 1 1 lbeS
lbxeS 12 ..xeS+ .i.e7 13 .i.c3 f6 with an
unclear position as in Dreev-Fominyh,
Elista 1995, is another way for Black to
play) 1 1 .i.c3 0-0 12 e4 ._xb6 (12 ... lbd4!?
13 lbxd4 .tb7 14 'Wb3 cxd4 15 .txd4
.i.xe4 16 .i.xa6 .tf6 17 .i.e3 is an interest­
ing try, when Black should play in gambit
style with 17 ... d5 because White's pawn
on b6 proved too strong after 17 ... .txg2?!
18 l:.g1 .i.e4 19 a4 d5 20 a5 in Dreev-
63
Th e Benko G a m b it
Solozhenkin, Russian Championship, Elis­
ta 1996) 13 .i.c4 lbb4 14 'W'd2 ._g6 15 0-0
d6 16 a3 lDc6 17 ..f4 with a small plus for
White in Dreev-Fominyh, Maikop 1998.
b) 10 lbe5 ._f6 11 lDxc6 dxc6. White
adopts a strategy that proved successful in
the note to Black's ninth move above, but
here the presence of the queens makes it
easier for Black to generate counterplay in
return for the pawn weaknesses:
b 1) After 12 ._g5 .i.e7 13 •xf6 .i.xf6
Black had two(!) extra tempi compared to
Lputian-Annageldiev example above in the
game Andersen-Berg, Copenhagen 1993.
b2) 12 ._e4+ .i.e7 13 g3 0-0 14 .i.g2
l:txb6 15 0-0 .i.e6 16 ..a4 l:td8 and Black
had good activity in Van Wely-Gelfand,
Cap d'Agde 1996.
1 0 . . . ..te7 1 1 ..tc4 0-0 1 2 0-0
The immediate 12 ._h5 (or 12 .i.d2
l:txb6 13 .i.c3 lbb4) is probably best met
by 12 ... l:txb6 which will most likely
transpose back to the main line. Instead
12 ... lbd4 worked out badly in Gleizerov­
Tzermiadianos, Cappelle la Grande open
1998, e.g. 13 lbxd4 cxd4 14 0-0 ..xb6 15
b3 .i.b7 16 ..g4 l:tbd8 17 .i.b2 .i.f6 18
l:tad1 and White has a clear plus.
1 2 . .l:txb6
. time for 13 ... lDa5, e.g. 14 .i.f4 .i.b7 15
An alternative is 12 ... lDa5.
This has been seen reasonably often in
practice but it is a little suspicious as Black
is decentralising his forces. Practice has
64
seen 13 .i.d3 l:txb6 14 ._h5 d5 (14 ....i.b7
15 l:te1 slightly favours White, while
14 ... c4 suffered a fiasco in Timman·
Illescas, Wijk aan Zee 1997, viz. 15 i.c2
l:tb5 16 e5 f5 17 .i.xf5 l:.xf5 18 ..xf5 d6 19
._h5 and White won easily, and 14 ... l:tg6
seems very artificial, e.g. 15 h3 ._e8 16
.i.d2 lbc6 17 e5 f5 18 �h1 .i.b7 19 i.c4+
�h8 20 .i.d5 and Black was under great
pressure in Lugovoi-Fominyh, Kazan
1995) 15 .i.d2 lDc6 16 e5 (The alternative
16 l:tad1 l:txb2 17 i.c3 l:txa2 is a specula­
tive gambit which backfired in Van Wely­
Berg, Akureyri 1994: 18 exd5 g6 19 ..h6
lDd4 20 .i.c4 l:.c2 2 1 lDxd4 l:txc3 22 l2Jc6
.i.g5 23 lbxd8 .i.xh6 24 lDc6 l:txc4 25 d6
.i.b7 0-1. However, this whole line may
be rendered dubious by 16 exd5 which
remains untested. The main point is that
16 ... g6 17 ._h6 Wxd5 leaves Black in big
trouble after the cunning 18 l:tfe1!, intend­
ing 18 .....xd3 19 l:txe7.) 16 ... g6 17 ._h6 f5
18 b3 lbb4 19 .i.xb4 l:txb4 20 l:tac1 a5 21
l:tfd1 .i.e6 and Black was completely in
control and went on to win in Brennink­
meijer-Rogers, Wijk aan Zee 1995.
1 3 'ifh5
After the slow 13 b3 Black does have
Wd3 lDxc4 16 bxc4 l:te6 17 lDd2 .i.c6 18 f3
.i.g5 with comfortable equality m
Avrukh-Berg, Groningen open 1993.
1 3 . . . d6

14llJg5
Other tries in this highly theoretical
position include:
a) 14 l:.d1 i.e6 15 i.xe6 fxe6 16 'W'g4
'lc8 and Black is okay, e.g. 17 i.d2 (or 17
igS .ixg5 18 'W'xg5 l:.x£3 19 gx£3 liJd4 20
�g2 'W'f8 21 'W'g4 e5 22 h4 lh-lh G.Giorg­
adze-Mellado, Ampuriabrava 1997) 17 ... e5
18 'i'xc8 l:.xc8 19 i.c3 liJd4 20 ltJd2 c4 2 1
J:tab1 �f7 with equality i n Vyzmanavin­
Khalifman, Novosibirsk 1995.
b) 14 b3 i.e6 15 liJg5 i.xg5 16 i.xg5
'le8 17 i.d3 ltJb4 18 i.b 1 f6 19 Wxe8
J:txe8 20 i.f4 l:.d8 2 1 l:.d1 aS and Black
stood well in Van Wely-Vaisser, Cap
d'Agde 1996.
14....bg5 1 5 ..i.xg5 We8 1 6 ..i.f4! lbd4!
16 ...ltJe5 is an attempt to bale out into a
slightly worse endgame. Lautier gives the
following variation which preserves the
advantage for White: 17 .txe5 'W'xe5 18
'lxeS dxe5 19 b3 l:.d8 20 l:.ac1 i.b7 2 1 f3
J:td2 22 l:.f2 l:.bd6 23 .tfl l:.x£2 24 �x£2
l:td2+ 25 �e3 l:.xa2 26 l:.xc5.
17 J:.ae1 ..i.e6 1 8 ..i.d3 f6
18 ... i.xa2? is far too risky, e.g. 19 e5 g6
20 'i'h6 dxe5 {20 ... d5 2 1 i.g5) 2 1 i.xe5
lLle6 22 i.f6 'W'd7 23 l:.e3 and White wins.
1 9 'i'h4 Wf7
Black would still have been fine after
19 ... 'i'g6 20 l:.e3 'W'g4, forcing an endgame
(Lautier).
20 b3
4 cxb5 a 6 5 b 6
20 . . . 85
This natural-looking plan of undermin­
ing the white queenside pawns is too slow.
Black must take action at once with 20 ... c4,
when after 21 bxc4 i.xc4 22 'W'g3 .:tc8
White is better but Black is in the game.
21 ..i.e3 a4 22 ..i.xd4 g5
Unfortunately forced as 22 ... cxd4? 23 e5
g5 24 'W'xd4 is crushing.
23 Wg3 cxd4 24 bxa4 ..i.c4
Lautier demonstrates the force of
White's initiative with the following varia­
tion: 24 ... i.xa2 25 f4 h6 26 fxg5 hxg5 27
h4 'W'g7 28 'W'f2 i.e6 29 'W'xd4 l:.c6 30 i.b5
and White should win.
25 f4 h6 26 fxg5 hxg5 27 h4 ..i.xd3 28
Wxd3 gxh4 29 l:l.f4 We6
30 J:.xh4
Both sides have shattered pawns but
White has an extra one and his king is
much safer. These two factors combine to
give him a winning position.
30 . . . l:l.b7 31 Wxd4 Wxa2 32 Wxd6 l:l.g7
33 Wd5+ Wxd5 34 exd5 J:.d8 35 l:l.d4
l:l.gd7 36 l:l.e6 Wf7 37 l:l.f4 l:l.xd5 38
l:l.exf6+ �g7 39 l:l.6f5 l:l.d 1 + 40 �h2 �g6
41 :t&+ �07 42 :n l:l. 1 d2 43 l:l.6f2
l:l.2d6 44 l:l.f7+ �g6 45 �g3 l:l.d2 46 l:l.7f4
l:l.8d3+ 47 l:l. 1 f3 l:l.d5 48 l:l.g4+ �h5
Now that White has driven the black
king to the edge of the board, he is able to
create tactical threats which help him to
c<H>rdinate his position.
65
Th e Benko G a m b it
49 l:tg8 l:t2d4 50 �2 l:td2+
Not 50 ... l:l.xa4 5 1 l:l.h3+ l:th4 52 l:l.h8+
and the rook is lost.
51 �g 1 l:t2d3 52 �h2 �h4 53 l:tf7 1 -0
After 5 3 l:l.f7 l:l.d7 54 l:l.xd7 l:l.xd7 55 l:.g3
l:l.a7 56 l:l.a3 :aS 57 g3+ �g4 58 �g2
White wins easily.
Game 28
G ofshtein-Manor
Givatayim 1998
1 d4 lL'lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
b6 a5
This is a clever, but unfortunately
somewhat flawed idea. Black plans a quick
... .i.a6, after which the game usually fol­
lows the pattern of the 'castling by hand'
variation, i.e. White plays e2-e4, meeting
... .i.xfl with �xfl. This would seem to be
a good trade for Black - he reaches posi­
tions typical of the gambit variations but
without losing the a-pawn. However, you
rarely get something for nothing in chess
and this is a good example. Black's plan
takes up a lot of time and White can put
this to good use with quick central activity.
6 lL'lc3 .b6
see follo wing diagram
7 lL'lf3
This works well enough but there are
other ways that White can try to push
66
through quickly in the centre. The follow­
ing variations give an idea of how danger­
ous this line can be for Black:
a) 7 e4 .i.xfl 8 �xfl d6 9 b7!? (the
straightforward 9 lLlf3 transposes to the
main game) 9 ... l:ta7 10 f4 e6 ll lLlf3 (White
plans a violent continuation which is pos­
sibly preferable to the quiet 1 1 dxe6 fxe6
12 lLlf3 'W'd7 13 'W'e2 l:l.xb7 14 e5 dxe5 15
lLlxe5 'W'c8 16 lLle4 .i.e7 17 lLlxf6+ .i.xf6 18
lLlc4 .i.e7 19 .i.d2 lLlc6 20 l:l.e 1 and White
was only slightly better in Brenninkmei·
jer-Kaidanov, New York 1993) l l...exdS
12 e5 dxeS 13 fxe5 lLle4 14 lLlxd5 l:l.xb7 15
'W'a4+ l:l.d7 16 .i.f4 c4 17 e6 fxe6 18 lLlc7+
<Ji;e7 19 'W'xc4 l:l.dl+ 20 <Ji;e2 and White was
winning in Remlinger-Schroer, Pasadena
1992.
b) 7 f4 d6 (7 ... 'W'xb6 8 lLlf3 e6 looks
more to the point; Black could also try
'rope-a-dope' tactics with 7 ... g6 8 lLlf3 .i.g7
9 e4 .i.xf1 10 l:l.xf1 0-0 1 1 e5 lLle8, but then
12 'W'b3 is hard to meet) 8 lLlf3 lLlbd7 9
b7!? l:tb8 10 e4 i..xfl 1 1 l:l.xfl lLlb6 12 eS
dxe5 13 fxe5 lLlfxdS 14 lLlg5 (White has a
very strong initiative) 14 ...'W'd7 15 lLlxf7
l:l.g8 16 lLlxdS 'W'xd5 17 'W'c2 l:.xb7 18
'W'xh7 lLlc4 19 .i.g5 (19 'ifxg8 'W'e4+ 20
�dl 'W'd3+ 21 <j;;e 1 'ife4+ is a draw, but
the text move defends White's king)
19 ... g6 20 l:l.f2 l:l.g7 21 'W'h3 'W'e4+ 22 �f1
l:td7 23 e6 l:l.dS 24 l:l.e1 and White soon
won in Seirawan-Zsu.Polgar, Monaco

(blindfold) 1994.
7 . . d6 8 e4 .i.xf1 9 �xf1 g6
. 1 1 e5 dxe5 1 2 lbxe5 •xb6 1 3 .i.g5
However Black tries to develop, the
combination of "ii'a4( +) and e4-e5 is going
to be awkward to meet, e.g. 9 ... lbbd7 10
'fa4 "ii'xb6 1 1 e5 dxe5 12 lLlxe5
12 ..."ii'a6+ (12 .. J:td8 13 g3 "ii'b4 14 "ii'c6
g6 15 �g2 i.. g7 16 d6 e6 17 "ii'c7 :laS 18
l:te1 and 12 ..."ii'b4 13 "ii'c6 l:lb8 14 i..d2
'fb7 15 lbc4 are both clearly favourable to
White according to Tsesarsky) 13 �g1
l:tb8 14 a3 "ii'b 7 15 h4 "ii'b 3 16 "ii'c6 "ii'b6 17
l:th3 "ii'xc6 18 lLlxc6 l:lc8 19 lba7 l:lb8 20
ll:\ab5 e5 2 1 dxe6 fxe6 22 i.. f4 e5 23 :let
and White's initiative persisted into the
endgame in Levin-Smirin, Berlin 1997.
10 'i'a4+! lbbd7 ?
This gets squashed. Black had to try
10 . lLlfd7 1 1 e5 dxe5 12 lbxe5 "ii'xb6 13
. .
.ig5 i..g7 14 lLlxd7 lbxd7 15 l:le1 f6 16
4 c x b 5 a6 5 b 6
i..c l but it is all rather unappetising.
1 3 . . ..1:1.d8
White 1s already wmrung, e.g.
13 ..."ii'xb2 14 l:lb1 "ii'xc3 15 i..xf6 or
13 ..."ii'a6+ 14 �g1 "ii'b 7 15 i.. xf6 exf6 16
lbc4! i..e7 17 l:le1 �f8 18 h4 and White
won easily in Serebrianik-Weisbuch, Tel
Aviv 1994.
14 .i.xf6 •xf6 1 5 lbc6 .l:l.c8 1 6 .l:l.e 1 g5
1 7 lbe4 •f4 1 8 ltla7 .l:l.b8 1 9 g3 •f3 20
lbd6+ �d8 21 ltlc6+ �c7 22 ltlxb8 ltlxb8
22 ..."ii'xh1+ 23 �e2 "ii'xdS 24 "ii'xd7+
�xb8 maintains material equality, but this
triumph is very short-lived as after 25
"ii'd8+ �a7 26 lbc8+ the black queen is
lost.
23 •xa5+ �xd6 24 •b6+ �xd5 25
•b7+ lbc6 26 •d7+ �c4 27 .l:l.c1 + �b5
28 •b7+ �a4 29 •a6+ 1 -0
67
Th e Benko Gambit

Summary
5 b6 is quite a tricky line for Black to face. The variations where Black simply concen­
trates on regaining the gambit pawn, either immediately with 5 ...1Wxb6 or a manoeuvre
involving ... llJbd7 and ... llJxb6 seem to leave White with good chances of an edge. Black
can instead try and mix it up a little with the critical S ... e6, as seen in Game 27. In that
case White gains a useful initiative, but if Black can weather the storm he has good long­
term chances. This is perhaps where Black players should concentrate their efforts. S . .. aS
and ... �a6 is a highly inventive idea but, on the evidence currently available, White gets
too active, too quickly.

1 d4 .!tlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 b6

5 . . .'ifxb6
S ... d6 6 liJc3 liJbd7 7 a4 a5 - Game 25
S . . . g6 6 llJc3 �g7 7 e4 d6 8 liJf3 0-0 - Game 26
S . . . e6 6 liJc3 exdS 7 llJxdS liJxd5 8 1i'xdS liJc6 9 liJf3 (D) - Game 27
S . . . aS 6 liJc3 �a6 8 liJf3 - Game 28
6 .!tlc3 g6 7 ltlf3 .tg7 8 e4 d6 (DJ 9 .te2
9 liJd2 llJbd7 10 llJc4 - Game 23
9 �c4 - Game 24
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 ltld2 (DJ - Game 22

9lDf3 8... d6 1 0 liJd2

68
I CHAPTER FIVE I
4 cxb5 a6 5 e3 g6

1 d4 lt!f6 2 c4 c 5 3 d 5 b 5 4 cxb5 a 6 5
e3 g6
With the move 5 e3 White is trying a
different method of accepting the gambit
pawn. As we have seen, the 'castling by
hand' and fianchetto variations both have
their drawbacks and with 5 e3 White
hopes to pursue a more normal develop­
ment while holding on to the offered
pawn.
5 . g6 was the first instinct of Black
. .
players when the lines with 5 e3 began to
gain popularity in the early 1980s and it
remains a perfectly respectable counter to
White's system. However, Black needs to
know what he is doing. As is the case
when meeting many of White's less usual
{after d5xe6, ... f7xe6), but even then Black
can generate good counterplay.
Game 29
Kir . Georgiev-Rogers
Biel Inte rzona/ 1993
1 d4 lt!f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 g6 6 liJc3 .i.g7 7 a4 0-0 8 l:ta3
White invariably makes an early move
with the queen's rook in this variation in
order to relieve the pressure on the a-file.
The alternative sortie 8 lLlf3 i.b7 9 l:.b 1 is
seen in Game 31, while 8 i.c4, trying to
do without a rook move, is the subject of
Game 33.
s .i.b7 s ttJt3
...

formations against the Benko, natural

moves and plans often spell disaster. Nev­
ertheless, with a modest amount of
homework Black can venture 5 ... g6 with
confidence.
The key to Black's strategy is an early
break with ... e7-e6, without wasting time
on the move ... d7-d6 which is not relevant
to the black position. Black plans to meet
d5xe6 with ... f7xe6 when he can follow up
with ... d7-d5 gaining a strong centre and
good play for his pieces. White often tries
to thwart this plan with a timely 'W'd6

69
Th e Benko Gam b it
9 . • . e6
This is much more common than the
immediate capture 9 ... axb5 but this move
may, in fact, be more accurate. The point
is that, by making the capture on b5 at
once, Black deprives White of the possibil­
ity of taking back with the a-pawn (10
axb5? l:txa3 1 1 bxa3 'ti'aS) and thus gains
more freedom of action for his pieces.
Practical play has borne this assessment
out, e.g. 10 .txb5 e6 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 12 1i'd6
12 ... .txf3! (it is natural to double the
white f-pawns and weaken his kingside,
but 12 ... ltle4 is also possible - see Burger­
Alburt in the Introduction) 13 gxf3 1i'c8
14 0-0 (after 14 .te2 ltle8 15 1i'g3 d5 16 0-0
c!Llc6 17 f4c!Lld6 18 .tg4 ltlf5 19 1i'h3 c4 20
e4 dxe4 2 1 ltlxe4c!Llcd4 22 .td1 l:tb8 Black
had promising counterplay in Moynihan­
Ryan, Dublin 1993) 14 ...c!Lle8 15 1i'g3 c!Llc6
16 ltle4c!Lle5 17 f4.!Llf7 18 ltlg5 (18 h4 d5 is
a rather optimistic thrust, e.g. 19 c!Llg5
c!Lled6 20 .te2 l:tb8 21 b3 c4 with a good
game for Black in Llanos-Pierrot, Buenos
Aires 1994) 18 ... d5 19 e4 (this advance
turns the black d-pawn into a dangerous
passed pawn, but if he doesn't try this it is
difficult to see how White can activate his
position) 19 ...c!Lled6 20 exdS exdS 21 1i'd3
c!LlxgS 22 fxg5 .td4 (a wonderful outpost
for the dark-squared bishop) 23 �g2 1i'g4+
24 1i'g3 1i'e4+ 25 f3 1i'c2+ 26 �h 1 lLlxbS
27 axb5 l:txa3 28 bxa3 1i'd3 29 1i'g2 1i'xb5
70
and Black went on to win in Petursson­
Fedorowicz, Reykjavik 1990.
1 0 dxe6
10 d6 remains relatively unexplored,
e.g. 10 ...ltld5 1 1 c!Lle4 axbS 12 c!Llxc5 b4 13
l:td3 with a bizarre position in Bass-Ben­
jamin, New York 1993.
1 0 . . . fxe6 1 1 Wd6
Although the white queen cannot
maintain her position here, Black is forced
to expend some time and slightly disor­
ganise his position in order to expel her.
The passive 1 1 .te2?! is the subject of the
next main game.
1 1 . . . Wc8
1 l...axb5 12 .txb5 transposes to the
note to Black's ninth move. Note that
here 12 axb5 can be met by 12 ... l:txa3 13
bxa3 'ti'aS! 14 1i'd2 c!Llg4 with an unclear
position (Fedorowicz).
1 2 �e2
1 2 . . . axb5
It is probably better to clarify the situa­
tion on the queenside in this way before
proceeding with the central counterplay,
e.g. 12 ... ltle8 13 1i'd2 d5 14 0-0.!Lld7 15 b3
c!Lld6 (15 ....!Llef6, protecting the dS-pawn in
preparation for ...e6-e5, is probably better)
16 .tb2 l:tf5 17 bxa6 .txa6 18 c!Llb5 .txb5
19 axb5 l:txa3 20 .txa3 and White has an
edge although the position remains diffi­
cult, as in Jelen-Baklan, Groningen 1996.
1 3 axb5
 4 c x b 5 a 6 5 e3 g 6

After 13 .ixb5?! ltJe8 14 'ii'g3 .ixf3 15

gxf3 ltJc6 16 0-0 d5 White is a whole
tempo down on the Petursson-Fedoro­
wicz game above.
1 3 . . . lbe8 1 4 'ifd2 d5 1 5 .l:.xa8 i.xa8 1 6
0-0 liJd7
16 ... 'ii'b7 is a misguided plan, e.g. 17 b3
lt:ld7 18 .ia3 ltJc7 19 ltJa4 ltJxb5 20 ltJxc5
lt:lxc5 21 .ixc5 .l:tc8 22 b4 e5 23 .l:ta1 'ii'c6
(a blunder, but Black does not have a great
deal for her pawn) 24 .ixb5 'ii'xb5 25
:xaS 1-0 Schussler-Zso.Polgar, Vejstrup
1989.
1 7 b3 lbef6 25 lbxc5??
This blunder loses immediately. Instead
25 'ii'h6 would have kept the situation
unclear. One possible line is 25 ...'ii'd6 26
ltJb2 .tf4 27 'ii'h3 ltJe5 28 ltJc4 ltJxc4 29
.ixc4+ �h8, when Black still has good
activity to compensate for the pawn.
25 . . . i.xh2+ 26 �h1 .ixg2+! 0-1
After 27 �xg2 .l:txf2+! Black forces
checkmate.

Game 30
Piket-Topalov
Madrid 1993
18 .ib2
The bishop is rather ineffectual on this 1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
square. 18 .ta3, attempting to press more e3 g6 6 lbc3 i.g7 7 a4 0-0 8 .l:.a3 ..tb7
directly against c5, would have given 9 liJf3 e6 1 0 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 i.e2?!
White a slight pull according to Rogers.
18 . . e5 1 9 lba4 'ifb8 20 'ifc2 lbe4 2 1
.

lbd2 lbxd2 22 'ifxd2 d 4 2 3 exd4

Black was threatening 23 ...'ii'b 7 24 f3
.ih6. A complex alternative, suggested by
Stohl is 23 f4!? 'ii'b 7 24 .ic4+ �h8 25 fxe5
.ih6 26 .l:txf8+ ltJxf8 27 �h1 .ixe3 28 'ii'e2
which he assesses as slightly better for
White.
23 . exd4 24 i.a3 .ie5
..

see follo wing diagram

Black has strong pressure against the

white kingside and the situation is now White should really take the opportu­
highly unclear. nity to hamper Black's development with

71
Th e Benko Gam b it
1 1 'ii'd6, as in the previous game.
11 • . . d5 1 2 bxa6 ltlxa6 1 3 0-0 ltlb4
With all his pieces playing an active role
and a big centre, Black has ample compen­
sation for the pawn.
1 4 .i.d2 'ife7 1 5 ltlb5 ltlc6 1 6 'ifb 1 e5
Black has a massive centre and it is far
from easy to see a way for White to chal­
lenge it.
1 7 h3 �h8
White has no constructive plan in this
position and so Topalov tidies up a little
before advancing in the centre. It is possi­
ble that, objectively, the position may be
about equal but I am sure that, given the
choice, almost any strong player would
prefer to take the black pieces here.
1 8 .l:l.c1 e4 1 9 ltlh2 d4 20 exd4 cxd4 2 1
'ifa2
White decides upon a plan of advancing
the a-pawn but it ultimately proves to be
not good enough. A better idea is 21 b4,
when Ftacnik suggests the possible con­
tinuation 21...lDd5 22 l:c5 e3 23 fxe3 dxe3
24 l:xd5 exd2 25 l:xd2 :xa4 26 l:.xa4
'ii'e3+ 27 �h1 'ii'xd2 28 'ii'd 1 'ii'xd1+ 29
.i.xd1 l:f4 with equality.
2 1 . . . .1:1.ad8 22 a5 d3 23 .i.g4 ltld5
The imminent invasion of the black
knights on the queenside is more relevant
than White's slow advance of the a-pawn.
24 a6 ltlcb4 25 'ifb3
If 25 'ii'a l .i.c6 26 lDc3 lDc2 27 l:xc2
72
dxc2 and White's a-pawn is insufficient
compensation for the exchange as Black
has the aS-square so well covered.
25 . . . ltlxa6 26 ltlc7 ltlaxc7 27 'ifxb7 .l:l.b8
0-1
The b2-pawn is dropping off and with
it White's whole position. A powerful
demonstration of Black's possibilities in
this variation.
Game 31
L. B . Hansen-P .Cram ling
Reykjavik Zona/ 1995
1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 g6 6 ltlc3 .i.g7 7 a4 0-0 8 ltlf3 .i.b7
The perils of the routine 8 ... d6?! are
graphically illustrated in the next game.
9 .l:l.b 1 ! ?
This interesting move is perhaps
White's best try in the 5 e3 g6 variation.
Black's standard plan, as we have seen, is
to break in the centre with ... e7-e6, meet­
ing d5xe6 with ... Vxe6 and an eventual
... d7-d5. White intends to counter this idea
with b2-b4, which will undermine this
structure by creating a weakness at d4 and
allowing a white knight to progress along
the path lDf3-d4-c6.
9 . . . e6
This has always been Black's response,
but Fedorowicz has suggested 9 ... axb5 10
axb5 'ii'a5 with the following possibility:

11 i.d2 1i'b6 12 e4 e6 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 .ltd3
d5 15 exd5 exd5 16 0-0 ltlbd7, which he
assesses as unclear.
10 dxe6
Here too 10 d6!? is, as yet, unexplored
in practice.
10 . . . fxe6 1 1 .i.e2 axb5
Or 1 1...d5 12 0-0 ltle8 13 ._c2 ltld6
(This plan is a little slow. Black would do
better to concentrate on activating the
queenside.) 14 e4 d4 15 e5 .ltxf3 16 .ltxf3
l:txf3 17 exd6 l:tfS 18 ..e4 ltld7 19 ..xe6+
�h8 20 ltle4 l:teS 2 1 ._g4 axb5 22 axbS
l'e8 23 ltlg5 ltlf6 24 ..h3 and White was
well on top in Lukacs-Leko, Budapest
1993.
12 axb5 d5 1 3 0-0
13 . . . llJbd7
13 .....e7 looks like a good move for
Black. The b2-b4 advance is held up (tem­
porarily at least) and Black plans a central
counter with ... e6-e5. The game Flear­
Mainka, Polanica Zdroj 1992, continued
14 i.d2 eS (Black may do better t<:> com­
plete his development with 14 ... ltlbd7) 15
e4 d4 16 .ltc4+ �h8 17 ltld5 ltlxd5 18 exd5
liJd7 19 ltlgS ltlb6 20 d6 ._xd6 2 1 ltlf7+
:txf7 22 .ltxf7 ._d7 23 1i'b3 ltld5 24 .ltxd5
i.xdS 25 ._g3 and Black did not have
quite enough for the exchange.
1 4 b4! c4
This does not work out very well for
Black. However, White has a protected
4 cxb 5 a 6 5 e 3 g 6
passed pawn after 1 4... cxb4 1 5 l:txb4, e.g.
15 .....e7 16 l:tbl e5 17 ._b3 ltlb6 18 .ltb2
{White has an edge although the position
remains complex) 18 .. .'it>h8 19 l:tal l:tfc8
20 l:txa8 l:txa8 21 .l:.a1 l:txa1+ 22 .ltxa1
ltlfd7 {White has engineered the exchange
of both pairs of rooks but he still finds it
hard to challenge Black's central pawns) 23
ltla4 d4 24 ltlxb6 ltlxb6 25 .ltb2 .ltd5 26
..a3 ..xa3 27 .ltxa3 d3 28 .ltxd3 e4 29 .lte2
exf3 30 .ltxf3 i.xf3 3 1 gxf3 .lteS and Black
went on to. win in Griego-Blocker, Phila­
delphia 1994.
1 5 llJd4 -.ea
The plan of breaking up the black cen­
tre with e3-e4 gives White the advantage
here. Another example is 15 .....e7 16 e4
ltlxe4 17 ltlxe4 dxe4 18 ltlc6 .ltxc6 19 bxc6
ltle5 20 ..c2 ltlxc6 21 'ifxe4 ltlxb4 22
.ltxc4 �h8 23 .ltd2 l:tab8 24 .ltxe6 and
White was on top in Gligoric-Rajkovic,
Yugoslav Championship 1984.
1 6 e4 �h8 1 7 llJc6 llJxe4 1 8 llJxe4
dxe4 1 9 .i.xc4
Black's centre has been dismantled and
White has a clear advantage.
1 9 . . . llJe5 20 llJxe5 .i.xe5 2 1 .i.b2 .i.xb2
22 :txb2
Now Black also has to worry about the
weak dark squares around her king and
her exposure along the seventh rank.
22 . . . -.e7 23 •b3 l:lad8 24 l:la2 .i.d5 25
b6 •f6 26 .i.xd5 exd5 27 -.e3 l:lfe8
73
Th e Benko G a m bit
Black seems to be on the verge of gen­
erating counterplay with her centre
pawns, but the white b-pawn will prove
to be the more relevant.
2a 'ife5 d4 29 .:l.a7 'ife5 30 'ife7 ! 'ifxe7
31 bxe7 :tea 32 b5 .:l.e6 33 .:l.b7 1 -0
Game 32
G ulko-Vaganian
Riga 1995
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 e5 3 d5 b5 4 lbf3 d6?!
As we shall see it is not desirable for
Black to commit his d-pawn so early in
the game.
5 exb5 a6 6 e3 g6 7 liJe3 i.g7 a a4 0-0
9 e4 axb5 1 0 i.xb5 i.a6
This was Black's original attempt to
counter the 5 e3 variation - pretend that
nothing has happened and play the nor­
mal Benko strategy on the queenside. U n­
fortunately, as was quickly discovered, it
simply doesn't work. White gains too
much time compared to a normal Benko
and Black never gets anywhere on the
queenside. This plan is rarely seen these
days and when it does make an appearance
it usually results in a disaster for Black - as
is indeed the case here.
1 1 i.d2 'ifb6
Black can try a different Benko plan:
t t...lLlbd7 12 0-0 lLlg4 13 We2 WaS 14 l:.a3
l:.fb8 15 l:.fal Wb6 16 lLlel lLlgf6 17 lLld3
74
.i.xb5 18 axb5, but it is impossible to
avoid the conclusion that White is about
two or three tempi up on the normal 'ac­
cepted' lines, e.g. 18 ...l:.xa3 19 bxa3 c4 20
lLlb4 lLlc5 21 lh2 lLlb3 22 .i.e3 lLld4 23
Wdl lLlxb5 24 .i.xb6 lLlxc3 25 Wc2 lLlxa2
26 Wxa2 l:.xb6 27 Wxc4 l:.b8 28 g3 lLlg4 29
Wc7 l:te8 30 lLlc6 1-0 Beliavsky-Hodgson,
London 1985.
1 2 0-0 i.xb5 13 axb5 liJbd7 14 'ife2
This is more direct than 14 h3 l:.fb8 15
.i.g5 h6 16 .i.e3 l:.xal 17 Wxal lLle8 18
lLld2, although this also proved impossible
for Black to handle in Pinter-Halasz, Bu­
dapest 1979, i.e. 18 ... Wb7 19 Wa6 lLlc7 20
Wxb7 l:.xb7 21 J:[al lLlxb5 22 lLlxb5 l:.xb5
23 J:[a7 lLlb6 24 b3 i..c3 25 l:txe7 .i.xd2 26
i..xd2 l:.xb3 27 .i.xh6 c4 28 .i.e3 lLla4 29
l:c7 c3 30 l:tc4 l:.a3 3 1 e5 1-0.
14 . . . .:l.tba 1 5 e5
Black would normally expect to have
counterplay against b2 or d5 in such a
position, but here White has a free hand
to pursue his own plans.
1 5 . . . dxe5 1 6 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 1 7 'ifxe5 'ifb7
1 a .:l.xaa .:txaa 1 9 .:l.e 1 :tea 20 d6
Winning.
20 . . .'ifd7 21 1Wxe5 :tea 22 1Wb4 exd6
23 i.f4 d5 24 b6 :tea 25 .:l.xe8+ 1Wxe8
26 �f 1 d4 27 b7 1 -0
A totally miserable game for Black and
a stem warning to keep away from the
pedestrian plans with ... d7-d6.

......-----.
Game 33
Notkin-Khalifm an
St Petersburg 1995
,_____________.
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 g6 6 llJc3 i.g7 7 a4
White does best to throw this in imme­
diately as it will always be necessary. At­
tempts to get by without it are not im­
pressive, e.g. 7 ltJf3 0-0 8 i.e2?! (8 a4!}
8 . axb5 9 ltJxb5 i.b7 10 ltJc3 e6 1 1 e4
..
exd5 12 exd5 d6 13 0-0 ltJbd7 14 ltJe1 ltJb6
15 i.f3 i.a6 16 liJd3 ltJfd7 17 lle1 ltJc4 18
'ic2 "i'a5 19 lld1 llab8 and Black was very
active in F.Portisch-Vajda, Balatonbereny
1996.
7 .. 0-0 .
8 .ic4
With this move White initiates a plan
of clamping down on the d5-square with
his pieces. Another way to do this is by 8
l:.a3 i.b7 9 ltJh3!? e6 10 ltJf4, but then
Black has the surprising move 10 ... e5, e.g.
11 ltJd3 (1 1 ltJh3 e4 12 ltJf4 d6 13 i.e2
axb5 14 i.xb5 ltJa6 15 0-0 ltJb4 16 i.c4
'ie7 17 "i'd2 g5 gave Black a strong initia­
tive in Davies-Wolff, Preston 1989}
1 1..."i'e7 12 "i'b3 llc8 13 "i'c4 e4 14 ltJf4 d6
15 h4 ltJbd7 16 bxa6 i.xa6 with unclear
play in Pelletier-P.Cramling, Biel 1994.
8 . .. .ib7
As with the 5 e3 g6 variation in general,
4 cxb 5 a 6 5 e3 g 6
quiet plans based on ... d7-d6 are not active
enough, e.g. 8 ... d6 9 ltJge2 ltJbd7 10 lla3
ltJb6 11 i.a2 axb5 12 ltJxb5 i.d7 13 ltJbc3
e6 14 dxe6 i.xe6 15 ltJf4 i.xa2 16 llxa2
"i'd7 17 0-0 llfd8 18 e4 and White had an
extra pawn and control of the position in
Pinter-Binham, Helsinki 1983.
9 tbge2 e6
1 0 lLlf4
The text is certainly the most logical
move but others are also possible:
a} The strange 10 llb1!? was tried in
Novikov-C.Hansen, Aarhus 1991. The
continuation demonstrated inventiveness
from both players: 10 ... axb5 1 1 axb5 ltJg4
12 ltJf4 ltJxf2!? 13 'iPxf2 e5 14 lle1 (if the
knight moves then 14 ..."i'h4+ and
15 ..."i'xc4 regains the piece) 14 ... exf4 15
exf4 i.d4+ 16 i.e3 "i'h4+ (Black seems to
be forcing the pace but he is actually
weakening his kingside and exchanging off
his best developed pieces} 17 'iPg1 i.xe3+
18 l:.xe3 "i'xf4 19 "i'e2 d6 20 ltJe4 f5 21 g3
"i'g4 22 "i'xg4 fxg4 23 ltJxd6 1-0.
b) 10 bxa6 only helps Black to develop,
e.g. 10 ... ltJxa6 1 1 ltJf4 ltJb4 12 0-0 g5 13
ltJd3 ltJfxdS 14 ltJxdS exd5 15 ltJxc5 dxc4
16 ltJxb7 "i'c7 17 ltJd6 i.e5 18 ltJb5 "i'c6
19 "i'g4 f5 20 "i'e2 llae8 with unclear
chances in Begovac-Rhodin, Swiss Team
Championship 1997.
10 . . . axb5 1 1 lbxb5
Or 1 1 i.xb5 ltJxdS 12 ltJcxd5 exd5 13
75
Th e Benko G a m b it
0-0 d4 (White gains a surprisingly swift
attack after this. An alternative was
13 ...9g5 14 e4 dxe4 15 lDe6 Wfs 16 tDxf8
�xf8 with compensation for the ex­
change.) 14 exd4 �xd4 15 lDe2 �e5 16 f4
�f6 17 f5 tDc6 18 9d6 lDd4 19 fxg6
tDxe2+ 20 �xe2 �d4+ 2 1 �h1 hxg6 22
�c4 'it>g7 23 l:.a3 Wh4 24 l:.g3 l:.ae8 25
�g5 1-0 Lautier-Benjamin, Paris 1989.
1 1 . . . exd5 1 2 lLlxd5 lLle6 1 3 lLld6 .b6
1 4 i.xa6 l:txa6 1 5 lLlb7 WeB
1 6 lLlxf6+
White has invaded the black position
with his knights but now rather tamely
withdraws them. He was presumably in­
tending 16 lDxcS but did not like the look
of 16 ... tDxd5 17 lDxa6 (not 17 Wxd5 lDb4
when ... Wxc5 follows} 17 ...9xa6 18 Wxd5
lDb4 when, although White is the ex­
change and two pawns ahead, he will have
great difficulty completing his develop­
ment, e.g. 19 Wb3 lDd3+ 20 �d2 lDxf2 and
the black attack continues.
1 6 . . . i.xf6 1 7 lLld6
Instead 17 tDxcS is thoroughly inadvis­
able on account of 17 ... lDb4 18 tDxa6
lDc2+.
76
1 7 . . .We7 1 B lLle4 i.e5 1 9 0-0 lLlb4
Now that the white knights have been
driven back, Black has good counterplay
for the pawn.
20 f4 i.g7 21 i.d2 l:.eB 22 lLlg5 h6 23
lLlf3 lLld5 24 Wb3 lLlf6
Black has cleverly regrouped his pieces
and is now preparing ... tDe4 when the
pressure against the b2-pawn will be deci­
Sive.
25 lLle5 d6 26 lLle4 lLle4 27 i.e3 lLlxe3
2B bxe3 d5 29 lLle5 i.xe5 30 fxe5 l:txe5
31 l:tad 1 e4 32 We2 Wa7
The dual threats against a4 and e3 cost
White material.
33 �h 1 l:txa4 34 e4 dxe4 35 Wd2 �g7
36 Wd6 l:te6 37 WdB We7 3B Wd4+ �h7
39 l:tde 1 e3 40 l:te2 h5 41 h3 Wa7 42
Wf4 l:ta 1 43 l:txa 1 Wxa 1 + 44 �h2 •a7
45 Wxc4 WbB+ 46 g3 Wb7 47 Wf4 l:te4
48 Wf6 Wd5
Now that Black has finally managed to
centralise his forces, the win is not far
away.
49 h4 �gB 50 Wa6 �g7 5 1 WeB Wd3
52 l:ta2 Wd6 53 Wb7 l:txh4+ 54 �g2
l:tg4 55 Wf3 We6 0-1
 4 cxb5 a 6 5 e3 g 6

Summary
The current state of play is that the variation 5 e3 g6 is fine for Black as long as he is fa­
miliar with two important points. Firstly, don't waste time on ... d7-d6 - it is almost al­
ways redundant. Secondly, in the lines where the white queen comes to d6, keep open
the option of ... i..xf3, wrecking White's kingside pawns. This is an important part of
Black's strategy.
White's best hope for this variation probably lies with 9 l:tb 1 which seems to be the
only way to cause Black difficulties. Black should look at 13 ...1i'e7 {see notes to Game
31) or the untried 9 ... axb5 10 axbS 'iWaS.

1 d4 lL!f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 e3 g6 6 lL!c3 .i.g7 7 a4 0-0

B lDf3 (OJ
8 i..c4 i.. b 7 9 llJge2 - Game 33
8 ... .i.b7
8 . d6?! 9 e4 axbS 10 i..xbS i.. a6 - Game 32
..

9l:l.a3
9 l:tb 1!? (D) e6 10 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 i..e2 - Game 31
9 .e6 10 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 Wd6 (OJ
..

1 1 i.. e 2?! - Game 30

11 . . .WeB - Game 29

8 llJf3 9 l:tb 1 1 1 'i6'd6

77
I CHAPTER SIX I
4 cxb5 a6 5 e3 axb5
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 axb5
The plan to counteract the 5 e3 varia­
tion of the Benko with 5 ... axb5 and
6 ... 1i'a5+ was an idea which was first
worked out in the mid-1980s. At first it
seemed that White's best counter was to
hang on to the extra pawn and try to beat
off Black's tactical counterplay. For a
while this led to highly complex games,
but then an idea discovered by Patrick
Wolff (Game 34) demonstrated that this
plan (7 ltlc3 �b7 8 �d2) just didn't work.
Since then White has switched track
and now usually meets the 5 ... axb5 varia­
tion with plans which involve giving back
the pawn and trying to make the most of
a small but clear advantage in develop­
ment. Typically Black will have a sound
position with an extra central pawn but
White will play to disturb the flow of
Black's development and create weak­
nesses. These themes are familiar from
many variations of the Sicilian Defence
where Black basically has a sound game
and good long-term chances and White is
trying to land a haymaker early on.
The critical branch occurs after the
moves 1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6
5 e3 axb5 (or 5 .... �b7 6 ltlc3 axb5 6 i.xb5
78
1i'a5) 6 i.xb5 1i'a5+ 7 ltlc3 i.b7. Now
White has three possibilities:
a) The old move 8 i.d2 (Game 34), try­
ing to hold on to the pawn. White cannot
hope for more than equality with this
move and it is rarely seen these days.
b) He can immediately return the extra
pawn with 8 ltle2, when Black has various
ways to recapture and then co-ordinate his
forces. This plan is seen in Games 35-37.
c) The double-edged advance 8 e4!?
(Games 38 and 39). With this move White
gives back the e-pawn in the interests of
holding onto his d-pawn (at least for the
time being - this pawn often gets jetti­
soned as well in the interests of complet­
ing mobilisation as quickly as possible).
Game 34
Nickoloff-Wolff
Toronto 1985
1 d4 lLif6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 axb5 6 .ixb5 'i'a5+ 7 lbc3 .ib7 8
.id2 'i'b6
see folio wing diagram
9 'i'b3
This was the main try for many years
but, to be brutally honest, it doesn't seem

to work out too well for White. If White
wants to resurrect this variation he should
probably look at alternatives, but they
don't seem too threatening for Black:
a) 9 i.c4 e6 10 e4 li:Jxe4 1 1 li:Jf3 (not 1 1
lLlxe4 exd5) 1 1. ..li:Jxd2 1 2 _.xd2 i.e7 13
0-0 0-0 14 l:.fe1 i.f6 (Black has two alter­
natives here, both of which appear satis­
factory: 14 ... li:Ja6 15 l:.ad1 l:.ad8 16 _.e2
.if6 17 li:Je5 i.xe5 18 _.xeS d6, as in An­
nakov-Kalegin, Moscow 1995; and
14 ... i.a6 15 i.b3 c4 16 i.a4 i.f6 17 dxe6
dxe6 18 li:Je5, as in Lengyel-Bartels, Matra
1993, with equality in both cases) 15 l:.ad1
lLla6 16 li:Je5 l:.ad8 17 _.cl and now
17 ... li:Jb4!? as suggested by Notkin is fine
for Black, e.g. 18 a3 {the main point is 18
dxe6 dxe6 19 li:Jd7 l:.xd7 20 l:.xd7 _.c6 21
l:txb7 _.xb7 with equality) 18 ... li:Jxd5 19
.ixd5 exd5 20 li:Jxd5 i.xd5 2 1 l:.xd5 d6 22
lLlc4 _.c6 23 l:.ed1 i.d4 and Black is okay.
However 17 ... d6 was played in Anna­
kov-V.Ivanov, Moscow Championship
1994, and White was able to launch a
strong attack on the kingside, viz. 18 li:Jg4
.ixc3 19 bxc3 exd5 20 i.d3! i.c8 21 li:Jf6+
gxf6 22 ..h6 f5 23 ..g5+ �h8 24 ..f6+
�g8 25 l:.e3 1-0.
b) 9 li:Jf3 li:Jxd5 10 li:Jxd5 i.xd5 11 a4.
This kind of counter-sacrifice play is a
familiar theme in this variation. Here,
however, Black has a more developed po­
sition and the white bishop on d2 is not
4 cxb 5 a 6 5 e3 axb5
terribly useful. Black therefore has a com­
fortable game, e.g. 1 1 ...e6 12 i.c3 and:
b1) 12 ... i.e7 13 i.xg7 l:.g8 is a specula­
tive gambit which worked well in Van der
Wert-Nicholson, Lugano 1989: 14 i.eS
li:Jc6 15 i.g3 'W'a5+ 16 �e2 (not 16 'W'd2
_.xb5 17 axb5 llxa1+ 18 �e2 i.c4+ and
Black wins) 16 ... l:.g4 17 li:Je1 l:.b4 18 li:Jd3
Ab3 19 l:.e1 li:Ja7 20 e4 li:Jxb5 21 exd5
li:Jd4+ 22 �fl 'W'a6 23 l:.e3 c4 24 li:Jcl l:.xe3
25 fxe3 c3+ 26 �f2 cxb2 27 _.xd4 bxa1_.
28 _.xa1 'W'xa4 and Black went on to win.
b2) 12 ... _.b7 13 0-0 (perhaps 13 h4!?)
13 ... i.e7 14 li:Je1 0-0 15 _.g4 f6 16 li:Jf3
li:Ja6 17 li:Jd2 i.c6 18 i.xc6 _.xc6 19 e4
li:Jc7 20 b3 d5 and Black stood very well in
Estremera-Perez, Orense 1997.
9 . e6 1 0 e4
. .
10 i.c4 hopes to prove that White can
play for the advantage in the endgame.
However, practice indicates that it is
Black, if anyone, who has the chances:
10 ... 'W'xb3 1 1 i.xb3 li:Ja6! (1 1...exd5 allows
White time to play 12 li:Jge2 li:Ja6 13 0-0
with a slight pull) 12 li:Jge2 (after 12 li:Jf3
Black can play 12 ... li:Jb4!? or just the sim­
ple 12 ... exd5, content with the fact that
the knight is slightly misplaced on f3)
12 ... li:Jb4!
13 dxe6 (a dangerous pawn to grab, but
13 0-0 li:Jfxd5 14 li:Jxd5 li:Jxd5 15 e4 li:Jb4
16 li:Jg3 h5, as in Miralles-Koch, Lyon
1990, is absolutely fine for Black)
79
Th e Benko Gam b i t
13 ... .!t:Jd3+ (13 ...c4 14 exf7+ �d8 is another
way to play) 14 �fl fxe6 15 f3 i.e7 16
i.cl tt:Jb4 17 i.b3 0-0 18 tt:Jb5 i.c6 19
.!t:Jec3 l:.fb8 20 i.c4 dS 21 i.e2 e5 22 .!t:Ja3
d4 23 i.c4+ �h8 24 .!t:Je2 dxe3 25 i.xe3 e4
26 f4 l:.xa3 27 bxa3 .!t:Jc2 28 �f2 .!t:Jxa1 29
l:r.xa1 .!t:Jg4+ 0-1 Volosjuk-Slavina, Menorca
1996.
10 •.. lLlxe4!
This is Black's big trick, without which
the whole line would not make a lot of
sense.
1 1 lLlxe4 ..txd5 1 2 'iid 3 'iib7 !
This move, discovered by Patrick
Wolff, has been responsible for the demise
of this line for White. Previously, the
complex 12 .. .£5 had been played and a
large amount of theory had built up
around it. However, there is no reason for
Black to explore this as the text is simple,
forcing and strong.
1 3 f3 c4 1 4 ..txc4 ..txc4 1 5 'iixc4 d5 1 6
'iic 2 dxe4 1 7 ..tc3
Several other moves have tried, but
none of them present Black with any real
problems:
a) 17 'ii'xe4 1i'xb2! 18 l:.b 1 1i'xa2 19 i.c3
(or 19 .!t:Je2 tt:Jd7 20 .!t:Jc3 'ii'a6 21 .!t:Jb5 l:.c8
22 0-0 i.c5+ 23 �h1 0-0 and Black has an
extra pawn, although it will be difficult to
win, as in Cherepkov-Sivokho, Leningrad
1990) 19 ... i.c5 20 i.xg7 l:.g8 (Black over­
looks White's clever tactic which now
80
forces a draw; Black instead had 20 ...'ii'f2+
21 �d1 'ii'fl+ 22 'iitd2 l:.a2+ 23 �c3 l:.a3+
which should win) 21 l:.xb8+ l:.xb8 22
'ii'c6+ �d8 23 i.f6+ i.e7 24 'ii'd6+ �c8
lh-lh Al Khateeb-Surjadnji, Decin 1997.
b) 17 fxe4 .!t:Jd7 18 .!t:Jf3 and now Black
can choose between the safe 18 ...tt:Jc5 19
0-0 .!t:Jxe4, when he is slightly better, e.g.
20 i.e3 i.d6 21 i.d4 0-0 22 l:.ae 1 f5 23 a3
l:r.ac8 24 'ii'd3 l:.fd8 25 b4 and White man­
aged to draw in Pastres-Belotti, Marostica
1995, or the more adventurous 18 ... i.c5
19 i.c3 (19 �e2!?) 19 ... 0-0 when Black had
more than enough play for the pawn in
Kummer-Sandor, Austria 1996.
1 7 . . . ..tb4 1 8 lLle2?
This is a bad error. 18 fxe4 i.xc3+ 19
bxc3 0-0 20 .!t:J£3 'ii'b6 would have left
Black with only a small advantage.
1 8 . . . exf3 1 9 gxf3 ..txc3+ 20 'iixc3 0-0
21 l:tg1
It would have been better to evacuate
the king with 21 0-0, but no-one would
want to play White in this position.
21 . . . g6 22 l:tg3 lLlc6 23 l:tg4 l:tfc8 24
lLlg3 l:tab8 25 lLle4 'iixb2 26 lLlf6+ �g7
Doubled checks and discovered checks
are usually so strong that it is strange to
see Black walking voluntarily into them.
However, Black's control of the long di­
agonal prevents any damage being done.
27 lLlh5+ �f8 28 'iix b2 l:txb2 29 lLlg3
lLle5 0-1

Game 3 5
Mowzisian-Ber g
Hamburg 1997
_______________.
1 d4 ll:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 axb5 6 .txb5 'ifa5+ 7 ll:lc3 .tb7 8
1Lle2
White calmly gives back the pawn and
focuses on developing his pieces.
8 . . .ltJxd5
8 . . .i.xd5 is equally popular - see Game
37.
9 0-0 ll:lxc3
9...ll'lf6 and 9 ... lt:Jc7 are considered in
the next main game.
10 lDxc3
10 . . . e6
One important lesson that can be learnt
from games in this line is that ... e7-e6 and
... i.e7 is usually a better development for
the king's bishop than ... g7-g6 and ... �g7.
The attempt to fianchetto the dark­
squared bishop often leaves Black's pieces
rather strung out and his central pawns
vulnerable. A typical example is 10 ... g6 1 1
a4 i.g7 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 �g5!, when White has
a very pleasant position, e.g. 13 ...Wd8
(13 ...e6 14 Wd6 looks very strong) 14 lt:Jd5
f6 15 �f4 lt:Ja6 16 �xd7 �h8 17 �e6 We8
18 1i'b3 Wc6 19 lt:Jxe7 Wxe4 20 lt:Jxg6+ 1-0
Wiedenkeller-Omstein, Swedish Champi­
onship 1991.
4 cxb5 a 6 5 e3 axb5
1 1 e4
The prudent 1 1 a4 is perhaps a better
try as White is struggling to maintain any
initiative whatsoever after the text. How-
ever, this move is well met by either:
a) 1 1...�e7 12 e4 0-0 13 �f4 'ii'd8 (not
13 ...1i'b4 14 l:te1 d6? 15 �xd6 l:.d8 and
now White uncorked 16 lt:Jd5! in Lukacs­
Seres, Balatonbereny 1996, after which
Black could find nothing better than
16 ...Wxe1+ 17 'ii'xe1 �xd6 18 lt:Jb6 l:ta7 19
:d1 �c7 20 l:.xd8+ �xd8 21 a5 and White
soon won) 14 'ii'd3 (this is feeble; 14 e5 or
14 �d6 must be better tries) 14 ... d5 15
exd5 exd5 16 l::.fe 1 d4 17 lt:Je4 lt:Ja6 with a
completely equal position in Pinter­
Cacho, Spanish Team Championship
1993.
b) 1 1...lt:Jc6 12 e4 �e7 13 �f4 'ii'd8 14
Wd3 0-0 15 :ad1 (White holds up Black's
...d7.Q5 advance and thus hopes that he
might be able to gain the advantage; how­
ever, Black seems to be holding the bal­
ance with active piece play) 15 ...lt:Jd4 16
�e5 �f6 17 �d6 �e7 18 �e5 �f6 19
�d6 �e7 20 Wg3 f5 21 exf5 l:xf5 22 �xe7
Wxe7 23 Wc7 lt:Jf3+ 24 �h 1 l:th5 25 h3
:xh3+ 26 gxh3 Wh4 27 'ii'g3 \.-2- \.-2 Shirov­
Adams, Dortmund 1992.
11 ..• .txe4
If Black declines the possibility for this
combination then White can keep an edge
by clamping down on the black centre,
e.g. 1 1...�e7?! 12 'ii'd3 0-0 13 'ii'g3 �h8 14
�f4 lt:Jc6 15 :fe1 e5 16 �xe5 lt:Jxe5 17
Wxe5 �f6 18 Wxc5 d6 19 'ii'f5 'ii'b4 20
l:tab 1 �e5 2 1 a4 and it is far from clear
that Black had enough for the two pawns
in the game Kramnik-Tseshkovsky, Mos­
cow 1992.
1 2 .txd7+ ll:lxd7 1 3 ll:lxe4 'ifa4!
This would appear to give Black a
completely equal position. White has
made various attempts to prove an advan­
tage here but they have all come to noth­
mg.
81
Th e Benko Gam b it

quietly. If Black co-ordinates his position

successfully then White will be in a mess.

1 4 'ife2
The other tries are:
a) 14 ltld6+ i.xd6 15 Wxd6 Wd4 and: 1 8 . . . f5 1 9 Wc3 J:.g8
a1) 16 i.f4 e5 17 'W'c6 Wa4 (not 17 ... 0-0 19 ... e5?! 20 ltlg5 is the kind of conces­
18 i.e3 Wg4 19 h3 Wf5 20 g4 We6 2 1 sion that White is hoping to provoke.
Wxe6 fxe6 2 2 l:.fd1 when White w as on Then 2 1 'W'c4 is on the cards while
top in Szabo-Lochte, Budapest 1994) 18 20 ... i.xg5 21 i.xg5 leaves the black posi­
Wxa4 l:t.xa4 19 i.e3 �e7 20 l:.fcl c4 2 1 l:.c2 tion looking rather ragged.
l:.b8 22 a3 �e6 and Black was certainly 20 ltlg5 ..tf6 21 'ifc4 ..txa 1 22 J:.xa 1
not worse in Arlandi-Manca, Reggio
Emilia 1993/94.
a2) 16 Wc7 We5 17 Wc6 Wd5 18 Wxd5
exd5 19 l:.e1+ �d8 20 l:.d1 l:.e8 21 �fl d4
22 a4 l:.b8 23 a5 l:t.e6 24 l:.a4 with equality
in Gomez Esteban-Vaisser, Las Palmas
1993.
b) 14 Wf3 lLle5 15 Wf4 (15 We3!?)
15 ... ltld3 16 We3 l:.d8 17 ltlc3 Wc6 18 Wg3
c4 19 a4 h5 20 h3 e5 2 1 a5 f5 and Black
had good play in Kramnik-Adams,
Chalkidiki 1992.
14 . . ...te7 1 5 b3 Wc6 1 6 Wg4 g6 1 7 'iff3
White is hoping to demonstrate that This is the critical position. Black needs
there are structural weaknesses in the to play very accurately to counter the
black position, but this is a dangerous way threat of l:.e1, when the e6-pawn caves in.
to play as his probing moves are taking up 22 ... ltle5
a lot of time. This is stronger than 22 ...ltlf6 23 l:.e1
1 7 . . . J:.a6 ltle4 24 lLlxe4 fxe4 25 l:.xe4. Although
A good way to meet the ltlf6+ threat. Black is then nominally ahead on material
1 8 ..th6 (exchange for a pawn), his position is hor­
This active move more or less obliges ribly exposed and the practical difficulties
White to sacrifice the exchange, but this is of co-ordinating his forces will be difficult
not a position where White can continue to overcome.

82

23 'l'f4 'I'd&?!
Black is anxious to line up his queen on
the same diagonal as White's in order to
be able to threaten an exchange. However,
this is the wrong square for the queen as
now the knight on e5 is pinned and the e6-
pawn remains very vulnerable. Much bet­
ter was 23 ... 'ifd51 when White is more or
less obliged to take a tim�ut with 24 h3
as 24 l:tel l:txa2 is very good for Black.
24 :te 1 .!2Jd3? !
Black is losing his way here. Much bet­
ter was 24 ...l:txa21 25 f3 {25 h3 l:te2 is very
good for Black) 25 ... c4 26 'ifxe5 'ifxe5 27
:xeS cxb3 and the black b-pawn should
win the game as the white pieces are so far
offside.
25 :txe6+ 'it'xe6 26 'it'b8+ rl;e7 27 'it'b7+
'l'd7 28 'it'xa6
28 . . .:tc8?!
Black's rook has been dormant for so
long that it is understandable that he
would be keen to activate it. Unfortu­
nately, this move leaves his king very vul­
nerable - a feature of the position which
Mowzisian is quick to exploit. A better
defence was 28 ... ltJb4. Berg may have been
put off this move because of 29 'ife2+ �d8
30 ltJe6+ �c8 3 1 ltJxc5, but with the cold­
blooded 29 ... �d61 he would have stayed in
the game. Although it takes some nerve to
charge .out with the king when queens are
still on the board, it is often much more
4 cxb 5 a 6 5 e 3 axb 5
difficult to exploit an exposed king in an
open position than one would intuitively
believe to be the case.
29 ll:\xh7 :tee 30 Was :cs 31 'it'f3
With two pawns for the exchange and
strong play on the dark squares, White is
not going to be satisfied with a repetition
of moves.
31 . . .ll:\e5 32 'it'e2 'it'd4 33 h3 rj;f7 34
'it'a6! 'it'd7
This loses at once. The best chance was
to play 34 ... l:tc6 35 'ifa7+ �e6 36 .te3, but
the position remains very difficult for
Black.
35 'iff&+ rl;gS 36 liJfS 'it'c7 37 ll:\xg6
ll:\xg6 38 'it'xg6+ rl;hS 39 .i.g5 1 -0
Game 36
Adla-Komljenovic
Coria 1995
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 axb5 6 .i.xb5 .i.b7 7 ll:\c3 'it'a5 8 ll:\e2
ll:\xd5 9 0-0 liJf6
9 ... ltJc7 is another way for Black to
play but he again finds it difficult to com­
plete his development: 10 .tc4 ltJc6 1 1 e4
{1 1 .td2 'ifa7 12 a4 e6 13 liJbS 'ii'b 8 14 e4
ltJxbS 15 .txb5 .td6 16 f4 f6 17 .tc3 0-0
18 'ii'd3 l:td8 19 l:tadl .te7 20 'ifh3 'ifc8 21
f5 and White had a good attack in Por­
tisch-Sandor, Balatonbereny 1996)
l l...liJeS 12 .tb3 c4 13 .tc2 e6 14 .td2
'ifa6 15 .tf4 f6 16 'ifd2 {16 ltJd4 .td6 17
'ifhS+ g6 18 'ife2 ltJc6 19 .te3 .txh2+ 20
�xh2 ltJxd4 21 .txd4 'ii'd6+ 22 'iir g 1 'ii'xd4
23 l:tfdl 'ii'c5 24 .ta4 .tc6 25 .txc6 'ifxc6
26 l:td4 0-0 27 'ifxc4 left White with an
edge in Lukacs-Gyimesi, Budapest 1995 -
the clash between the same two players
from the previous year) 16 ... .tb4 17 :tad1
l:td8 18 .txe5 fxe5 19 'ii'g5 0-0 20 'ifxe5 d6
2 1 'ifh5 eS and White was a pawn ahead,
although the position remained difficult in
the encounter Lukacs-Gyimesi, Budapest
1996.
83
Th e Benko G a m b it
1 0 f3
White clearly wants to push on with e3-
e4 and there are others ways of achieving
this including the speculative gambit seen
in 'c'. Practice has seen:
a) 10 tlJg3 and now:
al) 10 ... h5 was a rather extravagant try
seen in Czebe-Borocz, Budapest 1998.
Black's plan is misguided as he merely
wastes time to chase White's knight to a
better post at either c4 or dS, i.e. 1 1 e4 h4
12 tiJf5 g6 13 ttJe3 h3 (13 ... tiJxe4 is terrible
after 14 tlJc4 when one amusing conclu­
sion is 14 ...'ii'd8 15 'ii'e2 tlJxc3 16 tiJd6
mate) 14 tlJc4 'ii'c7 15 g3 �h6 (15 ...tlJxe4
is still unplayable due to 16 tiJd5 Wd8 17
�f4) 16 �xh6 l:.xh6 17 e5 tlJe4 18 tiJdS
Wc8 19 f3 tlJg5 20 'ii'd2 �xdS 2 1 WxdS
tlJc6 22 'ii'xc5 tlJe6 23 'ii'e3 and White
soon won.
a2) Much better is 10 ... e6 1 1 e4 �e7 12
a4 tiJc6 13 l:.el tiJd4 14 �e3 tlJxb5 15 axb5
'ii'c7 16 l:.xa8+ �xa8 17 'ii'd2 0-0 18 �f4
d6 19 l:.al with a balanced position in
Hracek-Weindl, Kecskemet 1991.
b) 10 'ii'd3 e6 11 e4 tlJc6 12 l:.d1 (or 12
�f4 �e7 13 �d6 tiJb4 14 'ii'g3 �xe4 15
l:.adl tiJbdS 16 f3 �g6 17 l:.xdS tlJxdS 18
tlJxdS exdS 19 �xe7 �xe7 20 'ii'e5+ <it>f8
2 1 WxdS with good play for the exchange
in C.Horvath-Leventic, Osijek 1993)
12 ... l:.d8 13 'ii'g3 �e7 14 �g5 0-0 15 e5
ttJh5 16 'ii'h4 �xg5 17 'ii'xg5 g6 18 l:.d3
84
'ii'c7 19 l:.h3 f6 20 exf6 tiJxf6 2 1 'ii'xc5 tlJg4
22 �xc6 �xc6 23 l:.fl l:.f5 24 'ii'd4 h5 25
l:.g3 and Black did not have a great deal
for his pawn in Benjamin-Alburt, USA
Championship 1988.
c) 10 e4!? is an enterprising gambit:
10 ... tiJxe4 1 1 �f4 tiJf6 12 l:.el tlJc6 13 tlJg3
(this is a little slow and so Fedorowicz
recommends instead 13 �xc6 �xc6 14
ttJg3 e6 15 ttJf5 d5 16 �e5, when Black has
problems completing his development)
13 ... ttJd4 14 a4 e6 15 �e5 �e7 16 tiJh5
tiJxh5 17 'ii'xh5 ttJxb5 18 ttJxb5 0-0 19
l:tadl �c6 and White had fair play but
probably not quite enough for the pawn
in Kouatly-Fedorowicz, Paris 1986.
1 0 . . . l0c6
This is better than 10 ... e6 after which
White gained a stranglehold on the posi­
tion in Lautier-Andruet, Marseilles 1988,
i.e. 1 1 e4 �e7 12 �f4 0-0 13 �d6 �xd6 14
'ii'xd6 l:.c8 15 a4 'ii'c7 16 l:.adl tlJe8 17
'ii'd2 �c6 18 f4 �xb5 19 axb5 d6 20 f5
We7 21 fxe6 fxe6 22 tiJdS 'ii'd8 23 'ii'f4 h6
24 'ii'f7+ 1-0.
1 1 e4 'i'b6
The point of playing ... tiJc6 and ...'i'b6
is that when the white queen eventually
arrives at d6, Black is not reduced to the
feeble ... l:.c8 as Andruet was against Lau­
tier (see the previous note). This allows
Black to co-ordinate his position and
achieve equality.
1 2 �h 1
This may be a waste of time, as ... c5-c4+
by Black will leave his c-pawn on a much
more vulnerable square. However, it is
very tempting to remove this possibility
from the position altogether.
1 2 . . . e6 1 3 .if4 .ie7 1 4 a4 0-0 1 5 .id6
.ixd6 1 6 'i'xd6 l:l.fd8
The improvement in the black position
compared with Lautier-Andruet is clear.
Black is fully developed and is ready to
launch out with ... d7-d5 after the white
queen has been expelled.

1 7 llad 1 lbes 1 8 'ii'g 3 !!Jc7 1 9 lld6 lbe8
20 lld2 'ii'c7 21 f4
White is intent on generating kingside
play but Black is well placed to meet this.
A safer continuation was 21 'ii'xc7 0.xc7
22 l:tfd1 which would probably fizzle out
to a draw after, for example, 22 ...0.xb5 23
ll:\xb5 ltxa4 24 0.ec3.
21 . .lbe7 22 'ii'h 3 d5 23 e5 d4 24 !!Jd 1
.
i'a5
White is a long way from generating se­
rious threats on the kingside and in the
meantime Black has excellent play, with
two good centre pawns and promising
outposts for his minor pieces.
25 lld3 !!Jc7 26 i.c4 'ii'xa4 27 b3 'ii'c6
28 !iJf2 !iJf5 29 !iJg4 :a2 30 :df3 !iJd5
White is completely desperate. He has
lost a pawn and Black is scything through
his position on the seventh rank and the
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 e3 a x b 5
h1-a8 diagonal. Now, however, with both
players presumably in bad time trouble,
White finds some clever tactical ideas.
31 !iJg3 !!Jxf4 32 !!Jxf5 exf5
This is okay but it would have been
better to get the queens off with
32 ... 0.xh3 33 0.e7+ �h8 34 0.xc6 �xc6
and Black should win easily.
33 'ii'h4 :daB 34 !iJf6+
Now, although he is still winning,
Black's king becomes exposed - never a
situation one would want to encourage in
time trouble.
34 . . . gxf6 35 'ii'xf4 �h8 36 'ii'xf5 :ga 37
e6
37 �d3 ltg6 38 ...hS ltaxg2 39 �xg6
ltxg6 wins for Black.
37 . . . :axg2 38 'ii'xf6+ :2g7 39 h4
White has no time for 39 exf7 on ac­
count of the reply 39 ... 'ifxf3+ when
checkmate inevitably follows on the long
diagonal.
39 . . .:es
A bizarre move which can only have
been the result of desperate time shortage.
Black had many straightforward ways to
win including 39 ... fxe6, 39 ......d6 or
39 ...'ife4.
40 h5
White returns the favour. 40 exf7 .l:tf8
and now 41 �h2 would have left the
situation highly unclear.
40 . . . :xe6 41 i.xe6 'ii'xe6 0-1
85
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
..-----...,
Game 37
Shirov-Adam s
Chalkidiki 1993
._______________.
1 d4 tt'lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 axb5 6 i.. x b5 'ifa5+ 7 ll'lc3 i.. b7 8
ll'le2 i.. x d5 ! ? 9 0-0 i.. c 6
9 ... i.b7 transposes to the previous
game.
1 0 a4
1 0 . . . e6
As we have seen previously, Black can
try to fianchetto his bishop but it always
seems too slow and leaves his centre rather
vulnerable. Practical play favours White,
e.g. 10 ... g6 1 1 e4 d6 (1 1...i.g7 12 i.g5 h6
13 i.h4 d6 14 f4 0-0 15 e5 dxe5 16 fxe5
ltJg4 17 i.xe7 i.xe5 18 i.xf8 i.xh2+ 19
�h 1 �xf8 20 ltJf4 i.xf4 21 ..xg4 and
Black did not have enough for the ex­
change in Novikov-Kir.Georgiev, Moscow
1994) 12 f4 i.g7 13 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 ltJg4 15
e6 fxe6 16 ..b3 (Black has an onerous de­
fensive task ahead) 16 .....c7 17 i.f4 e5 18
i.g5 l%f8 19 l%xf8+ �xf8 20 ll:ld5 ..a7 21
..f3+ ltJf6 22 i.xc6 e4 23 ..h3 ltJxc6 24
l%fl and White soon won in Czebe­
D.Gurevich, Cappelle Ia Grande 1995.
1 1 e4 i..x b5
The other way to take the gambit pawn
is 1 1 ...i.xe4!? 12 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 13 i.f4 ltJf6
14 ltJc3 (or 14 ltlg3 i.e7 15 l%e1 0-0 16 ll:lf5
86
i.d8 17 itJd6 ltJd5 18 i.e5 ltJc6 19 ltJb7
'i'b6 20 ltJxd8 l%fxd8 21 i.xc6 ..xc6 22
•g4 f6 23 i.c3 ltJxc3 24 bxc3 l%a5 25 l%e3
l%da8 0-1 Jelen-Sennek, Bled 1998 - this is
an important lesson for White: if you are
going to give your opponent an extra cen­
tre pawn you must make sure that you
pursue the initiative very accurately)
14... i.e7 15 i.d6 'i'b6 16 .. f3 l%a5 17
i.xe7 �xe7 18 ..g3 d5 19 l%fe1 ..d6
(19 ... l%g8!?) 20 ..xg7 l%g8 2 1 ..h6 with an
unclear position in Novikov-Tzenniadi­
anos, Cappelle la Grande 1998.
1 2 ll'lxb5 ll'lxe4
1 3 ll'lg3
This move does not seem to have been
tried since the text game. Practice has in­
stead concentrated on 13 i.f4, although
after 13 ... ltJa6 White has been struggling
to demonstrate full value for the pawn:
a) 14 ltJec3 ltJxc3 15 bxc3 i.e7 (15 ... d5
16 l%e1 i.e7 17 ._h5 �f8 18 l%e3 ._d8 19
l%f3 leaves Black very tangled up, e.g.
19 ... �g8 20 i.e5 f6 2 1 ..g4 �f7 22 ..h5+
g6 23 ._h6 c4 24 g4 �g8 25 ltJd4 and
White had a raging attack in Lalev­
Topalov, Bulgarian Championship 1992)
16 i.d6 ..d8 17 ..f3 0-0 18 l%fd1 i.xd6 19
l%xd6 ltJc7 20 c4 ltJe8 21 l%dd1 itJf6 22 ..a3
..c8 23 a5 d5 and Black was a safe pawn
up Jelen-Sennek, Slovenian Champion­
ship 1993.
b) 14 ltJg3 ltJxg3 15 i.xg3 i.e7 16 itJd6+

ixd6 17 'W'xd6 l:.a7 18 l:.a3 f6 19 f4 'W'c7
20 'i'dl 0-0 2 1 f5 e5 22 .tel 'W'c6 and Black
was clearly better in Araque-Sermek,
Paranana 1993.
c) 14 l:.el .ie7 15 .ie5 0-0 {this leaves
the game about equal but there does not
seem to be much wrong with 15 .. .f6, as 16
ic3 tLlxc3 17 tLlexc3 leaves Black looking
well placed after either 17 ... l:.d8 or
17 tLlc7) 16 'W'xd7 .if6 17 .ixf6 lt1xf6 18
...
'ld3 l:tfd8 19 'W'c3 ltJb4 20 ltJf4 ltJfdS 21
tLlxdS l:.xdS 22 b3 l:.ad8 and Black was fine
in J.Rodriguez-Casafus, Buenos Aires
1992.
1 3 . . . ltlf6 14 :te 1 lDa6
An alternative is 14 ... .ie7!, when if
White tries to keep the pot boiling with
15 b4!? Black does best to retreat with
15 ..'i'd8 {15 ... cxb4? 16 ltJf5 exf5 17 l:.xe7+
. e3 axb5 6 i.xb5 Wa5+ 7 ltlc3 i.b7 S
�xe7 18 'W'd6+ �d8 19 .ig5 gives White a
very dangerous attack).. Now Stohl claims
a slight advantage for Black after 16 bxc5
ixcS 17 ltJd6+ .ixd6 18 'W'xd6 l:.a6! but
he does not consider the immediate 16
tLld6+ .ixd6 17 'W'xd6 which poses Black
more problems.
1 5 i.f4 d5 1 6 ltlf5 Wb4
Adams prefers to head for an endgame
rather than try to beat off White's initia­
tive after 16 ...'W'b6 17 .ie5.
1 7 i.e5 Wg4 1 S i.xf6 Wxd 1 1 9 :axd 1
gxf6 20 l:txd5 .te7 21 :td2 .idS 22
li:lfd6+ �e7 23 ltlc4 ltlb4
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 e3 a x b 5
24 b3
Shirov overlooks a good chance with 24
l:.edl! f5 {not 24 ...ltJd5 25 ltJc3 lt1xc3 26
l:.d7+ 'ite8 27 bxc3 winning) 25 l:ld7+ �f6
26 b3 with an active position.
24 . . . .ta5 25 :ted 1 :thdS 26 �1 :txd2 27
:txd2 .idS 2S �e2 :tb8 29 g4 ltld5 30
�3 .tc7 31 h3 .idS 32 �e4
Shirov has succeeded in maintaining a
small edge but now Adams commits a
losing blunder.
32 . . . ltlc7?? 33 ltla7 �eS 34 ltlc6 1 -0
Game 38
Panos-Komljenovic
Pamplona 1995
1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e4! ?
An enterprising alternative to the usual
8 .id2 and 8 lt1e2.
s . . . ltlxe4 9 ltlge2 ltld6
9 . . g6 is seen in the next main game.
.
1 0 i.d3
This move initiates a strategy with
which we are already familiar. White sacri­
fices his d-pawn in order to gain time and
generate pressure along the open central
files. Black does not have any serious
weaknesses in his position, but it is a diffi­
cult practical problem to work out exactly
how to organise his forces in order to
87
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
complete his development successfully.
The quieter move 10 .i.a4 is also possible,
e.g. 10 ... g6 1 1 0-0 .i.g7 12 .i.g5 {12 l:.e1 0-0
13 .i.g5 l:.e8 14 l:.cl .i.a6 15 .i.b3 .i.c4 16
tlJg3 .i.xb3 17 axb3 led to a quick draw in
P.Nielsen-Johansen, Gausdal 1993} and
now:
a} By�flicking in the move 12 ... h6 Black
takes pressure off the e-pawn but opens up
possibilities for White to cut the black
position in two with a later .i.xd6, i.e. 13
.i.f4 tlJf5 {13 ... 0-0 14 .i.xd6 exd6 1S .i.b5
'ii'd8 - this is a good manoeuvre as the
black queen has few prospects on the
queenside - 16 'ii'dl tlJa6 17 l:.fe1 tlJc7 18
.i.c4 'ii'h 4 19 tlJf4 .i.e5 20 l:.e4 'ii'f6 2 1
tlJfe2 'ii'g7 2 2 f4 .i.f6 2 3 l:.fl .i.a6 2 4 .i.xa6
�-� Stettler-Nothnagel, German Bundes­
liga 1995} 14 a3 0-0 15 ltb1 e6 16 b4 {this is
an interesting plan by White, who is try­
ing to make something of his slight lead in
development; however, it does feel as if he
is taking a big risk in opening up the posi­
tion for his opponent's bishops} 16 ... cxb4
17 axb4 'ii'b 6 18 .i.cl l:.c8 19 .i.xf5 gxf5 20
'ii'dl �h7 21 .i.e3 'ii'd8 22 l:.fd1 'ii'f6 23
l:.b3 tlJa6 {Black has become very active)
24 f4 tlJc7 25 d6 'ii'g6 26 tlJd4 tlJe8 27
tlJdb5 tlJxd6! (a fine combination which
exploits the power of the bishops to the
full) 28 tlJxd6 ltxc3 29 l:.b2 .i.d5 30 .i.d4
l:.b3 3 1 l:.xb3 .i.xd4+ 32 �fl 0-1 Sulipa­
Kolev, Villalba 1995.
b) 12 ...tlJf5 13 .i.b5 0-0 14 a4 e6 15 tlJg3
tlJxg3 16 hxg3 .i.d4 17 tlJe4 f5 18 tlJd6
.i.xd5 19 .i.e7 tlJc6 20 .i.xf8 l:.xf8, when
White has won the exchange but Black has
a good extra pawn and a powerful bishop
on d4; objectively this position is proba­
bly about equal but I am sure that, given
the choice, most strong players would
take Black. The game Montecatine­
Komljenovic, Benasque 1993, eventually
ended in a draw.
1 0 . . ..i.xd5 1 1 0-0
88
11 ... .te6! ?
Black h as decided that the way to pro­
tect his central pawns is to pile his minor
pieces in front of them. More orthodox
ways to continue are 1 1.. . .i.c6, defending
the d-pawn and covering the b5-square, or
1 1 ....i.b7, leaving the c6-square free for the
knight:
a} 1 1....i.c6 12 l:te 1 e6 13 .i.f4 {13 tlJg3?
allows Black to activate his queenside, e.g.
13 ... tlJa6 14 .i.f4 tlJb4 15 .i.b1 tlJb5 16
tlJce4 tlJd5 17 .i.dl 'ii'c7 18 tlJg5 tlJf6 19 f4
h6 20 tlJf3 .i.d6 and White had nothing to
show for the pawn in Ziegler-Ernst, Han­
inge 1997} 13 ... tlJc8 14 tlJg3 d6 {Black ends
up very passively placed after this so it
may have been better to play for immedi­
ate activation of his forces with 14 ... tlJa6)
15 tlJh5! tlJd7 16 .i.e4 .i.xe4 17 tlJxe4 c4 18
'ii'g4 l:.g8 19 tlJhf6+ tlJxf6 20 tlJxf6+ gxf6
2 1 'ii'xg8 'ii'h 5 22 'ii'g3 d5 {Black has a
pawn and a solid position for the exchange
but he is still suffering due to his oppo­
nent's far superior mobilisation} 23 'ii'c3
'ii'f5 24 .i.g3 tlJd6 25 'ii'b4 ltd8 26 b3 e5 27
'ii'aS 'ii'e6 28 l:.ad1 d4 29 .i.xe5 fxe5 30
l:.xe5 c3 3 1 'ii'a4+ l:.d7 32 l:.xe6+ fxe6 33
ltxd4 �e7 34 'ii'c6 .i.g7 35 l:.d3 l:.d8 36 g3
.i.e5 37 f4 l:tc8 38 'ii'xc8 tlJxc8 39 fxe5 1-0
was the game Pavlov-Kravtsov, Novgorod
1997.
b) 1 1....i.b7 12 .i.f4 'ii'b6 13 tlJg3 g6 14
l:.e1 tlJc8 15 .i.b5 .i.c6 16 tt:Jd5 .i.xd5 17
 4 cxb 5 a 6 5 e 3 axb 5

'i'xd5 ltJc6 18 l%ad1 l%a7 19 a4 i.g7 20

llle4 0-0 21 ltJxc5 (the position looks diffi­
cult for Black but he finds a way to sim­
plify into a drawn endgame) 2l...e6 22
lllxd7 exd5 23 ltJxb6 ltJxb6 24 i.xc6 l%c8
25 .ixd5 ltJxd5 26 l:txd5 l%xa4 27 i.e5
ixeS 28 l%dxe5 l%c2 29 g3 lh-lh Hillarp
Persson-Fogarasi, Budapest 1996.
12 f4
This fails to make much impression on
the black position, so maybe White
should consider 12 ltJf4, aiming to create
weaknesses by capturing on e6 at some
moment. 32 . . J:txa3! 33 h4
1 2 ... g6 1 3 llJe4 lt:Jf5 1 4 liJ4g3 lt:Jc6 1 5 33 bxa3 b2 and the pawn will promote.
lbxf5 gxf5 1 6 lt:Jg3 c4 1 7 �c2 33 . . . J:I.a2 34 lt:Jxt5 .l:l.xb2 35 lbe3 �e4 36
�h2 d5 37 h5 d4 38 J:l.c4 .l:l.d2 39 lLln
.l:l.xg2+ 40 �h3 b2 41 .l:l.xd4+ �c8 0-1

Game 39
Beliavsky-Adams
Tilburg 1992
1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
e3 axb5
Note that the move order 5 ... i.b7 6
ltJc3 'iVa5?! is inaccurate because of 7
bxa6! i.xd5 8 i.d2 with a clear plus for
White in Browne-Dunning, USA 1984.
1 7 . . . h5! 6 �xb5 'iia 5+ 7 lt:Jc3 �b7 8 e4! ? lt:Jxe4 9
This is an excellent practical move. By lt:Jge2 g6
giving back the pawn Black gains time to The immediate 9 ... ltJd6 looks safer.
complete his development, after which his 1 0 0-0 lt:Jd6
positional pluses become very apparent.
18 lt:Jxh5 lt:Jb4 1 9 lt:Jg3 'iib 6+ 20 �h 1
i.g7 21 a3 lt:Jxc2 22 'iix c2 1i'b5 23 .l:l.b1
'i'b3 24 1i'xb3 cxb3
With his bishop pair and strong pawn
on b3 Black has all the chances.
25 �d2 d6 26 .l:l.fc1 �d7 27 �c3 �xc3
28 .l:l.xc3 .l:l.hc8 29 llJe2
White has managed to exchange one
black bishop, but the remaining one
dominates his knight.
29 . . . �c4 30 lt:Jd4 �d5 31 .l:l.bc1 .l:l.xc3 32
J:l.xc3

89
Th e Benko G a m b i t
1 1 a4 !
White also gains promising play after 11
J.. d3 .i.. g7 12 .i.. g5, e.g. 12 ... .i.. a6 (12...h6 13
.i.. f4 0-0 14 1Wd2 �h7 15 l:r.fe1 c4 16 .i.. c2
tlJb5 17 l:r.ad1 e6 18 tlJxb5 1Wxb5 19 tiJc3
'iWaS 20 .i..d6 tlJa6 21 dxe6 dxe6 22 .i..xf8
l:r.xf8 23 .i.. e4 and Black had nothing to
show for the exchange in Sjodahl-Rotstein,
Vienna 1996) 13 l:r.e1 f6 14 .i.. f4 tlJf7 15
tlJg3 .i.. xd3 16 1Wxd3 tlJe5 17 .i..xe5 fxe5 18
tlJge4 0-0 19 1Wh3 l:r.f5 20 l:r.ab 1 l:r.a7 21 a3
tlJa6 22 l:r.e3 c4 23 1Wh4 .i.. f8 24 d6 l:r.f4 25
dxe7 lhh4 26 e81W l:r.f4 27 l:r.d1 1-0-Ziegler­
Takle, Gausdal 1990.
1 1 . . . i.g7 1 2 i.g5 h6 1 3 i.f4 0-0 1 4
i.xd6
This is a good moment to capture.
Black will now have a great deal of diffi­
culty ferrying pieces over to the kingside.
1 4 . . . exd6 1 5 f4 f5
1 6 g4! �h8
If 16 ...fxg4 17 'iWd3 l:r.f5 18 tlJg3 .i..d4+
19 �h1 l:r.f6 (19 ...l:r.xd5 20 .i.. c4 wins) 20
l:r.ae1 with a monstrous attack.
1 7 gxf5 gxf5 1 8 "ii'd 3 lba6 1 9 .l:l.ad 1
19 .i.. xd7? would be a mistake, easing
Black's position considerably. The two d­
pawns break the communication between
the black kingside and queenside, so by
90
removing the back one White would
merely help his opponent to co-ordinate
his position.
1 9 .1:1.f7 20 �h 1 1i'b4 21 i.c4 IJJc7 22
•..
b3 .l:l.e8 23 .l:l.f3 "ii'a 5 24 .l:l.g 1 "ii'a 8 25 l:.h3
.l:l.e6
The pin against the white d-pawn is one
of the few useful features of the position
from Black's point of view. Adams makes
the most of it during his attempt to de­
fend.
26 .l:l.g2 �h7 27 .l:l.hg3 .l:l.ee7 28 .l:l.g6 1ff8
29 h4 �h8 30 h5 "ii'e8 3 1 .1:1.6g3 .l:l.f8 32
"ii'f3 �h7
33 �g 1
Beliavsky is in no hurry. As soon as he
can eliminate the tricks along the h1-a8
diagonal the Black weaknesses on d6, fS
and most importantly along the g-file will
surely prove fatal.
33 ..• 1JJe6 34 IJJb5 i.a8 35 .l:l.g6
Beliavsky plays very accurately. 35
tlJxd6 1Wb8 would have given Black some
counterplay.
35 . 1JJd4 36 IJJexd4 cxd4 37 IJJx d6 "ii'd8
..
38 "ii'g 3 .l:l.g8
After 38 ... .i..f6 the simple 39 l:r.xh6+
forces mate.
39 IJJxf5 1 -0
 4 cxb 5 a 6 5 e3 axb5

Summary
This method of meeting 5 e3 is holding up well for Black. After 5 ... axb5 6 i.xb5 ._aS+ 7
li:\c3 i.b7 8 lL!ge2 Black has two choices: he can play 8 ... lL!xd5 9 0-0 lL!xc3 10 lL!xc3 e6
which is safe and seems to equalise but leaves the position very simple. Alternatively,
s...ll)xd5 9 0-0 lL!f6 and 8 ... i.xd5 9 0-0 i.c6 are both playable and keep more tension in
the position, creating chances for both sides. An important lesson in these lines is that
Black is almost always better off developing with ... e7-e6 and ... i.e7, rather than trying
to fianchetto with ...g7-g6 and ... i.g7, which wastes too much time.
The gambit with 8 e4 is probably where White devotees of this line should concen­
trate their efforts. This is a tricky line for Black, but the current state of theory suggests
that a well-prepared player should be able to weather the storm. Komljenevic's plan with
9 . ll)d6 10 i.d3 i.xdS 1 1 0-0 i.e6!? (Game 38) looks peculiar, but it is far from clear how
..

White can justify his gambit.

Finally, 8 i.d2 is no longer worthy of attention, unless a major improvement is found
on Game 34.

1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 e3 axb5 6 i.xb5 1i'a5 + 7 ltlc3 i.b7

8 ll:le2
8 e4!? lL!xe4 9 lL!e2 (D)
9 ... lL!d6 - Game 38
9 ... g6 - Game 39
8 i.d2 1Wb6 9 1Wb3 Game 34
-

8 . . . ll:lxd5
8 ... .i.xd5 9 0-0 .i.c6 10 a4 (D) - Game 37
9 0-0 (OJ ltlxc3
9 ...lL!f6 10 f3 - Game 36
10 ll:lxc3 e6 - Game 35

9 lLle2 1 0 a4 9 0-0

91
 CHAPTER SEVEN I
4 cxb5 a6 5 f3

1 d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 f3 This is the only sensible way to con­

The point of 5 f3 is obvious: to force
through e2-e4 whatever and then exploit
his central supremacy. At one time this
system was believed to be very strong for
White. Indeed, in 1991 the American
grandmaster Maxim Dlugy wrote 'It seems
that Black is badly in need of an antidote
to the ... 5 f3 system. Only time will tell if
Black can revive the Benko Gambit.' As
we know, the Benko Gambit is fortu­
nately as fit and healthy now as ever. An­
tidotes to the 5 f3 system have indeed been
found, and although the system is still
quite popular, Black has nothing to fear if
he is careful (see Games 43-48). However,
routine play by Black will invariably be
punished, as we shall see.
tinue, since 6 ... b4? 7 e5 is obviously bad.
7 i.d2
In M.Gurevich-Claesen, Belgian Team
Championship 1996/97, White tried the
speculative 7 b4?! However, after 7 ...Wxb4
8 ..i.d2 Wa4 9 Wcl b4! 10 Wxc5 lLla6 11
Wd4 (after 1 1 ..i.xa6 e6 12 d6 ..i.xa6 13
Wxb4 Wc6 14 e5 lLld5 15 Wb3, as in Gre­
tarsson-Gunnarsson, Gentofte 1999, Black
can try 15 .. .f6!?) 1 l...e6! 12 d6 Wc6 13 eS
lLld5 White soon came to regret having
over-extended his pawn front.
7 .•. b4
7 ...Wb6?! 8 Wb3 ..i.a6 9 lLla3 b4 10 lLlc4
is very similar to the game continuation.
8 ll:\a3 !

Game 40
M . Gurevich-Miles
Manila Interzona/ 1990
1 d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
f3 axb5
The most natural response, recapturing
the sacrificed pawn. Black can also elect to
play in gambit fashion with either 5 ... g6
(Game 46) or 5 ... e6 (Games 47 and 48).
6 e4 'ifa5+

92

The key move, utilising the pin to
route the knight to the excellent c4-square.
After either 8 i.f4 or 8 i.g5 Black has
time for 8 ... i.a6!
a . . . .ta&?
Here this is a waste of time, since it is
not in Black's interests to exchange this
bishop for the white knight. Also bad is
8 'i'a4?! 9 'ifxa4 Axa4 10 ll'lc4 Aal 1 1
...
id3 d6 1 2 ll'le2 i.a6 1 3 a3!, when Black
was a long way behind in development in
Finegold-Sagalchik, USA 1994.
Black should play either 8 ...d6 (Games
42-45), reserving the option of a kingside
fianchetto or a counterattack in the centre
with ... e7-e6, or the immediate 8 ... e6!? In
fact the latter move has become quite
trendy recently. For example, 9 ll'lc4 "ikc7
and now:
a) 10 i.g5 .ta6!? l l ll'lh3 i.xc4 12 .txc4
id6 with a very messy position in
Volkov-Khalifman, Russian Cup 1998.
b) 10 dxe6 dxe6 1 1 e5 ll'ld5 12 f4 ll'lc6 13
lt'lf3 i.e7 14 .td3 i.b7 with equality in
Skalik-Berg, Cannes open 1995.
9 1Llc4 'iic 7
9 ... i.xc4?! gives White a free rein in the
centre. After 10 i.xc4 d6 1 1 'ife2 g6 12 f4
ih6 13 ll'lh3 0-0 14 0-0 ll'lfd7 White
crashed through in Conquest-Hodgson,
London (Lloyds Bank) 1990: 15 e5 dxe5 16
fxe5 i.xd2 17 'ifxd2 ll'lxe5 1 8 'i6'h6 ll'lg4 19
'i'g5 f5 20 ll'lf4 <i>h8 21 Af3 Af6 22 Ah3
'i'b6 23 Ae1 'ifd6 24 Axe7 'ifxe7 25 ll'lxg6+
l:txg6 26 'ifxe7 Ag7 27 "ikf8+ Ag8 28 'ifxf5
l:tg7 29 Axh7+ Axh7 30 'iff8 mate.
10 lt'lh3
The immediate 10 a3 is also effective.
For example, Dlugy-D.Gurevich, USA
1988, ended in a rapid debacle: 10 ... bxa3
1 1 llxa3 g6 12 .tc3 d6 13 'ifa4+ 'ifd7 14
lt'lxd6+ exd6 15 .txf6 l:tg8 16 .tb5 .txb5
17 'ifxa8 'ifc7 18 lla7 1-0.
10 d6 1 1 a3 .txc4 1 2 .txc4 bxa3
...
Black really has no answer to White's
lead in development. The game Kosten-
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 f3
Laget, Lyon 1993, also reached a swift
conclusion after 12 ... ll'lfd7 13 0-0 bxa3 14
l:txa3 l:txa3 15 bxa3 g6 16 i.c3 l:tg8 17 'ifa4
i.g7 18 i.xg7 l:txg7 19 l:tb 1 �8 20 'ifa8
ll'lb6 21 'ifa5 ll'l8d7 22 .tb5 'ifc8 1-0.
1 3 l:.xa3 l:.xa3 14 bxa3 g6 1 5 'iia4+!
lt'lbd7 1 6 'iiaS+ 'fibS 1 7 'iixbS+ lt'lxbS 1 8
�e2 .tg7 1 9 l:l.b1 0-0
Black has finally managed to castle , but
it is all too late.
20 l:.b7 l:l.cS 21 a4 1Lle8 22 l:.xe7 1Llc7 23
.ta5 lt'lba6 24 l:.d7 1 -0
A graphic illustration of the perils of
this variation.
Game 41
M . G urevich-Hertneck
Munich 1993
1 d4 1Llf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a& 5
f3 axb5 6 e4 'iia 5+ 7 ..id2 b4 8 lt'la3!
g6?!
This is too committal. It is not yet clear
whether or not Black will want to fi­
anchetto his bishop.
9 1Llc4 'iic7
9 ...'ifa7 gives White the extra option of
10 d6!?
1 0 a3! bxa3 1 1 l:l.xa3 .:l.xa3 1 2 bxa3 d6
Necessary, as 12 . . .ig7 is met by 13 d6.
.
13 'iia4+!
The best way to exploit Black's inaccu­
rate move order. The slow 13 .id3 .ig7 14
93
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
tt::le2 0-0 15 0-0 tt::lbd7 16 'i'a4 .ib7 is not
particularly frightening for Black.
1 3 . . . lt'ltd7 ? !
Since 13 ... 'i'd7?? is refuted by 14
tt::lxd6+! exd6 15 .ib5 and 13 ... .id7 by 14
'ili'a8, threatening .iaS, Black has to inter­
pose with one of his knights. However,
13 ... tt::l bd7 was probably the better choice,
when after 14 .iaS!? 'i'b8 15 .id3 .ig7 16
tt::le2 0-0 17 0-0 followed by .l:.bl White is
only slightly better.
1 4 ..tc3 f6
This is a very ugly move to have to
make.
1 5 ..td3 ..th6 1 6 ll'le2 0-0 1 7 0-0 f5?
Black tries to make some sense out of
his 14th move, but this only weakens his
kingside further. In any case his pieces
were in rather a tangle, e.g. 17 ... tt::le5 18
.ixe5 fxe5 19 l:.b 1 with a strong initiative.
1 8 exf5 gxf5 1 9 'iic 2
The f5-pawn turns out to be a sitting
duck, since the move 19 ... tt::lb6 runs into
20 .iaS.
19 ... lt'le5 20 lt'lxe5 dxe5 2 1 lt'lg3 .tel+
22 �h 1 f4
Black decides to give up the h7-pawn
instead of the f-pawn, but this only leads
to more trouble.
23 ..txh7+ �h8 24 'iig 6! e6 25 ll'lh5 1 -Q
Both the continuations 25 ...'i'xh7 26
.ixe5+ and 25 ... .id4 26 .ixd4 exd4 27
'i'h6 are fatal for Black.
94
Game 42
Akopian-Leko
Wijk aan Zee open 1993
1 d4 lt'lt6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
f3 axb5 6 e4 WaS+ 7 ..td2 b4 8 lt'la3! d6
9 ll'lc4 'iic7? !
At first sight this seems the most natu­
ral retreat for the queen, but in fact
9 ... 'i'd8 (Games 43 and 44) and 9 ...'i'a7!?
(Game 45) are just as popular.
1 0 a3
With the queen on c7 both 10 a4 g6 1 1
.id3 .ig7 1 2 tt::le2 tt::lbd7 and 1 0 .id3 g6 1 1
a3 bxa3 1 2 .l:.xa3 (or 1 2 bxa3 .ig7 1 3 tt::le2
0-0 14 0-0 .ia6 with equality in Djurhuus·
Van der Weide, Reykjavik 1998) 12 . ..1:.xa3
.
13 bxa3 .ig7 14 tt::le2 0-0 15 0-0 .ia6, as in
Sergienko-Rovid, Budapest open 1993, are
harmless. Compared to the previous game,
Black has avoided the irritating check on
a4 and is able to comfortably develop his
bishop on a6.
10 .• . e6
The critical move, undermining the
white centre. 10 ... bxa3 gives White a wide
choice:
a) 1 1 bxa3 g6 12 .ic3 .ig7 13 .id3 0-0
14 tt::le2 tt::lbd7 15 0-0 .ia6 with equality in
Slipak-Giardelli, Argentine Championship
1994.
b) 1 1 tt::lxa3!? (threatening tt::lbS) 1 1...

'lb7 (not 1 1...1i'a7 12 ll'le2 g6 13 ll'lc3
ig7? 14 ll'lcb5 'ii'b7 15 ll'lc7+!! 'ii'xc7 16
tLlbS and wins - Dlugy) 12 ll'lb5 lha1 13
'i'xa1 g6 14 'ii'a5 .ig7 15 ll'lc7+ �f8 16
ic3 h6, when Black was able to push his
king around to h7 with a reasonable game
in Chernin-Hodgson, Munich 1994.
c) 11 .tc3!? g6? (1 1...a2 is safer) 12 e5
dxeS 13 .ixe5 'ii'd8 14 lha3 lha3 15 bxa3
ttlbd7 16 .ic3 and White was clearly bet­
ter in I.Sokolov-Berg, Akureyri 1994.
d) l l l:txa3! lha3 and now:
d1) 12 ll'lxa3?! g6 13 ll'lb5 'ii'b7 14 'ii'a4
ttlbd7 15 .ia5 .th6! 16 ll'lc7+ �f8, when
Black was already slightly better in Gel­
fand-Adams, Tilburg (rapidplay) 1992.
d2) 12 bxa3! ll'lbd7 (12 ... g6 13 'ii'a4+!
transposes to the previous game) 13 ll'le2
g6 14 ll'lc3 .tg7 15 ll'lb5 1i'h8 16 ll'la5 .tb7
17 i.e2 0-0 18 0-0 and White had a very
pleasant position in Lemer-Sivokho, St
Petersburg open 1993.
1 1 dxe6!
After 1 1 axb4?! l:txa1 12 'ii'xa1 exd5 13
exdS ll'lxd5 Black had a very comfortable
game in Annageldiev-P.Cramling, Manila
Olympiad 1992. White was probably
wishing that he had left his f-pawn on f2 at
this stage.
1 1 . . . .txe6 1 2 axb4
12 .td3 allows Black to free his game
with 12 ... d5, but compared to the next
game, where an identical position is
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 f3
reached, save for the position of the black
queen on d8, White also has the option of
12 .if4!? .ixc4 (12 ... .:ta6 13 axb4 l:txa1 14
'ii'xa1 cxb4 15 'ii'a4+ ll'lc6 16 'ii'a8+! ll'ld8
17 'ii'a6! ll'lc6 18 ll'lb6 favoured White in
Petursson-Ristic, Athens open 1993) 13
.ixc4 bxa3 (after 13 ... .te7 Fogarisi rec­
ommends 14 ll'le2 0-0 15 0-0 ll'lc6 16 'W'd3
with a slight edge for White) 14 l:txa3!
l:txa3 15 bxa3 .te7 16 ll'le2 0-0 17 0-0 ll'lc6
18 a4 and White was clearly on top in
Vaisser-Solana, Fuerteventura · 1992.
1 2 . . . .l:l.xa 1 1 3 'it'xa 1 d5
The endgame after 13 ... cxb4 14 'ii'a5
'ii'xa5 15 ll'lxa5 d5 16 e5 ll'lfd7 17 f4 was
clearly better for White due to his firm
grip on the centre in Glek-Arbakov, Mos­
cow 1989, although he later went wrong
and lost.
1 4 exd5 l0xd5 1 5 'it'a4+!
This is the key move that has put the
9 ... 1i'c7 line out of commission. After 15
b5 .td6 16 .td3 ll'lb4 17 .ixb4, as in
Touzane-Nikolaev, Podolsk 1991, Black
could have played 17 ....txc4! 18 .ixc4
cxb4 with excellent attacking chances.
1 5 . . . .td7
Not 15 ... ll'ld7 16 'W'a8+.
1 6 'it'a5
Although this works out well for
White, 16 b5!? may be even better.
1 6 . . . l0c6
ECO suggests that 16 ... cxb4 leads to an
95
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
unclear position, but this must be a mis­
print as the knight on d5 is en prise.
1 7 "ira8+ "irb8 1 8 "irxb8+ ltlxb8 1 9 lbe5
cxb4
19 ... tLlxb4 20 .tc4 is bad for Black.
20 ltlxd7 ltlxd7 21 .i.b5
The powerful white bishop pair, com­
bined with the weakness of Black's ex­
posed b-pawn, leave Black with a
prospectless endgame.
21 . . . .i.c5 22 lbe2 We7 23 ltle5 24 Wd 1
l:tb8 25 J:l.e 1 f6?
25 ... lhb5 26 l:txe5+ �d6 was Black's
last real chance.
26 .i.c4 ltlb6 27 .i.b3 Wt8 28 l:te4 J:l.d8
29 Wc2 ltlc6 30 ltlf5 J:l.c8 31 Wb1 l:td8
32 wc2 J:l.cS 33 .i.e6 :ea 34 h4 ltlda 35
.i.b3 l:txe4 36 fxe4 ltlc6 37 .i.d5 lba5 39
lLld4 ltle5+ 40 Wc2 .i.xd4 41 .i.xb4+ WeB
42 .i.xa5 h5 43 b4 .i.f2 44 b5 .i.xh4 45
b6 .i.g3 46 b7 ltld7 47 wd3 ltlb8 48 Wc4
wd7 49 wc5 h4 50 .i.c4 .i.d6+ 51 Wd5
.i.c7 52 .i.b5+ Wd8 53 .i.b4 .i.e5 54 .i.d6
.i.xd6 55 Wxd6 g5 56 .i.e2 ltld7 57 .i.d 1
ltlbS 58 .i.g4 lba6 59 wc6 we7 60 Wb6
ltlb8 61 Wc7 lba6+ 62 weB Wd6 63 .i.e2
1 -0
Game 43
Gelfand-Hertneck
Munich 1994
1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
96
f3 axb5 6 e4 "ira5+ 7 .i.d2 b4 8 ltla3! d6
9 ltlc4 "ird8 1 0 a3
10 .td3 is considered more accurate -
see the next game.
10 •.. e6!
The only consistent move. 10 ... bxa3? 1 1
l:txa3 l:txa3 1 2 bxa3 is even worse with the
queen on d8 than it was with the queen on
c7, e.g. 12 ... e6 (12 ... g6 13 Wa4+ is also very
awkward) 13 .taS We7 14 Wa4+ Wd7 15
tLlxd6+ .txd6 16 .tb5 and Black could
have resigned already in Kanstler-Rotstein,
Bikurei Haitim 1997.
1 1 dxe6
Compared to the line with 9 ...Wc7, 1 1
axb4 l:txa1 1 2 Wxa1 exd5 13 exd5 lLlxdS
has more point for White, as here he can
play 14 Wa8, e.g. 14 ... .te6 15 bxc5 dxc5 16
.taS Wc8 17 tLle5 .td6 18 .tb5+ �e7 19
'i6'a7+ tLld7 20 tLlc6+ �f6. However, White
now has no way of exploiting the position
of the black king in front of his pawns,
since nearly all his pieces are stuck on the
other side of the board. Herraiz-C.Garcia
Fernandez, Spanish Championship 1994,
continued 21 tLle2 tLlb8 22 Wa8 tLlxc6 23
Wxc6 Wxc6 24 hc6 tLlb4 25 .te4 �e7 26
g4 g6 27 .txb4 cxb4 28 tLld4 .td7 with a
very similar position to Game 42, except
that here it was Black who was able to
convert the advantage of the two bishops
to victory.
1 1 . . . .i.xe6 1 2 axb4

This time both 12 �d3 and 12 �f4 can
simply be met by 12 ... d5, but 12 lbe3!? is
interesting, e.g. 12 ... d5 (12 ... bxa3 13 l:.xa3
ttlbd7 14 lbe2 J:.xa3 15 bxa3 was a little
better for White in I.Sokolov-Bareev, Par­
dubice 1994) 13 �b5+ (13 exdS?! lbxdS 14
ibS+ �d7 15 �xd7+ 1i'xd7 16 lbxdS
'lxdS was fine for Black in Rogozenko­
Wang Zili, Moscow Olympiad 1994)
13. .. i.d7 14 �xd7+ 1i'xd7 15 eS!? lbhS 16
axb4 l:.xa1 17 1i'xa1 and now perhaps
17 . ..tl:lf4!? 18 1i'a8 1Wb5.
12 ... .:txa 1 13 'ifxa 1 d5
14 exd5
White also has the additional possibility
of 14 lbeS!? here. After 14 ... dxe4? 15
ibS+ Black cannot afford to play
1S...lLlbd7? 16 1i'a6 �e7 17 lbc6, when all
his pieces are in a tangle, so perhaps
15 ... lLlfd7!? with a very messy position.
14 .. .ltlxd5 1 5 'ifa4+
White follows the same plan as the pre­
vious main game, but several other moves
have also been tried:
a) 15 bS lbb4 16 1i'a7?? (a blunder, but
16 i.xb4 cxb4 17 b3 �cS 18 'ii'eS lbd7! 19
l'xg7 l:.f8 also worked out well for Black
in Komljenovic-Vaisser, Oviedo rapidplay
1993) 16 ...lbc2+ 17 �d1 �xc4 18 �c2
ixf1 19 lbh3 1i'd3+ 20 �cl �d6 21 lbf2
l'c4+ 22 �c3 0-0 0-1 Kishnev-Claesen,
Antwerp 1993.
b) 15 'ii'aS cxb4 16 1i'xd8+ �d8 with
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 f3
good chances for Black in the endgame in
Volke-Kumaran, Copenhagen 1996.
c). 15 lbeS �d6 16 �bS+ �e7 17 lLlc4
lbxb4 18 �xb4 cxb4 19 lLlxd6 1i'xd6 20
1i'a7+ lLld7 2 1 �xd7 �xd7 22 lbe2 l:.c8
with equality in M.Gurevich-Riemersma,
Bruges 1995, although Black erroneously
exchanged queens and lost the game due to
his exposed b-pawn.
It is important to note in this variation
that the black pawn on b4 can be either a
strength or a weakness. Black should not
make exchanges willy-nilly, as with fewer
pieces on the board the b-pawn is more
likely to drop off.
1 5 . . . ltld7 1 6 ltle5
Black has a fine game after 16 bxcS?!
�xeS 17 b4 �e7 or 16 bS lbb4 (Hen­
neck).
1 6 . . . ltl5b6! 1 7 'ifc6!
17 'ii'b s cxb4 presents no problems for
Black.
1 7 . . . ..td5 1 8 'ifb5 'ifh4+!
Forcing White either to displace his
queen or weaken the a8-h 1 diagonal.
1 9 �d 1
19 g3 1i'e7 20 �c3 (not 20 �f4 gS and
wins) 20 ... cxb4 21 �d4 b3! favours Black.
1 9 . . . ..te7 ?
Here Black misses his chance with
19 ... cxb4! 20 lbxd7 �b3+ 21 �cl lLlxd7 22
g3 1i'd4 23 �h3 1i'c5+, when he is very
active in the ending.
20 bxc5 .i.xc5 21 lbe2! 0-0 22 ltlxd7
ltlxd7 23 ltlf4 .:l.b8 24 'ifxd7 .i.b3+ 25
�c 1
see follo wing diagram
25 . . .'iff6?
Black could still have salvaged a draw
with 25 ... l:.d8 26 g3 (not 26 'ii'b S?? 1i'e1+)
26 ...:Xd7 27 gxh4 �e3! 28 �d3 (not 28
lbd3? l:.c7+ 29 �b 1 �xd2 and wins)
28 ... �xf4 29 �xh7+ �xh7 30 �xf4 J:.d3
3 1 J:.fl �dS (Hertneck). After the game
move White has time to consolidate.
97
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

rapid development, would now be reveal­

ed after 12 ... �c6 13 �f41 i..e7 14 0-0 0-0
15 'i6'el �d7 16 �xe6 fxe6 17 f4 with at·
tacking chances for White in M.Gurevich­
De Vreugt, Antwerp 1996.
1 2 . . . d5

2 6 .i.b5! .i.d4 2 7 J:.e 1 ! .i.xb2+ 2 8 �b1

.i.e5 29 .i.c3?
Throwing away the win. Either 29 l:cl!
i..e6 30 �xe6 'i6'xe6 3 1 �c2! or 29 �d5!
'i6'g6+ 30 l:e4 would have been sufficient
according to Hertneck.
29 . . . .i.e6 30 .i.xe5 .i.xd7 31 .i.xf6 gxf6 13 exd5 ltlxd5 14 ltlf4!?
32 �c1 J:.xb5 33 J:.e7 .i.f5! 34 J:.e8+ �g7 The recommended move, although 1 4
35 lbh5+ �h6 36 ltlxf6 l:.b 1 + 37 �d2 � i..e7 15 'i6'c2 h6 16 i..f5 .l:.a6 17 l:ad1
l:.b2+ 38 �e3 J:.xg2 39 �4 .i.e6 40 h4 ...c7 18 i..e l � 19 i.. g3 'i6'b7 20 i..h7+
J:.g6 41 �e5 l:.g 1 42 �4 � - � �h8 21 i..e4 f5 22 i..xd5 i..xd5 23 tt:lf4
i..g8 24 l:fel was also promising for White
Game 44 in Gabriel-Fedorowicz, New York 1995.
Van der Sterren-Hertneck 14 . . . ltlxf4 1 5 .i.xf4
Munich 1994
1 d4 ltlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
f3 axb5 6 e4 "ifa5+ 7 .i.d2 b4 8 ltla3 ! d6
9 ltlc4 "ifd8 1 0 .i.d3!
After 10 a4 Black should avoid
10 ... bxa3?, transposing to the note to
Black's lOth move in the previous game,
and should instead hit back in the centre:
10 ... e6! 1 1 dxe6 i..xe6 12 �e3 i..e7 13 �e2
� 14 �f4 �c6 with a roughly level posi­
tion in I.Sokolov-Belotti, Moscow Olym­
piad 1994.
10 •.. e6 1 5 . . ..i.e7? !
As usual 10 ... g6 leads to a slight advan­ In his notes, Hertneck criticised this
tage for White after 1 1 a3 bxa3 12 l:[xaJ and suggested two possible improvements:
:Xa3 13 bxa3. a) 15 ... �c6 16 i..e4 l:a6, which unfor­
1 1 dxe6 .i.xe6 1 2 ltle2 tunately was dealt rather short shrift in
One of the main points of 10 i..d3, A.Hemandez-Otero, Cuba 1995, after 17

98

ixc6+ l:lxc6 18 'W'a4 .i.d7 19 'W'al! l:le6+
20 �2 .i.c6 2 1 l:lad1 'W'a8 22 'W'c7 .i.e7 23
:hel 'ii'b7 24 l:ld8+ .i.xd8 25 :.Xe6+ 1-0.
b) 1S...lbd7 16 0-0 lbf6, which Hert­
neck gives as unclear, although I prefer
White after 17 'ii'c2 .i.e7 18 .i.e5. Instead
of 16 ... lbf6, 16 ...'W'f6! may be more accu­
rate, when H.Olafsson-Wang Zili, Mos­
cow Olympiad 1994, ended in a quick
draw after 17 'W'd2 .i.e7 18 .i.e4 .i.xc4 19
ixa8 i.xf1 20 :.x£1 0-0 2 1 .i.e4 lbb6 22 b3
:td8 23 'ii'e3 llJdS 24 .i.xdS l:lxdS 25 l:le1
if8 26 .i.e5 'W'e6 27 'ii'e2 h6 28 .i.f4 ih-ih .
1 6 0-0 lbc6 ! ?
After 16 . . . 0-0, the response 17 'ii'c2 is
slightly awkward for the Black player.
17 .ie4 lbd4 1 8 lbd6+
Not 18 .i.xa8? .i.xc4 19 'W'a4+ .i.b5 20
i'a7 lbe2+ and wins.
18 . . . .ixd6 1 9 .ixd6 .l:la5
19 ... l:lc8? allows 20 'W'a4+! 'W'd7 {or
20 .. i.d7 2 1 l:lfe1 lbe6 22 'ii'c2 and White
.
is on top} 21 'ii'xd7+ �xd7 22 .i.e5 with a
clear edge for White in the endgame.
20 .ie5?
White could have forced an endgame
with an extra pawn with the continuation
20 "i'xd4! cxd4 21 .i.c6+ 'W'd7 22 .i.xd7+
�d7 23 .i.xb4 l:lxa2 24 l:lxa2 .i.xa2 25
:tdl �c6 26 :.Xd4, although with oppo­
site-coloured bishops victory would still
be a long way off.
20 . . . 0-0 21 .ixd4 cxd4 22 a3 Wd6
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 f3
23 axb4?!
A poor decision. 23 'W'd2! f5 24 .i.c2
would have held the balance. After the
game move Black's pieces become very
active. He does not have to rush to recap­
ture the pawn, but can first advance his d­
pawn supported by the light-squared
bishop.
23 .1:lxa 1 24 Wxa 1 .ic4! 25 .l:ld 1 .ie2
.•.
26 .l:ld2 d3 27 Wc 1 Wxb4 28 Wc3 We7 !
2 9 .ixd3??
A dreadful blunder which allows a sim­
ple back-rank mate. 29 h3 would have
given White good defensive chances.
29 •.. Wa7+ 0-1
30 �h1 'W'a1+ leads to mate.
Game 45
Gelfand-Adams
Munich 1993
1 d4 lbt6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
f3 axb5 6 e4 Wa5+ 7 .id2 b4 8 lba3 ! d6
9 lLic4 Wa7! ?
This strange-looking retreat stops
White from playing an immediate a2-a3
and a3xb4, thereby giving Black time to
fianchetto his king's bishop. However, the
drawback is that once White has castled
this manoeuvre becomes even more pow­
erful.
1 0 a3
10 i.d3 g6 1 1 lbe2 i.g7 12 0-0 0-0 13 a3
99
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

transposes to the main game, whereas in

Hjartarson-Hertneck, Munich 1993,
White chose instead to rush forward with
his a-pawn: 10 a4 lL!bd7 1 1 aS i.a6 12 Wa4,
when 12 ... g6! 13 lL!b6 i.xf1 14 lL!xa8 i.xg2
15 'iic6 �d8 16 a6 i.xh1 17 l:taS i.g7 18
l:tb5 lL!b8! would have been very good for
Black according to Hertneck.
1 0 . . . g6

This posltlon was reached numerous

times in master play in the first half of the
1990s. However, it is hard to avoid the
conclusion that White is at least slightly
better, since he is well ahead in develop­
ment and his centre is rock solid. Black
has no real prospects on the queenside.
Indeed, his exertions on that side of the
board have merely given White a superb
1 1 �d3 outpost for his knight on c4 and plenty of
White can also try and force a rapid potential infiltration points.
resolution of the queenside with 1 1 lL!e2!? 1 5 ltlc3
i.g7 12 lLlcl 0-0 13 lL!b3, although after 15 'iic2 is also quite logical, intending to
13 ... bxa3 14 l:txa3 'iib 7 15 i.e2 l:txa3 16 double rooks on the a-file. For example,
bxa3, as in Jaworski-Protaziuk, Soczewka 15 ... lha3 16 bxa3 'iia7 17 lLlc3 i.d7 18
1992, Black should be fine after 16 ... 'iia7 l:tb 1 was very pleasant for White in
17 0-0 i.a6. P.Varga-Krutti, Hungarian Team Cham·
1 1 . . . �g7 1 2 liJ82 0-0 pionship 1995.
If Black wishes to try and cut across his 1 5 . . . ltla6! ? 1 6 Wa 1 ltld7 1 7 f4
opponent's plan of opening the a-file, he
can also try 12 ... liJfd7?! 13 0-0 lL!e5 and
now:
a) 14 axb4? 'iixa1 15 'iixa1 l:txa1 16
l:txa1 lL!xd3 17 l:ta8 i.a6 18 l:txb8+ 'itd7 19
l:txh8 i.xh8 with a clear plus for Black -
Stohl.
b) 14 lLlxe5 c4+ 15 'ith1 i.xe5, when in­
stead of 16 i.xc4 i.xb2 and Black was
already slightly better in Chemin-Leko,
Bmo 1993, Mikhail Gurevich suggests 16
'iic2!, exploiting the pin on the c-file,
which is hard to meet.
1 3 0-0 bxa3 1 4 l:l.xa3 Wb7 The prophylactic 17 i.e2 might have

1 00

presented Black with more problems, as it
is hard to see how he can unravel his
pieces. Gelfand's move seems promising at
first sight, but Adams manages to wriggle
out with some very resourceful defensive
play.
1 7 ... lbb6! 1 8 lba5 'fic7 1 9 lbc6 c4 20
ie2 .ib7 21 .ie3 ..txc6! 22 J:.xa6
Not 22 dxc6 lbb4.
22 ... ..td7 ! !
The only move, since after 22... iLb7 23
ixb6 'ii'xb6+ 24 :.Xb6 iLd4+ 25 �h 1
:Xa1 the bishop is loose on b7.
23 .ixb6 'fixb&+ 24 J:.xb6 .id4+ 25 �h1
:xa1 26 J:.xa 1 .ixb6 27 .ixc4 � - �
Black's active pieces provide sufficient
compensation for the pawn after 27 ...l:r.c8.
Game 46
Solozhenkin-Dunnington
Paris Championship 1996
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
f3 g6 6 e4 ..tg7
Just as in the 5 e3 g6 variation (Chapter
5) Black cannot really afford to take time
out with 6 ... d6, as this gives White the
tempo he needs to develop his pieces with
7 lLla3!? iLg7 8 lbe2 axb5 (ECO recom­
mends 8 ...lbbd7 10 iLe2 lbb6 1 1 0-0 e6 12
dxe6 iLxe6, but the simple 13 bxa6 looks
like a real test of this idea) 9 lLixb5 0-0 10
lLlec3 lba6 1 1 iLe2 lbc7 12 lbxc7 'ii'xc7 13
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 f3
iLg5! 'ii'b 6 14 'ii'd2 and White had
achieved a model position in M.Gurevich­
Ermenkov, Elenite 1994.
7 lba3
It is tempting for White to play 7 e5
lLig8 8 f4 d6 9 lLif3, but he must be careful
not to overreach, e.g. 9 ... lbh6 10 lLic3 0-0
1 1 iLe2 lLid7 12 0-0 lbf5 with an unclear
position in Oosterom-Dunnington, Dutch
Team Championship 1995. Another in­
teresting dimension of the delay in playing
... d7-d6 was revealed in Ellers-Chernin,
Bern open 1995: 7 lLic3 0-0 8 iLc4 lLie8!? 9
bxa6 lbd6 10 iLd3 bxa6 1 1 lbge2 iLxd3 12
'ii'xd3 c4 13 'ii'd2 lba6 14 0-0 lbb4 with
compensation for the pawn.
7 . . . 0-0 8 lbe2 e6!
As we have already seen in the 5 e3 iLg7
variation, Black must hit back in the cen­
tre as soon as possible in this kind of posi­
tion.
9 lbc3
By analogy to the 5 e3 iLg7 variation,
White can also try 9 dxe6 fxe6 10 'ii'd6,
which leads to very sharp play after
10 ... axb5 1 1 'ii'xc5 d6 12 'ii'xb5 lbxe4!? 13
fxe4 :.Xa3 14 bxa3, and now instead of
14 ... iLxa1 15 'ii'xb8 'ii'h4+ 16 lbg3, as in
Tozer-Conquest, Eastbourne 1990, Black
could have tried 14 ... 'ii'h4+ 15 lLig3 iLd7,
and if 16 'ii'b 1 then 16 ... iLe5 with good
attacking chances.
9 . . . exd5 1 0 lbxd5 .ib7
101
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

This time 10 ... tbxe4? does not work: 11 the pigeons.

fxe4 1i'h4+ 12 �d2 1i'xe4 13 1i'f3 1i'd4+ 14 1 7 ltJc7 llab8 1 8 0-0 ltJd4 1 9 .i.f4 f5 20
..i.d3 and White was winning in Solo:zhen­ llf2 fxe4 21 fxe4 llxf4 22 gxf4 1i'h4 23
kin-Kalegin, St Petersburg open 1993. e5 .i.xg2 24 �xg2 llf8 25 1i'f1 �h8 26
1 1 .i.c4 axb5 1 2 ltJxf6+ 1i'xf6 1 3 ltJxb5 :e 1 .i.h& 27 lbd5 lt:Je6 28 lle4 :ts 29
1i'h4+ �h 1 g5 30 lle3 .i.g7 31 llh3 1 -0
The point of Black's play. After this
check it is not easy for White to castle. Game 47
14 g3 1i'h3 1 5 .i.f1 Lalic-Khalifman
After 15 �f2 tbc6 16 ..i.e3 tbe5 17 ..i.fl Linares open 1997
1Wh5 18 ..i.e2 f5 19 tbd6 ..i.a6 20 ..i.xa6
l:txa6 2 1 ..i.xc5 fxe4 22 tbxe4 1i'xf3+ 23 1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
1i'xf3 l:txf3+ 24 �g2 l:td3 Black was very f3 e6! ?
active in the endgame in Sebban-Lazarev, With this move Black declares his in­
Cannes open 1995. tention to continue to play in gambit fash­
1 5 . . .1i'h5 1 6 .i.g2 ton.
A sensible consolidating move. The
ponderous 16 tbd6 ..i.a6 17 tbc4 led to
some very enterprising play by Black in
another Lazarev game: 17 ... d5! 18 tbb6
dxe4 19 tbxa8 exf3 20 ..i.e3 1i'e5 21 1i'xf3
..i.b7 22 1i'xb7 1i'xe3+ 23 ..i.e2 l:te8 24 1i'b5
tbc6 25 tbc7 l:te5 26 l:td1 tbd4, and now
instead of 27 1i'd3 1i'xe2+ 28 1i'xe2 l:txe2+
29 �fl :Xb2 when Black went on to win
in Vigh-Lazarev, Oberwart open 1992,
White should have tried 27 l:txd4! cxd4 28
tbd5 with an unclear position.

1 6 . . .ltJc6
After this quiet move White manages to
consolidate without too much difficulty.
16 ... d5!?, ready to meet 17 0-0 with
17 ... ..i.a6, would have kept the cat among
6 e4 exd5
The alternative 6 ... ..i.b7 is considered in
the notes to the next game.
7 e5
The sharpest move, putting the ques­
tion to the knight on f6. 7 exd5 is dealt
with in the next game.
7 . . .1i'e7
7 ... tbh5? 8 1i'xd5 is obviously very bad
for Black. Dlugy-Zsu.Polgar, San
Bernardino 1987, ended in a rapid debacle
after 8 ...1i'h4+ 9 g3 tbxg3 10 hxg3 'W'xg3+
1 1 �d1 l:ta7 12 tbe2 'W'f2 13 tbbc3 ..i.b7 14
b6 ..i.xd5 15 bxa7 ..i.d6 16 tbxd5 0-0 17
a81i' 1-0.
8 1i'e2 ltJg8
This time 8 ... tbh5?? fails to 9 g4.

1 02

9 1Llc3 i.b7
A remarkable pos1t1on. After nine
moves each side has only managed to de­
velop a single minor piece. Furthermore,
the awkward position of the two queens
makes it very difficult for them to mobi­
lise their respective kingside pieces. How­
ever, White is to move and he can at least
get his knight out.
10 liJh3
10 f4 allows Black time to play 10 ... d6.
1 0 • . . c4! ?
Although this · move was first played by
Mark Hebden in 1983, it remained virtu­
ally unnoticed, since Black quickly went
astray in that game. Revived by the Ger­
man grandmaster Gerald Hertneck in the
early 1990s, it is now established as Black's
best chance in this sharp line. Although it
seems strange to make yet another pawn
move with so few pieces developed,
10 ... c4!? serves the dual purpose of giving
the queen an outlet on c5 or b4 and block­
ing off the fl-b5 diagonal from the. white
queen and bishop, thereby making
... a6xb5 a more viable proposition. The
alternatives are unsatisfactory:
a} 10 .. .£6? 1 1 lLlf4 d4 12 lLlcdS Wxe5 13
lbc7+ �d8 14 lLlxa8 ..ixa8 15 bxa6 and
White won quickly in Notkin-Purgin, St
Petersburg 1994.
b) 10 ... d6? 1 1 lLlf4 dxe5 (1 1...Wxe5 12
'i'xe5+ dxe5 13 lLlfxdS ..id6 14 ..ie3 is also
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 f3
very good for White} 12 lLlfxdS ..ixdS 13
lLlxdS Wd6 14 We4 l:ta7 15 ..if4 with a
powerful attack for White in Basagic­
Petek, Pula 1993.
c) 10 ... d4 1 1 lLle4 d3 12 We3! Wxe5 13
lLlxc5 Wxe3+ 14 ..ixe3 ..ixc5 15 ..ixc5 axb5
16 ..ixd3 and White had overwhelming
control of the dark squares in Glek­
Annageldiev, USSR 1989.
d) 10 ...Wd8 11 lLlf4 lLle7 12 lLlh5!? (an
attractive caveman-like move, hoping to
land a big check on f6} 12 ... lLlf5 (or
12 ... Wb6 13 a4} 13 lLlf6+ gxf6 14 exf6+
..ie7 15 J.. g5 l:tg8 16 fxe7 Wb6 17 Wd2 d4,
and now instead of 18 lLle4 ..ixe4 19 fxe4
lLle3 20 ..ixe3 dxe3 21 Wxe3 axb5 with an
unclear position in I.Sokolov-Hertneck,
Garmisch-Partenkirchen (rapidplay} 1994,
the simple 18 lLla4 Wd6 19 Wf4 looks diffi­
cult to meet.
1 1 i.e3
In one of the first games in this varia­
tion, Lobron-Hertneck, Munich 1991,
White went wrong straightaway with 11
Wf2?! axb5 12 lLlf4 (both 12 Wb6 J..c6 and
12 lLlxb5 Wb4+ are also good for Black)
12 ...Wxe5+ 13 �d1 (not 13 J..e2 d4 and
wins} 13 ... lLlf6 14 ..ixc4 bxc4 15 l:te1 lLle4
16 Wb6 ..ic6 17 lLlfxdS ..ixdS 18 lLlxe4
..ie6 19 Wb7 WaS 0-1. It is not surprising
that 10 ... c4!? quickly caught on after such
a stunning early success.
Of course if White wishes to play lLlf4
1 03
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
he should do so immediately, not wasting
time on 1 1 'ii'f2, but Black still has a good
game after 1 1 lbf4 {1 1 .ig5 can be met by
1 1.. .f6 12 exf6 'ii'xe2+ 13 .ixe2 gxf6 14
.ie3 .ib4 with unclear chances according
to Hertneck, but there does not seem to
be a great deal wrong with 1 1...'ii'c5 either)
1 1...'ii'c5 12 .ie3 d4 13 .if2 d3!, as in Lo­
makina-Waitzkin, New York 1993.
11 ... axb5!
The most consistent follow-up to his
previous move. It is too dangerous to
snatch the e-pawn due to 1 1...'ii'xe5 12
0-0-0 lbf6 13 "W'f2!, but 1 1..."W'b4 is worth
consideration. For example:
a) 12 a3 "W'aS 13 .id2 "W'b6 14 lbf4 lbe7
15 a4?! axb5 16 lbxb5 "W'xb5! 17 axb5
:Xa1+ 18 �f2 llJf5 with full compensation
for the queen in Timman-Van Wely,
Dutch Championship 1998.
b) 12 b6!? .ic5 and now:
b 1) 13 0-0-0 "W'xb6 14 .ixc5 "W'xc5 15
lbf4!? lbe7 16 "W'd2 with unclear chances in
Zoler-Mencinger, Groningen open 1994.
Instead of 16 ... d4?! Black could now have
tried 16 ... 0-0 17 llJfxdS llJxdS 18 llJxdS
l:tc8 with attacking chances.
b2) 13 .ixc5! "W'xc5 14 'ii'f2 d4. 15 0-0-0
lbc6 16 lbe4 "W'e5, as in Neverov-Buhman,
St Petersburg open 1994, when ECO rec­
ommends 17 "W'g3 with a clear plus for
White, i.e. 17 ...'ii'xg3 18 hxg3 threatening
a nasty check on d6.
1 2 0-0-0
The critical move. Now that the fl-a6
diagonal is cut off, 12 lbxb5?! allows Black
to develop quickly with 12 ... "W'b4+ 13 lbc3
lbe7! 14 a3 "W'aS, when Black had good
control of the centre in S.lvanov­
Khalifman, St Petersburg Championship
1997. On the other hand 12 lbf4 gives
Black time to capture the e-pawn with
impunity: 12 ..."W'xe5!, when in the inaugu­
ral game in this variation, Yrjola-Hebden,
Chicago 1983, White tried 13 lbxb5, and
after 13 ... lbe7 he quickly won material
1 04
with 14 .ib6! d6 15 lbc7+ �d7 16 tLlxa8.
However, there is nothing wrong with
Black's position at all after 13 ... .ib4+ 14
.id2 .ixd2+ 15 �d2 "W'xe2+ 16 i.xe2
�f8, while Fedorowicz's 13 ... tt:Ja6 looks
even better for Black. Instead of 13 lLlxbS
White can try 13 0-0-0 , but V.lvanov
points out that 13 ... tt:Jf6!? 14 .id4 "W'xe2 15
.ixe2 .ie7! 16 a3 .ic6 is rock solid for
Black.
12 ... 'irb4!
Neither 12 ..."W'xe5? 13 f4 "W'e7 {or
13 ..."W'e6 14 tt:Jg5 "W'e7 15 tt:Jxb5 tLla6 16
tt:Jd6+! 'ii'xd6 17 i.c5+) 14 l:txdS!, as in
Dlugy-Alburt, USA Championship 1991,
nor 12 ..."W'd8 13 tt:Jf4 tt:Je7 14 lbxb5 tLlg6
15 tLlxdS .ixdS 16 l:txd5 lha2 17 �b1 l:ta8
18 "W'f2!, as in Pecorelli Garcia-Matamoros,
Capablanca memorial 1994, are acceptable
alternatives for Black.
1 3 lbf4
The queen sacrifice idea that we shall
see in this game occurred for the first time
in the game Klein-Waitzkin, USA 1993: 13
l:txdS "W'xc3+! 14 bxc3 .ixdS 15 lbf4 .ia3+
16 �b1 tt:Je7 17 "W'd2 .ie6 18 tt:Jh5 l:tg8 19
lbf4 tt:Jbc6 and Black went on to win.
White's problem is that his queen does not
have anything to attack and unless he acts
quickly Black will be able to just gradually
improve his position and eventually ar­
range an assault on the vulnerable white
king. In view of this 19 .ih6!? might have

been worth a shot.
1 3 . . . lDe7 1 4 i.b6?!
Black was threatening ...WaS followed
by . . b5-b4 with a strong attack, but Lalic
. ..td6 according to Lalic, although Black
does not believe this to be the correct way
of countering that threat. In his notes to
this game in the British Chess Magazine he
points out Ljubojevic's post-mortem sug­
gestion 14 "ili'f2!?, seizing control of the
important g1-a7 diagonal. He then had the
chance to put this idea into practice in the
game Lalic-Alterman, European Team
Championship, Pula 1997: 14 ... ti)a6
(14 ... i.c6 15 ..td2!; 14 ... g6 15 l:txdS "ili'xc3+
16 bxc3 ti)xdS 17 ti)xdS ..ixdS 18 ..ic5; and
14... h5 15 �b 1! all favour White) 15 �b 1!
{threatening 16 a3 Wb3 17 ti)fe2 and ti)ct)
15...l0f5 16 ti)fxdS ..ixdS 17 ti)xdS ti)xe3
18 "i'xe3 Wc5 19 Wxc5 ..ixc5 20 ti)c3 ti)c7
and now White should have played 2 1 g3!
�e7 22 ..ih3 .:hd8 2� ti)e4 with a clear
plus according to Alterman. Black obvi­
ously needs an improvement after 14 "ili'f2.
One idea that fits the bill is 14 ...Wa5 15
ib6 'i'a6!, which Alterman dismisses with
16 i.c5! However, Black can then play
16 ... "i'h6!? (A.Maksimenko), e.g. 17 g3
liJg6 or 17 ..ie3 d4!? 18 l:txd4 ti)f5.
1 4 . . . h5!
A big improvement on the old 14 ... g6,
for which Lalic had prepared 15 �b 1 ..ih6
16 l:.xdS!
15 :txd5?!
4 c x b 5 a6 5 f3
This allows the queen sacrifice under
favourable circumstances. White should
have tried 15 �b1 l:.h6 16 ..ic7 ti)a6 17
must be on top here.
1 5 . . ."iixc3+! 1 6 bxc3 llJxd5 1 7 llJxd5
i.xd5 1 8 "iid 2
Compared to the Klein-Waitzkin ex­
ample above Black has even better chances
as his rook may be able to swing out via
h6, while the h-pawn prevents a white
kingside advance.
1 8 . . . i.e6 1 9 i.e2?
This is too slow. Stohl suggests 19
..ic7!? ti)c6 20 ..td6 ..ixd6 21 exd6 0-0,
although Black should be first to break
through with ... b5-b4.
1 9 . . . llJc6 20 f4 b4 21 f5 bxc3 22 "iixc3
:ta3 23 "iib 2 c3
White is being overwhelmed by Black's
active pieces. The pawn on c3 is a real
thorn in his side.
24 "iib 5 i.xf5 25 :n :xa2! 26 :txf5
llJb4 27 "iia 5 g6! 0-1
Very flashy. The threat of the bishop
finally entering the game with ... ..th6+ is
fatal.
Game 48
Bareev-Khalifman
Russian Team Ch. 1995
1 d4 llJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
1 05
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

f 3 e 6 6 e4 exd5
For a time in the later 1980s, 6 ... .tb7 7
lLlc3 exd5 8 e5 lLlh5 was a popular way to
play for Black. However, this is rarely
seen nowadays in view of the forcing line
9 lLlxd5 'iVh4+ 10 g3 lLlxg3 1 1 hxg3 'iVxg3+
12 �e2 'iVxe5+ 13 lLle3 axb5 14 �f2 c4 and
now:
a} 15 lLlg4 .tc5+ 16 .te3 .txe3+ 17
lLlxe3 'iVxb2+ 18 lLle2 lLla6 19 'iVd4 (19
'iVd6 'iVxa1 20 .th3 'iVf6 21 .txd7+ �d8 22
.te6+ leads to a perpetual -<:heck)
19 ...'iVxd4 20 lLlxd4 lLlc7 2 1 lLlef5 with a
very unclear endgame in which Black's 8 'ife2+!
four pawns should have been just about The routine 8 lLlc3 0-0 9 .tc4 allows
enough compensation for the piece in Black to take advantage the undeveloped
Notkin-V.Ivanov, Russia 1993. white kingside with 9 ... lLlh5! 10 g3 i.e5 1 1
b) 15 lLle2! .tc5 16 .tg2 l:ta6 17 f4 'iVc7 lLlge2 d6 1 2 a4 lLld7, when White's weak­
18 .txb7 'iVxb7 19 l:th5 'iVa7?! (a mistake, nesses on the kingside were a constant
but 19 ... l:td6 20 'iVg1 l:tg6 21 'iVh2 also source of worry in Vareille-Koch, French
looks good for White} 20 'iVd5 and White Championship 1994.
was on top in Avshalumov-Kinsman, 8 . . . �8 9 lbc3 axb5 1 0 .i.e3
Chartres open 1990. In view of Black's response to this
7 exd5 move 10 lLlxb5 must be regarded as a criti­
After this move White must be careful cal alternative. After 10 ... .ta6 1 1 Wd2
not to allow his opponent to encircle the We7+ 12 �d1 'iVe5 13 lLlh3! .txb5 14
e-pawn. .txb5 'iVxd5 15 Wxd5 lLlxd5 16 lLlg5 White
7 . . . .i.d6 had the better of the endgame in Volkov­
This looks a more pragmatic approach Ibragimov, Russian Cup 1997, so perhaps
than 7 ... 'iVe7+?! 8 �f2 c4, with the idea of Black should consider 12 ... .te5!? with the
... a6xb5 or ... 'iVc5+. After 9 lLlc3 neither idea of ... .txb5 and ...'iVd6.
9 ... 'iVb4 10 'iVe2+ �d8 1 1 'iVxc4 .i.c5+ 12 10 ... c4!
�e1 l:te8+ 13 �d1 axb5 14 'iVxb4 .txb4 15
.td2 with a slight plus for White in
Akopian-Vaisser, Moscow open 1989, nor
9 ... axb5 10 .tf4! 'iVc5+ 1 1 .te3 'iVb4 12
'iVe2 .i.e7 13 a3 'iVd6 14 lLlxb5 with a very
good position for White in Fradkin­
Nesterov, Moscow open 1995, is good
enough for Black.
The game move is also much more en­
terprising than 7 ... d6?! 8 lLlc3 .te7 9 .tc4
0-0 10 lLlge2 lLlbd7 1 1 b3 lLlb6 12 0-0 axb5
13 lLlxb5, when White was just a pawn up
in the encounter Vaisser-Mencinger, Ptuj
1989. An important improvement on

1 06

Khalifman's earlier handling of this posi­
tion in I.Sokolov-Khalifman, Linares 1995:
10. . �a6 1 1 'ii'd2 c4 12 a3 'ii'aS 13 .:td1 b4
. Bareev suggests that Black could have
14 axb4 .i.xb4 15 lL'lh3 d6 16 .i.e2 lL'lbd7 17
0-0, when Black was still a long way from
solving the problem of what to do with
his king.
1 1 �2
White preferred to take the bait in
Shishkin-Krivoseja, Kiev 1997: 1 1 lDxbS
'laS+ 12 lL'lc3 lDxdS 13 'ii'xc4? lL'lxc3 14
bxc3 (14 'ii'xc8+?! �e7 15 'ii'xh8 lDe4+ 16
�d1 'ii'dS+ is asking for trouble) 14 ... lDc6
15 �f2 .i.a6 16 'ii'b3 .i.xf1 17 �1 .:te8,
when Black's activity provided enough
compensation for the pawn.
1 1 . . .:a5!
A very undogmatic response. Realising
that 11....i.a6 allows White to hold things
up on the queenside with 12 a3, Khalif­
man develops the rook first.
1 2 gl
Black's idea is realised perfectly after 12
a4 �a6!
1 2 . . . llJa6?!
An unfortunate slip which lets White
play a2-a4 to break up the queenside after
all. 12 ... .i.b7 would have kept White
firmly on the back foot.
1l a4 bxa4?
After this poor move White even gains
a clear advantage. Black would still have
been doing well after 13 ... lL'lc7! 14 .i.b6
:a6 15 .i.xc7 .i.xc7 16 lL'lxbS .i.b6+
(Bareev).
1 4 'i'xc4 ..tb7 1 5 :xa4 :xa4 1 6 'i'xa4
liJc7 1 7 'i'a5 ltlfxd5 1 8 ltlxd5 ..txd5 1 9
.i.b6 ..tc6 20 ltle2
Bareev suggests that Black has equalised
here, but he still has to solve the problem
of his king's rook. Later on, after an ex­
change of queens, he may also have to deal
with an onrush of the white b-pawn.
20 . . . h5! 21 ..tg2 'i'b8 22 :d 1 ltle6 2l
liJd4 ltlxd4 24 :xd4 Wg8 25 'i'a7 ! h4 26
•xb8+ ..txb8 27 :xh4 :xh4 28 gxh4
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 f3
..txh2 29 ..tn ..td6 lO ..tc4 g6 l1 ..td4
..te7 32 Wgl Wf8
held the draw with 32 ... d5 33 .i.d3 fS. Af­
ter the text the white b-pawn becomes a
real threat. Although the position should
still be a draw, in practice it is not easy for
Black to defend such a passive position.
ll .tel d5 l4 ..tdl ..td6+ l5 f4 �e7 l6
�g4 ..tc5 l7 b4 d4 l8 ..td2 ..tb6 l9 �g5
..td7 40 f5 gxf5 41 ..txt5
Now Black has two dangerous outside
pawns to contend with, while his own
pawns are stymied.
41 . . . ..tb5 42 h5 ..tc7 ! 43 h6 ..te5 44 ..tc2
..tf6+ 45 Wt4 ..thS 46 ..tbl Wt6 47 We4
�g6 48 Wd5 ..te2 49 ..tc4 .ttl+ 50 Wd6
f5 51 b5 ..tf6 52 ..td5 ..te2! 53 b6 ..ta6
54 ..tt4 ..th4 55 ..tc4 ..tb7 56 ..tgS dl 57
We6 ..tc8+ 58 �d6 ..tb7
59 h7
Stohl suggest that White could have
won here with 59 .i.dS, but after
59 ... .i.xd5 60 �ds .i.g3! 61 .i.d2 (61
.i.xg3 d2) 61....i.b8 62 b7 f4 followed by
... �xh6 Black seems to be able to defend.
59 . . . ..tt6 60 ..te6 ..te4??
With the draw in sight, Black makes a
terrible blunder. 60 ... �7 61 .i.xfS+ �g8
62 .i.xd3 .i.d8 was a straightforward draw.
61 ..td5 1 -0
61...�7 62 b7 d2 63 b8'ii' d1'ii' 64
'ii'g8 is mate.
107
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

Summary
The development of the 5 f3 variation follows a familiar pattern in this opening. Ini­
tially White players enjoyed great success as Black players tended to rely on routine
moves rather than finding original solutions to the particular problems that this varia­
tion presented (Games 40-42 are good illustrations of this) . However, over time a bal­
anced equilibrium was restored as Benko experts managed to get to grips with the line
and solve these problems (Games 43-45) .
If Black wishes to avoid the very well-trodden main lines he should consider experi­
menting with 5 ... g6 (Game 46) or the ultra-sharp 5 ... e6 (Games 47 and 48).

1 d 4 ltlf6 2 c 4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a 6 5 f3

5 • . . axb5
5 . . . g6 - Game 46
5 . . . e6 6 e4 exd5 (D)
7 e5 - Game 47
7 exd5 - Game 48
6 e4 'ifa5 + 7 .i.d2 b4 8 ltla3 (OJ d6
8 . . . .i.a6 - Game 40
8 . . . g6 - Game 41
9 ltlc4 (OJ 'ifd8
9 . . . 'it'c7 - Game 42
9 ... 'it'a7 - Game 45
1 0 .i.d3
10 a3 Game 43
-

10 . . . e6 -Game 44

6. exd5
. .
B l:i:Ja3 9 l:i:Jc4

1 08
 CHAPTER EIGHT I
4 cxb5 a6 5 l2Jc3

1 d4 lL!f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 The risky 6 ...1i'a5?! is the subject of

li:\c3 Game 53.
The point of 5 lDc3 is not to recapture 7 lL!b5
the b-pawn after 5 ... axb5 (although this is
occasionally seen) but to support the e2-e4
advance. If Black takes up the challenge
with 5 ... axb5 6 e4 b4 7 lDb5, a very sharp
position is reached for which both sides
need to be well prepared. White will try
and take advantage of the fact that his
pieces can develop quickly, while his op­
ponent strives to keep things under con­
trol and hopefully take advantage of the
slightly loose position of the knight on b5.

Game 49
Koerholz-Leko 7 ... d6
Budapest 1993 Black must of course avoid the well­
known trap 7... lDxe4?? 8 1i'e2 f5 9 f3 lDf6
1 d4 lL!f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 10 lDd6 mate.
li:\c3 axb5 8 .i.f4
See Game 54 for 5 .. .'ii'a5 . White's most popular move. 8 lDf3 is
6 e4 considered in Game 5 1 and 8 i.c4 in
6 lDxb5 i.a6 7 lDc3 (7 e4?? i.xb5 8 Game 52 .
.ixb5 'ii'aS+ drops a piece) 7 ... g6 simply 8 . .. g5!
transposes to the standard Benko Gambit Luring the bishop to g5 in order to
Accepted position of the first three chap­ make time to capture the e-pawn. Black's
ters with both sides having played one alternatives here are dealt with in the
move more. notes to the next game.
6 ... b4 9 .i.xg5

1 09
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
Neither 9 i.cl l:.a5 10 e5 dxe5 11 d6
exd6 12 i.xg5 i.a6, as in Pein-Hebden,
British Championship 1980; 9 e5 gxf4 10
exf6 ll:ld7! 1 1 fxe7 11i'xe7+ 12 i.e2 ll:le5, as
in Markzon-Fedorowicz, Philadelphia
1989; nor 9 i.e3 i.g7!? 10 f3 g4 1 1 a4 bxa3
12 l:.xa3 l:.xa3 13 bxa3 0-0, as in Etchega­
ray-Komljenovic, Zaragoza open 1995,
promise anything for White.
9 . . . .!Dxe4 1 0 ..tf4
1 0 . . . ..tg7
This is the most popular way of meet­
ing the threat of 11i'e2, gambitting a pawn.
The sharp 10 ...11i'a5!?, with the idea of
... b4-b3+ and/or a counterattack against
the knight on b5, is out of favour at the
moment. After 1 1 i.c4 i.g7 12 11i'e2 b3+
13 �fl f5 White has the powerful 14 f3!
0-0! {14 ... 11i'xa2? 15 l:.xa2 bxa2 16 i.xa2
:Xa2 17 fxe4 was simply losing for Black
in Touzane-Verdier, French Team Cham­
pionship 1996) 15 a4! {15 fxe4 fxe4 16 g3
11i'xa2!! 17 l:.xa2 bxa2 18 i.xa2 l:.xa2 was
very strong for Black in Silman­
Christiansen, Los Angeles 1989) 15 ... i.e5
{or 15 ...11i'b4 16 l:.b3) and now instead of
16 i.h6 l:.f6 17 i.cl i.xh2!, as in Belakov­
skaya-Wong Zi Jing, Groningen open
1998, simply 16 i.xe5 ll:ld2+ 17 �f2 dxe5
1 8 d6+ ll:lxc4 19 11i'xc4+ looks good for
White. Instead of 1 1...i.g7 Black can try
1 1...i.a6!? 12 11i'e2 �d8! {after 12 ... b3+ 13
�fl �d8 14 a4 ll:lf6 15 i.d2 [Fedorowicz
1 10
likes 15 l:.a3] 15 ... 11i'b6, as in Hoensch­
Short, German open 1986, White could
have tried 16 11i'e1!? with a good position)
13 ll:lf3 b3+ 14 ll:ld2 i.xb5 15 i.xb5 ll:lxd2
16 i.xd2 11i'xa2 17 l:.xa2 bxa2 18 0-0 a1'1'
19 :Xa1 l:.xa1+ 20 i.e1 with a dynamic
imbalance in material in Tozer-Mannion,
Cardiff 1997. I prefer White because the
black rooks are, at least for time being,
poorly co-ordinated.
1 1 'ife2 .!Df6 1 2 .!Dxd6+ �8 1 3 .!Dxc8
'ifxc8 1 4 d6
The old main line. Ivan Sokolov's 14
11i'f3 is considered in the next main game .
1 4 . . . exd6!
It is usually wise to open up the posi­
tion when you are material down, and
here is no exception. 14 ... e6 is rarely seen
nowadays, since it allows White to con­
solidate his position with 15 ll:lf3 ll:lbd7
{15 ...ll:lc6 16 11i'c2!? is awkward for Black)
16 ll:le5, as in Muller-Lieb, Bundesliga
1996/97.
1 5 ..txd6+ �g8 1 6 'iff3
The perils of this line for White were
well demonstrated in the following games:
a) Touzane-Votava, Budapest 1995,
went 16 11i'c4?! ll:lbd7 17 0-0-0 {17 l:.cl
11i'e8 + 18 ll:le2 ll:le4 also looks promising
for Black) 17 ...ll:lb6 18 11i'b5 ll:lfd5 19 l:.e1
c4 20 f4 i.xb2+! 21 �b2 l:.xa2+! 22 �cl
l:.a1+ 23 �d2 c3+ 24 �e2 :Xel+ 25 �e1
c2 26 ll:le2 c111i' + 27 ll:lxc1 11i'xcl+ 0-1.

b) 16 �f3 �c6!? (16 ......f5 is also possi­
ble) 17 ...c4?! (White had to take his life in
his hands with 17 i.xc5, although Black
has excellent attacking chances after
17 ......f5 or 17 ...�d5) 17 ... �a5! 18 ...xc5?
'lxc5 19 i.xc5 �b3 20 i.c4 �xc5 and
Black won quickly in Tozer-Pein, Four
Nations Chess League 1997.
16 li:Jc6 1 7 li:Je2 "ii'e 8 1 8 J.xc5 li:Je4 1 9
...
.tel bl!
A key theme in this variation, exploit­
ing the pin on the a-file. Note that 20 a3
fails to 20 ... �b4.
20 li:Jc 1 li:Jd4 21 J.xd4 J.xd4
White has managed to meet the imme­
diate threats to his queenside, but now the
f2-pawn is caving in. White elects to jetti­
son the b-pawn instead, but this only de­
lays the inevitable.
22 J.e2 J.xb2 2l "ii'g4+ �8 24 li:Jxbl
.tel+! 25 �1 J.xa 1 26 li:Jxa 1 .l:l.xa2
The game is up for White already.
27 li:Jbl .l:l.b2 28 .tdl .l:l.xf2+ 29 �g 1 .l:l.b2
lO "ii'xe4 .l:l.xbl l1 �2 .l:l.b2+ l2 �l
'i'd8 ll .l:l.e 1 l:g8 l4 .tf1 "iff&+ l5 �el
'i'c3+ 0-1
Game 50
I .Sokolov-Khalifman
Parnu 1996
1 d4 li:Jf6 2 c4 c5 l d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
lDcl axb5 6 e4 b4 7 li:Jb5 d6 8 .tf4 g5!
4 c x b 5 a6 5 li:J c 3
Neither 8. . .�bd7 9 �f3 (intending e4-
e5) nor 8 ... �a6 9 i.c4!? are considered
satisfactory for Black by theory, while the
routine 8 ... g6 is regarded as risky because
of 9 e5 �h5 (9 ... dxe5 10 i.xe5 �a6 1 1 d6
is obviously bad for Black) 10 exd6! (10
i.g5 f6 is playable for Black, but 10 i.e3 is
interesting) 10 ... exd6 (not 10 ... �xf4?? 1 1
�c7+ �d7 1 2 'W'g4+ �xd6 1 3 ...xf4+ and
wins) 1 1 ...e2+ 'iPd7 12 i.e3. However, in
fact this position is completely unclear,
since after 12 ......e7, as in Kaidanov­
Grigorian, Kuibyshev 198 1, White's d­
pawn is far from secure.
If Black really wants to put the cat
among the pigeons, he can even try
8 ... �xe4!? and now:
a) 9 ...e2 g5! (a similar idea to the game
in a different setting) 10 i.e5!? (10 ...xe4?
gxf4 1 1 i.c4 �6! 12 �f3 l:ta5 13 a4 bxa3
14 �xa3 �4+ was much better for Black
in Halldorsson-Bosboom, Hafnarfjordur
1997) 10 ...dxe5 1 1 'W'xe4 i.g7, when 12
d6!? led to very sharp play in Dreev­
Bareev, Tilburg 1994, after 12 ...l:ta5! 13
l:td1! �d7! 15 �xg5 �f6 16 ...h4 e6.
b) 9 i.d3!? �f6 (Fedorowicz suggests
instead 9 ... g5!?) 10 ...e2 e5 (or 10 ... e6) 1 1
dxe6 fxe6 1 2 l:td1 (12 i.c4 also looks dan­
gerous) 12 ... �d5 13 ...h5+ �d7 14 �f3
�c6 15 i.g5 i.e7 16 0-0 with very promis­
ing attacking chances for White in
Se.lvanov-Annageldiev, USSR 1988.
c) Perhaps 9 �f3 (threatening 10 ...e2)
to meet 9 ... e5!? by 10 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 ...e2
with a very promising position.
9 J.xg5 li:Jxe4 1 0 .tf4 J.g7 1 1 "ii'e 2 li:Jf6
1 2 li:Jxd6+ �8 1 l li:Jxc8 "ii'xc8 1 4 "ii'fl! ?
see follo wing diagram
In view of the fact that 14 d6 has been
working out well for Black, this is an im­
portant reinforcement of White's play in
this variation. White does not rush to
open the position but first develops his
kingside.
111
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
1 4 . . . e6! ?
Two other moves have been tried here:
a) 14 ... lbbd7?! 15 i.b5 .:taS 16 i.c6 and
Black had no real compensation for the
pawn in I.Sokolov-Shirov, Internet match
1995.
b) 14 ... 'iif5 15 i.b5 lbd7?! 16 d6! and
White was on top in Arencibia-Gomez,
Cuban Championship 1998. However, I
do not understand why Black cannot sim­
ply play 15 ... lDxd5, e.g. 16 .l:td1 'iixf4 17
.:.Xd5 i.e5 18 'iixf4 i.xf4 19 i.c4 i.d6 20
l:tf5 f6 with a pretty solid position.
1 5 d6
After 15 dxe6?! 'iixe6+ 16 lDe2 lDc6
Black has achieved his primary objective
of opening up the position.
1 5 . . . lbc6 1 6 1i'h3 h5?!
Although this move prevents i.h6, ex­
changing the key dark-squared bishop, it
1 12
does little for Black's development. Stohl
prefers 16 ... lDd4, when after 17 i.d3 I
suggest 17 ...'iic6 with a firm grip on the
centre, e.g. 18 lDe2 lDxe2 19 i.xe2 lDdS 20
i.h6 'iixd6 with an equal position.
1 7 .i.c4 lbd4 1 8 .l:l.c 1 •c6 1 9 ltle2 lbxe2
20 �xe2 lbd5 21 .i.xd5 •xd5
After 21...exd5 22 .l:.hd1 .l:txa2 23 lftfl
:xb2 24 'iif5 (Stohl) Black is playing
without his king's rook.
22 .l:l.hd 1 .i.d4 23 ..f3!
Excellent play. White is able to force a
favourable ending as 23 ... J:[xa2? 24 'iixdS
exd5 (or 24 ... J:[xb2+ 25 �e1 i.xf2+ 26 �fl
exdS 27 i.e5) 25 J:[xd4! cxd4 26 J:[c8+ �g7
27 J:[xh8 �xh8 28 d7 J:[a8 29 i.g5 wins for
White.
23 . . ...xf3+ 24 �xf3 �g7
24 ...J:[xa2? 25 lhd4 cxd4 26 l:.c8+ �g7
27 l:txh8 �xh8 28 d7 :as 29 i.g5 is similar
to the previous note.
25 .i.e3 .l:l.hd8 26 .i.xd4+ cxd4 27 .l:l.xd4
.l:l.xa2 28 d7 .l:l.a7 29 .l:l.cd 1 b3 30 �g3
Black has still not managed to regain his
lost material and this double-rook ending
is very bad for him, as the white pawn on
d7 is very powerful and Black has weak
stragglers on b3 and h5. Sokolov in fact
suggests that a simple march of the king to
the queenside would have been sufficient
for victory.
30 . . . �6 31 �h4 .l:l.a5 32 .l:l.b4 �e7 33
.l:l.xb3 .l:l.xd7 34 .l:l.xd7+ �xd7 35 f4?
 4 c x b 5 a 6 5 'D c 3

This lets the win slip. 3 5 l:tb7+ �e8 36 1 3 . . .'Dd6

f4 �f8 37 g4 hxg4 38 �g4 'it>g7 39 b4 l:ta2
40 h4 �f6 41 b5 was winning for White
according to Stohl. After the game move
White is unable to create a second passed
pawn.
35 .'�e7 36 .l:.bB �6 37 g3 �g7 38 b4
..

:ds 39 b5 e5! 40 b6 exf4 41 gxf4 .l:.b5

42 b7 �6 43 h3 .l:.b3 44 .l:.hB � - �

Game 51
Birens-Kinsman
Toulouse open 1990
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
liJc3 axb5 6 e4 b4 7 lLlb5 d6 8 'Df3 g6
The e-pawn is still rather too hot to
handle: 8 ... lbxe4?! 9 'iVe2 f5 (forced) 10 d6!
exd6 1 1 lbg5 allowed White a very strong
attack in Van der Wiel-Hodgson, Brussels
1985.
9 e5
After 9 �f4 �g7 10 e5 dxe5 1 1 �xeS
0-0 12 �c4 �b7, as in Rayner-K.ing,
Blackpool 1990, White's d-pawn is a sit­
ting duck, while 9 �c4 �g7 10 0-0 lbxe4!
1 1 l:te1 lbf6 12 'iVe2 �b7! 13 �f4 0-0 14
"fxe7 'iVxe7 15 l:txe7 �xd5 16 lbc7 �xc4
17 lLlxa8 lbd5 18 �xd6 lbxe7 19 �xe7 l:te8
led to a better endgame for Black in Yez­
ersky-Kalegin, St Petersburg 1996.
9 . dxe5 1 0 lLlxe5
..
1 4 "iie2
Surprisingly White is already in difficul­
ties, e.g. 14 lbxd6 exd6 14 lbd3 �f5 15
"Wd2 'iVf6 with a slight plus for Black.
1 4 . . . 'Dxb5
It is tempting to grab the pawn, but
14 ... �a6! might have been even better, e.g.
15 lbxd6? exd6 16 �xa6 dxe5 and Black
was winning in Powell-Hynes, Thessalo­
niki Olympiad 1988.
1 5 .i.xb5 "iixd5 16 .i.c4 "iib7 1 7 .l:.ad 1 e6
18 "iie3?!
Perhaps White should have doubled on
the d-file with 18 l:td6 and 19 l:tfdl.
18 ... .1:.a5 19 .i.h6 'Dc6 20 .i.xg7 �xg7 21
'Dg4 "iie7 22 "iih 6+ �gB 23 "iif4 e5 24
"iig 3 �h8

10 d6?! exd6 1 1 �g5 �e7 12 �xf6 �xf6

13 lLlxd6+ fails to 13 ... �f8 14 'iVdS l:ta7 15
"fxc5 l:tc7! 16 'iVxb4 lbc6 17 'iVa3 �e7 18
:d1 l:td7 winning the knight (A.Martin).
1 o . .i.g7 1 1 .i.c4 o-o 1 2 o-o 'Des
. .

A very solid move, heading for d6.

12 ... i.b7 is risky because of 13 d6!, but
12 ... i.a6, threatening 13 ... �xb5 14 �xb5
"fxd5, is a playable alternative.
1 3 .i.f4?!
Both 13 lbd3 and 13 l:te 1 are also met
by 13 lbd6, but at least then White
•..

would not have had immediate problems Black has now consolidated and is ready
on the long diagonal. to make use of his extra pawn.

1 13
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
2 5 tLle3 f 5 2 6 tLld5 Wg7 2 7 l:.fe 1 f4 28
1i'h4 l:.a7 29 f3 g5 30 Wt2 lLld4 31 h3
�f5 32 l:.d2 l:.d7 33 a3 l:.fd8 34 axb4
cxb4 35 l:.a 1 �e6 36 l:.xd4 exd4 37 lLlb6
�xc4 38 tLlxc4 d3 39 l:.d 1 l:.e7 40 l:.d2
Wd4 41 Wxd4+ l:.xd4 42 b3 l:.e2 43 l:.d 1
l:.c2 44 �1 l:.dxc4! 45 bxc4 b3 0-1
Game 52
G . Burgess-Beaumont
Aarhus 1990
1 d4 tLlt6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
tLlc3 axb5 6 e4 b4 7 tLlb5 d6 8 �c4
For a time in the late 1980s this move
was quite popular. However, antidotes for
Black were soon found and it is once again
regarded as a mere sideline.
8 . . . tLlbd7
The e-pawn is taboo: 8 ... �xe4 9 'ire2 f5
10 f3 �f6 1 1 .i.f4 :a6 12 �h3 g6 13 0-0
.i.g7 14 l:r.fe1 and White had a strong at­
tacking position in Zhuravliov-Grushko,
Kaliningrad 1976. However, the main
point of White's play is revealed after
8 ... g6 9 e5!? dxe5 10 d6 exd6 1 1 .i.g5, when
White has given up two pawns for tactical
threats. Black has to be careful here, but
he can probably get away with 1 1...l:r.a5
(1 1...�bd7? 12 'irb3 is unpleasant, while
1 1....i.b7 12 'irb3!? is unclear) 12 'irf3 (12
�f3 �c6 is too slow, while 12 'irb3 .i.g7
13 l:r.d1 l:r.a6 14 .i.xf7+ �f8 followed by
1 14
...We7 looks quite solid for Black)
12 ... .i.e7 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 .i.xf6 e4!? 15 'i'xe4
.i.xf6 16 �xd6 .i.d4 17 �xc8 'irxc8 with a
very messy middlegame in M.Andersson·
D.Cramling, Salongernas 1993.
9 tLlt3 tLlb6 1 0 �d3
After 10 .i.e2? the e-pawn can finally be
taken with impunity: 10 ... �xe4 1 1 0-0 g6
12 a4 bxa3 13 l:r.xa3 l:r.xa3 14 bxa3 .i.g7 15
a4 .i.b7 16 a5 �d7 17 'ira4 .i.xd5 18 a6 Q.O
19 a7 .i.c6 20 .i.d2 �xd2 21 �xd2 'irb6 22
l:r.b 1 d5 23 �b3 l:r.a8 0-1 Vladimirov·
Tukmakov, Oviedo (rapidplay) 1992.
10 ..• g6 1 1 b3
It is imperative for White to mount a
challenge on the long diagonal.
1 1 . . . �g7 1 2 .ib2 0-0 1 3 0-0
Both sides have now developed their
pieces and it is time to take stock. At first
sight it may appear that nothing much is
happening, but look at that knight on bS .
Isn't it rather out on a limb?
In a game Breutigam-Fedorowicz,
German Bundesliga 1990, Fedorowicz
chose to stake a claim in the centre with
13 ... e6. However, it is quite tempting to
try and exploit the knight on b5 with
1 3 . . . .ia6
Black is now ready to connect his rooks
with ...'ird7.
1 4 We2?!
The queen is not well placed here, so
White should probably play 14 a4

straightaway.
14.. ..d7 1 5 a4 bxa3 1 6 :xa3 tiJh5!
. .ib7 6 lLlc3 axb5 7 .ixb5 Wa5 8 e4 lLlxe4 9
Immediately exploiting the misplaced
queen on e2; the threat of ...lLlf4 is hard to
meet.
17 .bg7 �xg7 1 8 g3
1 8 . . . tiJf4! 1 9 gxf4 •g4+ 20 �h 1 .i.xb5
21 :xa8 .i.xd3 22 •xd3 :xa8 23 f5 tDd7
White has managed to avoid losing ma­
terial but his position is a wreck. Black has
control of the only open file and White's
pawn structure is shattered.
24 •e3 tiJf6 25 tDd2 :a2 26 :g 1 �5
27 f3 :xd2 28 •xd2 •xf3+ 29 •g2
"'xe4 30 fxg6 hxg6 31 •xe4 tiJxe4 32
:e 1 f5 33 h4 �6 34 �g2 tiJc3 0-1
Game 53
Timoshchenko-Adams
London (L layds Bank) 1992
1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
li:lc3 axb5 6 e4 ••5?!
A very risky approach for Black, par­
ticularly in the context of this �e. At
the same tournament the previous year,
Adams had played in identical fashion.
This time, however, his opponent was
ready for him.
7 e5!
Also playable are 7 .td2 b4 8 e5 bxc3 9
i.xc3, transposing to the next main game,
and 7 .ixb5 lbxe4 8 lbge2, reaching a posi-
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 tD c 3
tion that can arise from the variation 5 e3
lLlge2, except that here Black's bishop is
still on c8! However, Black can try
8 ...lLlxc3 9 lLlxc3 .ia6 10 .id3 g6 1 1 0-0
.ig7 with an unclear position in Psaras­
Arkhipov, Azov 1993. In view of his suc­
cess in the main game White should stick
to 7 e5!
7 ..• b4
In their earlier encounter, Timosh­
chenko-Adams, London (Lloyds Bank
Masters) 1991, Adams had tried 7 ... lLle4 8
.id2 lLlxd2 9 Wxd2 b4, but he probably
did not fancy playing against his own sug­
gestion 10 lLle4, which looks horrible for
Black.
8 tiJb5!
8 .id2 bxc3 9 .ixc3 transposes to the
next game.
8 ... tDe4
Timoshchenko had already demon­
strated the correct response to 8 ... .ia6: 9
a4! bxa3+ 10 .td2 Wb6 1 1 exf6 axb2 12
l:b 1 .ixb5 13 l:xb2 Wxf6 14 l:xb5 We5+
15 .ie2 Wxd5 16 .if3 We5+ 17 lLle2 and
White won quickly in Timoshchenko­
Zupe, Maribor 1990.
9 .i.c4 .i.a6 1 0 •d3!
A key refinement on 10 We2 b3+ 1 1
�fl .ixb5 1 2 .ixb5 Wxa2 1 3 :xa2 bxa2
14 Wxe4 a1W 15 lLle2, as in Agrest­
Zolotov, USSR 1988. The only difference,
1 15
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
but a fundamental one, between this ex­
ample and the main game is that Timosh­
chenko's approach allows him to place the
king on e2 and thereby develop his knight
to the active f3-square.
1 o . . b3+ 1 1 �e2 .i.xb5 1 2 .i.xb5 •xa2
. opponent.
1 3 l:l.xa2 bxa2 1 4 •xe4 a 1 • 1 5 lbf3
Although Black is the exchange up, his
position is very difficult because he is a
long way behind in mobilising his pieces.
1 5 . . .-.a5 1 6 .i.c4 e6 1 7 l:l.d 1 .i.e7 1 8 .i.g5
Apparently Timoshchenko had even
had this a position before in a rapidplay
game. Fritz now prefers 18 ... .i.xg5 19
tbxg5 1:ta7, providing some lateral cover­
age of the second rank. However, only a
very brave man would voluntarily choose
to defend this position.
1 8 . . . l:l.a7 1 9 .i.xe7 �xe7 20 lbg5 •b4 21
..f4 f6??
1 16
A blunder, but Black was in dire straits
m any case.
22 exf6+ gxf6 23 d6+ �e8 24 •xf6
•xc4+ 1 -0
After 25 ..t>e 1 White will soon mate his
Game 54
Liardet-Wang
Geneva open 1997
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5
tt:lc3 •a5! ?
A tricky sideline which may appeal to
some Black players.
6 .i.d2
It is not clear what White's best option
is here. The alternatives are:
a) 6 b6 .i.b7! (6 ... Wxb6 would just leave
Black a whole tempo down on Chapter 4)
7 .i.d2 Wxb6 8 e4 e6 and now:
a1) 9 .i.c4 tbxe4! 10 tbxe4 exdS and
Black is on top.
a2) 9 dxe6 Wxe6 10 f3 .i.d6! (not
10 ... d5? 1 1 Wb3! We7 12 0-0-0 , as in Chris­
tiansen-Andrianov, New York open 1990)
1 1 .i.d3 0-0 12 tbge2 .i.e5, intending ... d7-
d5 with a very messy position in Gorelov­
Ochoa de Echaugen, Moscow 1982.
a3) 9 tbh3!? exdS 10 e5, and now instead
of 10 ...tbe4 1 1 tbf4 tbxc3 12 bxc3 Wc7 13
.i.e2 Wxe5 14 0-0 .i.e7 15 l:te1 Wd6 16 llb1
.i.c6 17 tbh5, when White had plenty of

play for the sacrificed material in Ne­
nashev-Sagalchik, Frunze open 1989, per­
haps 10 ......e6!? 1 1 ...e2 ltJg4.
b) 6 bxa6!? �xa6 7 �d2 �6 8 e4 �xf1
9 �1 d6 10 l:.b 1 g6 1 1 ttJf3 �g7 12 g3 0-0
13 �g2 with a typical Benko Gambit Ac­
cepted pos1t1on in Timoshchenko­
Marinkovic, Vmjacka Banja 1990. Black
has actually lost a tempo with his queen
here, so White should be slightly better off
than in the main line positions of the first
two chapters, but this is not a major fac­
tor.
6 . . . axb5 7 e4 b4 8 e5 bxc3 9 .i.xc3 Wa4
9 ...�6?! has been unpopular since the
game Naumkin-Janovsky, Moscow
Championship 1988: 10 exf6 gxf6 1 1 tLlh3!
d6 12 lLlf4 �h6 13 ttJh5 and White had a
firm grip on the kingside.
10 Wxa4
10 exf6 should be met by 10 ...gxf6 1 1
"i'xa4 l:.xa4 transposing to the game rather
than 10 ......xd1+ 1 1 l:.xd1 gxf6 12 a3! l:.g8
13 �d3 and White was on top m
Touzane-Matevzic, Budapest 1993.
1 0 . . . l:txa4 1 1 exf6 gxf6
12 tiJf3
This may be too routine. Numerous
moves have been tried for White here,
including:
a) 12 �e2 l:.g8 13 �f3 d6 14 b3 l:.a7! 15
lLle2 tLla6 16 0-0 ltJc7 17 l:.fd1 �h6 18 �e4
.ig4 was fine for Black in Danner-
4 c x b 5 a 6 5 tiJ c 3
Greenfeld, Timisoara 1983.
b) In Breutigam-Hertneck, German
Bundesliga 1990/9 1, White tried 12 �b5!?
l:.a7 13 lLle2 �a6 14 �xa6, and now in­
stead of 14 ... lLlxa6? 15 d6 after which
Black was struggling, I suggest 14 ... :txa6
followed by ... d7-d6 and ... tLld7, when
Black should be okay.
Certainly if White does not pin down
his opponent early, he will be saddled
with a weak d-pawn and Black's pieces
will soon become active.
1 2 . . . .i.b7 !
Strong play by the Chinese grandmas­
ter, recognising that 13 d6 can be met by
13 ... �xf3!, e.g. 14 dxe7? l:te4+ 15 �d2
�h6+ and wins or 14 gxf3 e5 and White's
position is a mess. The d4-square beckons
for a knight and the d6-pawn will soon
drop.
1 3 0-0-0 l:txa2 1 4 �b1 :as 1 5 .i.b5 l:tgS
1 6 tiJh4?
Poor. 16 g3 would have given White
more chances to complicate matters.
1 6 . . . l:tg5! 1 7 d6 c4!
Excellent. Black hits the b5-bishop and
threatens a nasty check on e4. White is
busted.
1 8 .i.xc4 l:tg4! 1 9 dxe 7 .i.xe 7 20 l:td4
l:txd4 0-1
Liardet did not want to see 21 �xd4
�e4+ 22 �cl l:.a1+. A very nice game by
Wang.
1 17
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

Summary
Although the aggressive 5 tlJc3 has always had its supporters at club level, it is rarely
seen at grandmaster level. However, the fact that super-grandmaster Ivan Sokolov has
recently been experimenting with it suggests that it is not as bad as its reputation. In
the main line 14 d6 {Game 49) is pretty much out of business, but Sokolov's 14 'i'f3
presents Black with quite a few problems. Despite this, in the notes to Game 50 a
couple of possible antidotes are offered. If instead of the normal 8 .tf4 White tries 8
tlJf3 {Game 5 1) or 8 .i.c4 {Game 52) Black should be able to achieve an easy game with
natural moves (watch out for 8 .i.c4 g6 9 e5!? though!). There does not appear to be a
great deal wrong with the offbeat 5 ... 'i'a5 {Game 54), but the same cannot be said for
5 . . axb5 6 e4 'I'aS?! {Game 53), as Michael Adams found out to his cost - avoid it!
.

1 d4 lDf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 ltJc3

5 . . . axb5
5 . . 1i'a5 - Game 54
.

6 e4 (0) b4
6 . . . 'i'a5 - Game 53
7 liJb5 d6 (0) 8 .i.f4
8 tlJf3 Game 51
-

8 .i.c4 - Game 52
8 . . . g5 9 .i.xg5 ltJxe4 10 .i.f4 .i.g7 1 1 'ife2 liJf6 12 ltJxd6 + �8 13 ltJxc8 'ifxc8 (DJ
1 4 d6
14 'i'f3 - Game 50
1 4 . . . exd6 - Game 49

6 e4 7. . . d6 13 . . . 'i'xc8

1 18
 CHA PTER NINE I
4 liJf3 g6
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c 5 3 d 5 b 5 4 lbf3 g6
In the last three chapters of the book
we shall consider White's fourth move
alternatives to the usual 4 cxb5. The most
common of these is 4 lDf3, simply devel­
oping a piece and waiting for Black to
commit himself. Black must decide
whether he wants to try and force a 'pure'
Benko-type position with 4 ... g6, as in this
chapter, or try and mix things up, as in
the next chapter.
After 4 lDf3 g6 White is again presented
with a choice of whether or not to snatch
the b-pawn. If White accepts the gambit,
play will often transpose to the main line
after 5 cxb5 a6, but note that if White
now plays 6 e3 Black is no longer able to
reach Chapter 6, as he is already commit­
ted to a kingside fianchetto. There is also
one final possibility for White after 5 cxb5
a6, the sharp 6 lDc3 axb5 7 d6!? and it is to
this that the first two games of this chap­
ter are devoted.
In the rest of this chapter we shall con­
sider quieter possibilities for White, some
of which bear a marked resemblance to
the variations dealt with in Chapter 1 1 . In
turn we shall look at 5 _.c2 {Games 57
and 58), 5 lDbd2 {Game 59) and 5 a4
(Game 60) respectively.
Game 55
Groszpeter-Hertneck
Mitropa Cup 1990
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lbf3 g6 5
cxb5 a6 6 lbc3
Note that after 6 b6 Black is not
obliged to transpose to Chapter 4, Game
26 with 6 ... d6 7 lDc3 ..i.g7, but can instead
play 6 ... a5. The key difference here is that
White has already committed his knight
to f3 and is therefore unable to build up a
dangerous pawn centre with f2-f4, lDf3
and e2-e4. However, after 7 lDc3 ..ia6 8 e4
..txf1 9 �xf1 d6 10 'iVa4+! Black has real
problems to solve, as we saw in Chapter 4,
Game 28.
Another possibility for White, 6 'iVc2,
is considered in the notes to Game 57, but
if White is determined to mix things up he
can also try 6 e4!?, giving back the pawn
for rapid development. After 6 ... lDxe4
S.Mirkovic-Z.Dukic, Yugoslavia 1997,
went 7 'iVc2! f5?! 8 lDbd2 lDf6 9 'iVxc5 d6
10 _.d4 with the better chances for White.
However, it does not make much sense to
weaken the kingside with 7 .. .f5?! Perhaps
Black should play 7.....a5+ 8 lDbd2 lDd6!,
intending to meet 9 'iVxc5 by 9 .....tg7 with
1 19
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
some compensation for the pawn, e.g. 10
a4 axbS 11 ..ixbS 0-0 12 b4 tLla6!
6 . . . axb5 7 d6! ?
White takes the opportunity t o mess
things up. Black's problem is that after
... e7xd6 his pawn structure would be crip­
pled, whereas if he neglects to capture on
e7, then White may just play d6xe7 at
some point. The toothless 7 e4 b4 8 tLlf3
transposes to Game 5 1 in the previous
chapter, but 8 eS!? would give the game an
independent flavour. For example,
8 ... bxc3 9 exf6 'ii'aS 10 bxc3 'ii'xc3+ 1 1
..id2 'ii'xf6 1 2 l:.cl ..ig7 1 3 ..ic4 0-0 1 4 0-0
..ia6 with an unclear position in Tozer­
Nicholson, British Championship, Ply­
mouth 1989.
7 . . .'ifa5
The sharpest move, preventing e2-e4
and protecting the b-pawn, which does
entail a certain amount of risk. Black's
alternatives here are considered in the next
mam game.
8 e3
By far the most popular move, but Fe­
dorowicz also suggests 8 tLld2, renewing
the threat of e2-e4. He gives 8 ... ..ib7 9 e4
tLlxe4 10 tLldxe4 ..ixe4 1 1 ..ixbS ..ig7 12
0-0 ..ixc3 13 'ii'e2 ..if6 14 ..id2 'ii'b 6 15
'ii'e4, while 8 ... exd6 9 e4 tLlc6 (or 9 ... ..ia6
10 tLlbS ..ixbS 12 ..ixbS when White is
also better according to Fedorowicz) 10 a4
tLld4 1 1 ..ixbS ..ia6 12 l:.a3 ..ie7 13 0-0 0-0
1 20
14 tLlc4 also worked out very well for
White in Bellon-D.Gurevich, Bern open
1995.
s . . . exd6
A difficult decision but probably the
best choice. Instead of capturing on d6
Black can also either counterattack in the
centre, develop his queen's knight or pro­
tect the pawn on bS, but none of these
alternatives are entirely convincing:
a) 8 ... tLle4 9 ..id2 tLlxd2 (not 9 ... tLlxd6
10 lLlxbS 'ii'b6 1 1 ..ic3! lLlxbS 12 ..ixh8 f6
13 'ii'b3 and White won quickly in
Pieterse-Berg, Dieren open 1987) 10 tLlxd2
exd6 (forced, due to 10 ... ..ig7 1 1 tLlxbS! 0-0
12 dxe7 l:.e8 13 tLld6) 1 1 ..ixbS ..ig7 12 0-0
0-0 13 tLlc4 'W'c7 14 tLldS 'ii'd8 15 tLldb6
l:!a7 16 'ii'xd6 and White was winning in
Tyrtania-Bukal, St Ingbert 1987.
b) 8 ... tLlc6 9 a4! (8 ..ixbS tLle4! 10 J.d2
tLlxc3 11 ..ixc3 'ii'xbS 12 ..ixh8 f6 favours
Black - Fedorowicz) 8 ... ..ia6 10 tLld2 b4 11
tLlbS ..ixbS 12 ..ixbS exd6, and now in
Levitt-Hertneck, Augsburg 1989, instead
of 13 0-0?! White should have played 13
b3!? and ..ib2 (Levitt) with a promising
position.
c) 8 ... ..ia6 9 a4 (after 9 b4!? Fedorowicz
recommends 9 ...1i'xb4 10 ..id2 c4! 1 1 e4
with an unclear position, although Black
may just be able to snatch a second pawn
with 1 1 . ..1i'xd6 as 12 eS is met by the pin
12 ...1i'e6; perhaps he meant 1 1 a4 instead)

9 ... �g7 {9 ... ti:Jc6 transposes to vanauon
'a', while 9 ... e6?! 10 tt:Jd2 b4 1 1 ti:Jb5 �xb5
12 �xb5 �g7 13 0-0 was also good for
White in Vaisser-Hebden, Cappelle la
Grande open 1987} 10 ti:Jd2 c4 1 1 l:tb 1
bxa4 12 'ii'xa4 'ii'xa4 13 tt:Jxa4 ti:JdS 14
ll:\xc4 �xc4 15 �xc4 :Xa4 16 �xd5 e6 17
i.f3 �e5, as in Psakhis-Hodgson, Tallinn
1987, which Fedorowicz assesses as equal,
although White may be able to make use
of his two bishops and outside passed
pawn with 18 b4!? �xd6 19 bS.
9 .ixb5 ({Je4
Black must act quickly before his op­
ponent can establish a grip on the game.
After 9 ... dS White can follow Gulko­
Renet, Marseilles 1986, which was proba­
bly the game that did most to bring 7 d6!?
to public attention: 10 0-0 �b7 1 1 e4! dxe4
(or 1 1...d4 12 ti:Jxd4! cxd4 13 'ii'xd4 fol­
lowed by �gS with a tremendous attck)
12 tt:Je5 'ii'c7 13 �f4 ti:Jh5 14 tt:JdS 'ii'd6 15
ll:\xd7 ti:Jxf4 16 tt:Jxc5+! �c6 17 tt:Jxe4 'ii'e5
18 �xc6+ tDxc6 19 ti:Jdf6+ 1-0. Also unsat­
isfactory for Black are 9 ... �g7 10 0-0 1i'b6
1 1 e4 0-0 12 ti:Jd2 and 9 ... �a6 10 �xa6
'i'xa6 1 1 a4! �g7 12 ti:Jb5 0-0 13 0-0, as in
Levitt-Hebden, London 1988.
1 0 1i'd3
The real idea behind Black's previous
move is seen after 10 �d2 ti:Jxc3 1 1 �xc3
'i'xbS, when Black is prepared to give up
an exchange for the initiative. Sadler-
4 ({J f3 g 6
Hodgson, London 1988, continued 12 a4
{it may have been better to take the rook
on h8 straightaway, when Fedorowicz
does not believe that Black has sufficient
compensation) 12 ...'ii'c4 13 �xh8 �a6 14
l:tcl?! {14 ti:Jd2 looks better) 14 ...'ii'e4 15
'ii'b3 ti:Jc6 16 �c3 �h6 17 'ii'c2 �d3 with
good play for the sacrificed material. The
game move is an attempted improvement
on that game, but Black reacts strongly.
1 0 . . . ({Jxc3 1 1 bxc3 .ia6! 1 2 .1:1.b1 !
Not 12 'ii'e4+ i..e7 13 'ii'xa8? 'ii'xb5 14
c4 'ii'xc4 15 'ii'xb8+ �d8 16 1i'b2 �f6 and
wins {Hertneck) .
1 2 . . . ..te7 !
White is able to set up a vicious king­
side attack after 12 ... i..xb5 13 l:.xb5 'W'xa2
14 c4 �e7 15 �b2 0-0 16 �e2 'i'a6 17 h4
{Hertneck).
1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 c4 1i'xa2 1 5 e4 .bb5 1 6
cxb5 .l:l.a4!
Despite the 'stalemated' knight on b8,
Black is doing fine, although he might be
happier if the pawn on d7 was simply re­
moved from the board!
1 7 .ib2 .l:l.b4 1 8 ..tc3 1i'c4 1 9 1i'e3 .l:l.xb 1
20 .l:l.xb 1 .l:l.e8 21 ({Jd2 1i'e6 22 1i'd3 f5 23
f3 fxe4 24 fxe4 ..tf6 25 ..txf6 1i'xf6 26
({Jc4 1i'd4+ 27 1i'xd4 cxd4 28 .l:l.a 1 ?
A bizarre decision. It is hard to believe
that White could possibly lose after 28
l:td 1 l:txe4 29 ti:Jxd6.
28 . . . d3 29 .l:l.a8 �g7 30 �2 .l:l.xe4 3 1
12 1
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
l:txb8 l:txc4 32 l:tb7 l:tc2+ 3 3 � 3 � 6 34
l:txd7 �e6 35 l:txh7 l:txg2!
The deciding move. After 36 �xg2 d2
the d-pawn will promote.
36 l:ta7 l:txh2 37 b6 l:tb2 38 b7 g5 39
�e3 d2 40 �e2 g4 41 b8• l:txb8 42
�xd2 l:tg8 0-1
Game 56
G reenfeld-J . Polgar
European Team Ch., Haifa 1989
1 d4 ti:lf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 ti:lf3 g6 5
cxb5 a6 6 ti:lc3 axb5 7 d6! ? ..tg7
This natural developing move is Black's
primary alternative to 7 ...'ii'a5 . However,
it is worth taking a quick look at his other
alternatives:
a) 7 ... b4?! cannot be recommended due
to 8 tt:lb5 tt:la6 9 �f4!, threatening the con­
tinuation 10 tt:lc7+ tt:lxc7 1 1 dxc7 trapping
the queen.
b) The immediate 7 ... exd6?! allows
White to seize the centre with 8 e4. Now
Black not only has to worry about his b­
pawn but also has a problem developing
his king's bishop, which for the time be­
ing is tied down to the defence Ci>f the d­
pawn. For example, 8 ... b4 9 tt:lb5 �a6 10
�f4 'ii'b 6 1 1 a4 �xb5 12 �xb5 tt:lh5
(12 ... �e7 13 0-0 0-0 14 tt:ld2 also gave
White a strong initiative in Ligterink-Van
Rooy, Groningen 1989) 13 �e3 tt:lc6 14
0-0 �e7 15 �h6 l:lg8 16 �c4 and White
had more than enough for the pawn in
Razuvaev-Glek, Tashkent 1984.
c) 7 ... �b7 (to discourage e2-e4) is cur­
rently quite fashionable, and has recently
been played by Benko expert Alexander
Khalifman amongst others. However,
after 8 dxe7 �xe7 9 tt:lxb5 'ii'aS+ 10 tt:lc3
tt:le4 1 1 �d2 (1 1 'ii'b3 also looks interest­
ing) 1 1...tt:lxd2 White can try 12 tt:lxd2 (to
meet 12 ... d5?! with 13 'ii'b3) instead of
Kuzmin's 12 'ii'xd2 d5 13 e3 0-0 with
compensation for the pawn.
1 22
8 e4
It is not clear why 8 dxe7 'ii'xe7 9 tt:lxb5
0-0 (9 ... d5 10 �f4, threatening to land a
piece on c7 or d6, is no better) is not
played more often, as Black is a long way
from justifying his pawn sacrifice. For
example:
a) 10 e3?! d5 1 1 �e2 tt:lc6 12 0-0 �f5 al­
lowed Black his dream position for this
variation in Levitt-Hodgson, London
1988.
b) 10 'ii'd6 'ii'xd6 11 tt:lxd6 .ia6 and
Black has an initiative for the pawn
(Plachetka).
c) 10 .if4! d5?! 11 �d6 'ii'd7 12 �xf8
�8 13 e3 tt:le4 14 tt:ld2 and White was
clearly better in Komarov-Van Riemsdijk,
Nuoro 1993.
8 . . . 0-0
Again Black has a wide choice here:
a) 8 ... tt:lc6 9 �xb5! (9 e5 tt:lg4 is not so
clear) 9 ... tt:lxe4 10 dxe7 WaS 1 1 .ixc6
tt:lxc3 12 bxc3 �xc3+ 13 .id2 dxc6 14 0-0
�xd2 15 tt:lxd2 left Black with serious
problems with his king in Hebden­
S.Ledger, British Championship, Not­
tingham 1996.
b) 8 ....ib7 9 e5 tt:le4 10 tt:lxb5 0-0 11
�e2 tt:lc6 12 dxe7 'ii'xe7 13 tt:ld6 should
also favour White.
c) 8 ... b4!? 9 tt:lb5 0-0 10 e5 tt:lg4 1 1 .igS
is similar to the game, but the insertion of
... b5-b4 and tt:lbS at least means that
 4 ti:J f3 g 6

Black's b-pawn is no longer loose. For axb5 .l:.xa 1 20 .l:.xa 1 .i.b7

example, 1 1..l£lc6!? (1 1...lL!xe5?! is worse
here than in the main game as Black no
longer has the option of ... .i.xc3+, e.g. 12
dxe7 l:e8 13 lL!xe5 .i.xe5 14 .i.c4! [the saf­
est move] 14 ...:Xe7 15 0-0 with a promis­
ing middlegame for White in Blees­
Nieuwenhuis, Netherlands 1987) 12 dxe7
(12 'ii'd5 e6 13 'ii'xc5 'ii'aS and 12 lLlc7 l:a7!
are both more than satisfactory for Black)
12 ...lL!xe7 13 'ii'd6 lL!f5 14 'ii'dS 'ii'aS 15 h3
b3+ 16 .i.d2 'ii'a4 17 hxg4 lL!e7, when the
strange game Grimberg-Koch, Dijon 1987,
concluded 18 'ii'c4?! 'ii'xa2 19 :Xa2?? bxa2
20 'ii'xa2 l:xa2 0-1. Unfortunately this asks With two bishops for two knights
more questions than it answers. White Black should just about be able to hold the
would just appear to be stacks of material draw. However, in the game White goes
up after 18 'ii'xc5 'ii'xa2 19 .:tel, as the badly astray and allows Black a trick.
knight on e7 is hanging. 21 1i'f4 h6 22 h3 �h7 23 .l:.d 1 f5 24
9 e5 Ci:Jg4 1 0 .ig5 Ci:Jxe5 Ci:Jd5 .l:.e2 25 b3 .l:.b2 26 1i'd6 .bd5 27
Here this is necess;uy as 10 ... lL!c6? 1 1 1i'xd5 W'b6 28 Ci:Jd4 1i'c7
i.xb5 f6 1 2 dxe7 lL!xe7 1 3 exf6 lL!xf6 left
Black with nebulous compensation for the
pawn in Agdestein-Bergstad, Norwegian
Championship 1986.
1 1 .txe7 .l:.e8 ! !

A queen sacrifice on move 1 1 ! 12 .i.xd8
l£lxf3 is mate.
12 .txb5 .!Oec6 1 3 0-0 Ci:Jxe7 14 dxe 7
:Xe7 1 5 W'd5 .l:.a5 1 6 1i'xc5
White has picked up a pawn, but mat­
ters are still far from clear.
1 6 . . .lDa6 1 7 1i'c4 Ci:Jc7 1 8 a4 ttJxb5 1 9
29 h4??
A serious blunder. The simplest way to
play was 29 b6 'W'xb6 30 'ii'xd7, when the
weakness of Black's last two ranks still
offers White some winning chances.
29 . . . .1:.d2!
If now 30 :Xd2 Black has 30 ... 'ii'c l+ 3 1
�h2 'ii'xd2 and the knight o n d4 drops.
30 .l:.e 1 .l:.xd4 31 1i'f7 .l:.xh4 32 g3 .l:.e4
33 .l:.d 1 1i'c2 34 1i'xd7 1i'xb3 35 �g2 .l:.e5
36 .l:.d6 1i'b 1 37 1i'f7 f4 38 .l:.d7 f3+ 39
1i'xf3 1i'xb5 40 1i'f7 1i'c6+ 0-1

1 23
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
Game 57
Kallai-Adorjan
Hungarian Team Ch. 1995
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lLlf3 g6 5
'ifc2
A very logical move. White intends to
force through e2-e4 while keeping open
the option of taking on bS. However,
there is nothing wrong with 5 cxbS a6 first
and only now 6 'W'c2. Here 6 ... .i.g7 is
probably Black's best option, as none of
the alternatives are really satisfactory:
a) 6 ... axb5?! 7 'W'xcS d6 8 'W'xb5+ ltJbd7
9 lL\c3 .i.g7 10 g3 0-0 1 1 .i.g2 ltJcS 12 0-0
and Black had next to nothing for the
pawn in Tukmakov-Dukic, Bor 1983.
b) 6 ...'W'b6?! 7 e4 axbS 8 lLlc3 b4 9 lLla4
'W'aS 10 'W'xcS .i.b7 1 1 'W'b6 b3+ 12 'W'xaS
l::txaS 13 lZ\c3 and again Black was strug­
gling to justify his pawn sacrifice in Bagi­
rov-Alburt, USSR Championship, Lenin­
grad 1977.
c) 6 ... lLlxd5 7 'W'xcS "ii'c7? 8 'W'xc7 lLlxc7
9 b6 ltJdS 10 lLlc3 lLlxc3 (10 ... ltJb6 1 1 .i.e3
lL\c4 12 .i.d4 f6 13 ltJdS wins for White) 1 1
bxc3 .i.g7 1 2 l:tb 1 .i.xc3+ 1 3 .i.d2 .i.xd2+
14 �xd2 .i.b7 15 e3 and White easily won
the ending in Yermolinsky-Mason, New
York open 1996.
d) 6 ... .i.g7! 7 'W'xcS (7 e4 transposes to
the notes to White's sixth move) 7 ... 0-0 8
1 24
ltJc3 d6 9 'W'c4 axbS 10 lLlxbS ltJbd7 and
now White chose to give back the pawn
straightaway in I.Sokolov-Khalifman,
Wijk aan Zee open 1995, with 1 1 e3 .i.b7
12 'W'c2 ltJxdS. It would have been more
ambitious for him to have played 13 lZ\c3,
trying to hold on to the pawn.
5.....i.g7
Black's alternatives here are considered
in the next main game.
6 e4
Again White can also choose to throw
in 6 cxbS, although this does give Black
more options, e.g.
a) 6 ...ltJxd5?! 7 e4 lL\c7 8 'W'xcS a6 9 b6
ltJe6 10 "ii'c2 0-0 1 1 .i.e3 .i.b7 12 .i.c4 d6 13
lL\c3 and White was clearly on top in Ag­
destein-Vaganian, Naestved 1985.
b) 6 ... a6 7 e4 axbS!? (7. . . 0-0 transposes
to the main game) 8 .i.xbS 'W'a5+ 9 lZ\c3
.i.a6 10 .i.xa6 lLlxa6 1 1 0-0 ltJb4 12 "ii'e2 ().()
13 .i.e3 ltJg4 14 .i.gS f6 15 .i.d2 'W'a6 16
'W'xa6 .:.Xa6 with a typical Benko Gambit
endgame in Korchnoi-Topalov, Antwerp
1997. Although White over-pressed and
eventually lost this game, he should be
doing well here as none of the knights
have been exchanged and Black has had to
play the undesirable .. .f7-f6.
6...0-0
6 ... bxc4 would transpose to Game 58,
while 6 ... d6 7 cxbS 0-0 8 lL\c3 is another
way to reach the main game.

7 cxb5 a6 8 ti:Jc3 d6
The immediate 8 ... e6?! fails to 9 dxe6
fxe6 10 e5 lbh5 {10 ... lbg4?? loses to 1 1
i'e4) 1 1 .ie3 - Stohl, but 8. . ..tb7, intend­
ing ... e7-e6, looks more energetic than the
text move.
9 a4
As we have already seen in the 5 e3 g6 6
lLlc3 .ig7 variation, it is nearly always
useful to support the bS-pawn with this
move. However, since the c1-g5 diagonal
is open White can also consider 9 .ig5
here, e.g. 9 ... lbbd7 10 a4 {10 .ie2 loses a
tempo after 10 ... axb5 1 1 .ixb5) l l...'Wa5
12 0-0 lbb6 13 :fel with a promising
middlegame for White in Kozul-Brestian,
European Club Cup, Maribor 1995.
9 . . .axb5
Again, we saw in Chapter 5 that it
rarely pays for Black to take on b5 before
White has moved his light-squared bishop.
It is more natural for Black to hit back in
the centre with 9 ... e6! 10 dxe6 .ixe6
{10 ... fxe6?! fails to 1 1 e5! lbd5 12 exd6
'Wxd6 13 lbe4 lbb4 14 'Wb1 'Wd5, Inkiov­
Nikolaidis, Hania open 1992, 15 lbfd2!,
intending .ic4) 11 .ie2 d5!? 12 exd5 lbxd5
13 lbxd5 'Wxd5 14 0-0 axb5 {finally the
time is right!) 15 .ixb5 .tf5 16 'We2 lbc6
17 :dt lbd4 18 lbxd4 cxd4 and Black held
the draw without too much difficulty in
Gorelov-Kishnev, USSR 1985.
1 0 �xb5 �6
4 ti:J f3 g 6
Black never got a look in after 1 0... .ia6
1 1 0-0 .ixb5?! 12 lbxbS lba6 13 .id2 1Wb6
14 .ic3 in B.Alterman-Kovtun, Ukrainian
Championship 1986. However, Black is
never able to equalise after the game move
either.
1 1 0-0 ti:Jb4 1 2 "iie 2 �g4
This does not work out too well for
Black, but White was also on top after
12 ... lbe8 13 .igS lbc7 14 .ic4 h6 15 .ie3
�h7 16 :act in Georgiev-Bellon Lopez,
Elgoibar 1998.
13 h3 �xf3 14 "iixf3 tLlc2 1 5 l:l.b1 e6 1 6
"iid3 Ci:Jd4
Although the knight on d4 looks super­
ficially attractive, it is hard to believe that
Black really has anything for the pawn
here. White is able to consolidate without
difficulty.
1 7 �e3 tLld7 1 8 f4 ti:Jb6 1 9 �h 1
It might have been better to place the
king on h2.
1 9 . . ."iic7 20 b3 exd5 21 �xd4
Perhaps wary of 21 exd5 lbf5 (although
22 .td2 looks like a good response), White
decides to give back the pawn. Even in the
opposite-coloured bishop situation White
retains a clear edge, as Black always has to
worry about the f7-pawn.
21 . . . dxe4 22 'ifxe4 �xd4 23 ti:Jd5 Ci:Jxd5
24 'ifxd5 'ife7 25 l:l.be 1 'iff& 26 g4 l:l.a7
27 l:l.e2 �g7 28 �g2 l:l.b8 29 g5 'ifd8
There is nothing drawish about this po-
1 25
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
sition. White has a clear initiative on the
kingside.
30 l:tfe 1 i.. c3 31 l:tc1 i.. b4 32 l:tc4 l:te7
33 l:tce4 l:tbb7 34 f5!
This key breakthrough has been on the
cards for some time.
34 . . . gxf5 35 'ifxf5 i.. c3 36 i..d3 l:txe4 37
i..xe4 l:txb3 38 i..d 5!
The f-pawn is much more important
than the h-pawn.
38 . . . l:tb2 39 'ifxf7+ �h8 40 l:txb2 i.. xb2
41 h4 c4 42 a5! 'ifc8
The c-pawn is not going anywhere after
42 ... c3 43 'ii'f2!, threatening 'ii'd4+.
43 'ife& 'iff8 44 a& i..d4 45 'iff7 'ifxf7 46
i..xf7 c3 47 i.. b3 d5 48 h5 �g7 49 �3
�8 50 �e2 �e7 5 1 �d3 i..a 7 52 i..xd5
1 -0
Game 58
Zviaginsev-Topalov
Pamplona 1995
1 d4 ttJf& 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 ttJf3 g6 5
'ifc2 bxc4
S ... b4 should be met by 6 a3!, under­
mining the pawn front. After 6 ... bxa3 7
l:.xa3 d6 the safest option for White is 8
tLlc3. Instead the game Priehoda-Vajda,
Budapest 1996, led to some very enterpris­
ing play: 8 e4 lLlxe4!? 9 'ii'xe4 .i.fS 10 'ii'f4
.i.xb 1 1 1 tLlgS f6 12 lLle6 'ii'c8 (l2 ... 'ii'b6
was also interesting) 13 .i.d3 .i.xd3 14
l:.xd3 with good play for the pawn.
The problem with 5 ... tLla6 is that after
6 a3 Black is left struggling to find a way
to bring the knight into the game, e.g.
6 ... bxc4 7 e4 .i.g7 (7 ...'ii'a5+ is too risky: 8
.i.d2 tLlb4 9 'ii'xc4 .i.h6 10 .i.c3 [Fritz sug­
gests the highly enterprising 10 'ii'c3!? 0-0
1 1 b3, breaking the pin on the rook]
10 ...'ii'a4 1 1 .i.xb4 cxb4 and now in Nik­
cevic-Ristic, Yugoslav Team Champion­
ship 1992, White inexplicably failed to
play 12 eS, forcing the knight back to g8
as 12 ... lLlh5 13 g4 lLlf4 14 gS drops a piece)
126
8 .i.xc4 tLlc7 9 tLlc3 d6 10 0-0 0-0 11 .i.gS
and White has a comfortable edge in Por­
tisch-Benitah, Biel 1998.
6 e4 i..g 7
6 ...j_a6 allows White an easy edge with
7 tLlbd2 .i.g7 8 .i.xc4 .i.xc4 9 lLlxc4 d6 10
0-0 0-0 11 .i.d2, as in Priehoda-Collas, Bu­
dapest 1996.
7 i..xc4 d6 8 0-0 0-0
After 8 ... .i.g4 Stohl suggests 9 lLlfd2!?,
embarrassing the bishop.
9 h3
This semi-waiting may be somewhat
superfluous, as White can always meet
... .i.g4 with ltJd2, when it is not clear what
Black has really achieved. The problem is
that 9 lLlc3 can be met by 9 ... .i.a6!
(9 ... tLlbd7 10 h3 transposes to the note to
White's tenth move in main game, al­
though White also has 10 l:.e1!? - see be­
low) 10 lLld2 lLlfd7! (after 10 ...'ii'c8 1 1 a4!
lLlbd7 12 lLlbS lLle8 13 l:.e1 .i.xbS 14 hbS
White had a firm grip on the queenside in
Meduna-Votava, Tumov 1996) 1 1 b3 lLleS
12 .i.b2 lLlxc4 13 lLlxc4 tLld7 14 ttJd1 .i.xc4
15 bxc4 .i.xb2 16 lLlxb2 'ii'aS with equality
in Videki-Hertneck, Kecskemet 1988. In
view of this 9 l:.e1!? may be the best move,
ready to meet 9 ... .i.g4 with 10 tLld2,
9 ... .i.a6 with 10 tLla3! followed by .i.d2-c3
and 9 ... tLlbd7 with 10 tLlc3, when Black
still cannot really make use of the g4-
square, e.g. 10 ... tLlg4 1 1 .i.e2 tLlgeS

(l l ... l:tb8!? looks better, waiting for h2-h3)
12 ltJd2 ltJb6 13 f4 ltJed7 14 a4 a5 15 ltJf3
and White was on top in Pachman­
Ludgate, Haifa Olympiad 1976.
9 . 0.bd7
. .
9 ....i.a6 is well met by 10 ltJa3! with the
idea of .i.d2-c3, e.g. 10 ... ltJfd7 11 .i.d2 ltJb6
12 .i.xa6 ltJxa6 13 .i.c3 with a pleasant
position for White.
10 .l:.d 1
After 10 ltJc3 ltJb6 1 1 .i.e2 Black tried
to take advantage of White's slow play to
re-route the king's knight with 1 1...ltJe8!?
12 .i.f4 ltJc7 13 l:tad1 a5 14 a4 ltJa6 in Ag­
destein-P.Cramling, Ostersund 1986. Of
course it was also possible to play 1 1...e6
12 dxe6 .i.xd6 13 l:td1 1i'e7, transposing to
the game.
1 0 0.b6 1 1 .i.e2 e6
•..
There was not a lot wrong with Pia
Cramling's 1 1...ltJe8!? here either, intend­
ing ...ltJc7.
12 dxe6 .i.xe6
Not 12 ... fxe6 13 e5, but after the game
move Black can meet 13 e5 with
13 ... ltJfd5.
13 0.c3 'i'e7 1 4 .i.g5 h6 1 5 .i.h4
After 15 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 16 1i'd2 .i.g7! 17
'i'xd6 1i'xd6 18 l:txd6 l:tfd8 the two bish­
ops ensure that Black has perfectly ade­
quate compensation for the pawn.
1 5 . . . .1:.ad8
A position of real dynamic imbalance
4 ti:J f3 g 6
has been reached. Black is ready to play
... g6-g5 followed by ... d6-d5, liquidating
his main weakness. White decides to back­
track with his rook to prevent this ma­
noeuvre, but he is met by some very un­
compromising play.
1 6 .l:.e 1 g5 1 7 ..tg3 0.h5 ! ? 1 8 ..th2 f5 1 9
exf5 .i.xf5 20 Wd 1 d5!?
Faced with the threat of 2 1 .i.c4+ Black
decides to sacrifice a piece to get at the
white king.
21 g4 .i.e4 22 gxh5 Wf7
23 0.xe4
23 .i.d6 .i.xc3 (not 23 ... l:txd6 24 ltJxe4)
24 .i.xf8 l:txf8 25 bxc3 g4!? 26 hxg4 1i'f4 27
'it>h 1 ltJc4 28 l:tg1 ltJd2 29 l:tg3 ltJxf3 30
.i.xf3 .i.xf3+ 3 1 1i'xf3 1i'xf3+ 32 lhf3 lhf3
33 l:td1 l:txf2 peters out to equality accord­
ing to Zviaginsev.
23 . . .dxe4 24 Wc2
Sensibly giving back the piece to retain
a slight edge. 24 ltJd2 .i.xb2 would have
been very risky.
24 . . . exf3 25 ..tn 'i'xh5
There was no real rush to capture this
pawn. Stohl recommends 25 ... .i.d4.
26 .l:.e7 .l:.f7 27 .l:.ae 1 ..td4??
see follo wing diagram
The losing move. 27 ... .i.f6 would have
kept out of trouble.
28 ..tc7 ! .l:.df8 29 ..txb6 axb6 30 .i.c4
'i'h4
127
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
Black had probably missed 30.. .'i'xh3
3 1 .i.xf7+ �h8 (not 3 l...:.xf7 32 'i'g6+
l:.g7 33 l:.e8 mate) 32 'i'h7+! �7 33
.i.e6+ (Zviaginsev) winning back the
queen with a won ending.
31 .i.xf7+ �h8 32 : 1 e3 Wxh3 33 Wh7+
The same trick again.
33 . . . �xh7 34 .i.e&+ �g6 35 .i.xh3 .i.xe3
36 :xe3 h5 37 .i.d7 g4 38 :e&+ �g5 39
:xb6 :t4 40 :c6?
This almost lets the win slip. The sim­
ple 40 l:.b5! l:.c4 41 b4! l:r.d4 42 bxc5! l:r.xd7
43 c6+ would have won on the spot.
40 . . . :c4 41 b4 :xb4?
And Black returns the compliment.
There is still a lot of work to do after
41...l:.cl+ 42 �h2 c4 43 l:.c5+ �f4 44 l:.f5+
�e4 45 l:.xh5 l:r.fl 46 .i.xg4 l:.xf2+ 47 �h3
l:.xa2 (Zviaginsev) .
42 :xc5+ �h4 43 .i.e8 g3 44 :xh5+
�g4 45 :b5 :d4 46 .i.h5+ �4 47 fxg3+
�xg3 48 :g5+ �h4 49 :g4+! 1 -0
The black king is outside the 'square'.
Game 59
Rogozenko-B .Aiterman
Euro. Team Ch., Debrecen 1992
1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJf3 c5 3 d5 g6 4 c4 b5 5
tiJbd2
Again White intends to force through
e2-e4.
5 . . . .i.g7
1 28
By analogy with Game 70 Black's best
course of action may be 5 ... bxc4 6 e4 c3!
6 e4 0-0!?
Continuing to offer the b-pawn. After
6 ... bxc4 7 .i.xc4 d6 8 0-0 0-0 White has
Keene's unusual 9 l:.b1!?, removing the
rook from the long diagonal in order to
fianchetto the dark-squared bishop. Both
9 ... .i.a6 10 b3 and 9 ... ttJbd7 10 b3 tiJb6 1 1
.i.b2 allow White to carry out his plan,
while 9 ... .i.g4 10 l:.e1 tiJbd7 1 1 h3, as in
Sosonko-Bosboom, Brussels Zonal 1993,
also looks a little better for White and
makes a lot of sense.
7 .i.d3
After 7 cxb5 a6 Black has adequate play
for the pawn with either 8 bxa6 e6! (Ma­
rin) or 8 'i'c2 'i'aS 9 a4 d6 10 l:.a3 'i'b4 1 1
i-e2 .i.d7!?, as in Marin-Sion Castro, An­
dorra open 1997. However, the less greedy
8 b6 'i'xb6 9 tlJc4 looks more promising,
when Sadler-Kumaran, Dublin Zonal
1993, continued 9 ...'i'b7 10 .i.d3 d6 1 1
.i.d2 tiJbd7 1 2 l:.cl tiJb6 1 3 tiJaS 'i'd7 14
'i'b3 'i'c7 15 tlJc6 with a very messy posi­
tion.
7 . . . bxc4
Now that the bishop has moved this
move makes perfect sense, since 8 .i.xc4
would lose a tempo. It is too risky for
Black to play on the queenside with 7 ... d6
8 0-0 b4 9 a3 aS, when White quickly as­
sumed the initiative with 10 axb4 cxb4 1 1

h3 �fd7 12 �b3 a4 13 l:r.e1 i..b 7 14 �bd4
in Ftacnik-Gyorkos, Friedberg-Hartberg
1995.
8 &Dxc4 ..ta6 9 'ii'e 2
The correct square for the queen. After
9 ...c2?! e6! White cannot play 10 d6, be­
cause after 10 ... �c6 Black threatens a fork
on b4. B.Kogan-Albun, USA Champion­
ship 1983, continued instead 10 dxe6 fxe6
1 1 e5 �dS 12 a3 �c6 and Black already
held a clear advantage.
9 . . . e6! 1 0 dxe6?!
White should have taken the opportu­
nity to play 10 d6, e.g. 10 ... �c6 1 1 0-0
lL!g4 12 h3 i..xc4 13 i..xc4 �ge5 with an
unclear position - B.Alterman.
10 •.• fxe6 1 1 0-0 &Dc6 1 2 a3?
A complete waste of time. After 12
lDd6! the game is still very much in the
balance.
12 •.. lbh5! 1 3 &Dd6? !
Inviting trouble. 13 l:te1 was safer.
1 3 . . .l:.xf3 ! 1 4 ..txa6
After 14 gxf3 �d4 15 ..,d1 i..e 5 16 c.ii>g2
(or 16 i..xa6 ... h4 17 f4 �xf4 18 i..xf4
...xf4) 16 ......h4 17 l:th 1 i..xd3 18 ...xd3
i..xd6 White is in a mess.
14 . . • &Dd4 1 5 'ii'd 1 ..te5!?
15 ......h4! may have been even better,
but Black has a tremendous initiative in
any case.
1 6 &Dc4 ..txh2+! 1 7 �xh2 'ii'h4+ 1 8 �g 1
l:.af8! 1 9 ..te3
4 &D f3 g 6
1 9 . . .l:.h3
Rather gilding the lily. The simple
19 ... �g3! 20 fxg3 l:txf1+ 21 ...xf1 l:r.xf1+ 22
�xf1 (or 22 l:.xf1 �e2+ 23 �f2 �xg3)
22 ......xe4! was perfectly sufficient for vic­
tory.
20 gxh3 &Df3+?
And this lets the win slip. After
20 ... l:r.f3! White would have had to give up
his queen to avoid mate.
21 �g2 'ii'xe4 22 l:.g 1 &Dd2+ 23 �h2
&Df3+ 24 �g2
25 �h 1 �e1+ is also a draw.
24 . . . &Dd2+ 25 �h2 % - %
Game 60
Ermenkov-Hebden
Euro. Team Ch., Haifa 1989
1 d4 &Df6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 &Df3 g6 5 a4
For the sake of completeness, we
should also consider two other possibili­
ties for White:
a) 5 �fd2 i.. g7 6 e4 bxc4 7 �c3 0-0 8
�xc4 d6 9 i..e2 �bd7 10 0-0 i..a6 1 1 �e3
i..xe2 12 'ii'xe2 l:tb8 and Black had already
equalised in Petursson-Geller, Reykjavik
open 1984.
b) 5 g3 d6 6 i..g2 i.. g7 7 0-0 (7 cxb5 led
to a quick debacle in Spassov-Adorjan,
Sochi 1977: 7 ...a6 8 bxa6 ...aS+ 9 �c3 �e4
10 ...c2?? �xc3 1 1 i..d2 ...a4! 0-1) 7 ... �bd7
8 �fd2 0-0 9 l:r.e1 a6 10 ...c2 l:tb8 with a
1 29
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
comfortable game for Black in Haik-Van
der Sterren, Amsterdam 1980.
5 . . . bxc4
Also playable is S ... b4 (or S ... 'iraS+ 6
.td2 b4) and now:
a) 6 ttJbd2 d6 7 e4 .tg7 8 .td3 0-0 9 0-0
eS 10 dxe6 .txe6 1 1 h3 tiJc6 with equality
in Hubner-Hodgson, German Bundesliga
1995/96.
b) 6 g3 d6 7 .tg2 .tg7 8 0-0 0-0 9 tiJe1 aS
10 l:[a2 l:[al 1 1 b3 e6 12 dxe6 .txe6 and
again Black was fine in Nemet­
D.Gurevich, Geneva open 1992.
c) 6 b3 .tg7 7 .tb2 0-0 8 g3 e6 9 dxe6
fxe6 10 .tg2 d5 1 1 ttJbd2 .tb7 and Black
had a promising central position in Bellon­
Hebden, Malaga 1987.
6 lbc3 d6 7 e4 .tg7 8 lLif3
This posttton is sometimes reached
from the move order 4 a4 bxc4 5 tiJc3 d6 6
e4 g6 7 .txc4 .tg7 8 ttJf3, as indeed was
the case in this game.
8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 .ta6
As we saw in Game 58 this is a desirable
exchange for Black. 9 ... .tg4 10 h3 .txf3 1 1
'irxf3 ttJbd7 1 2 'ire2 l:lb8 1 3 f4 gave White
a free role in the centre in Brenninkmeijer­
Nieuwenhuis, Netherlands 1987.
1 0 .tb5 .txb5 1 1 axb5 lLibd7 1 2 h3
This looks like a waste of time. 12 'ire2,
1 30
intending l:.d1 and .tf4 straightaway,
seems more to the point.
1 2 . . .lbe8 !
This is a fine idea, exploiting White's
insipid play to regroup the knight .
1 3 We2 lbc7 1 4 .i.f4 lbb6 1 5 l:tfd1 l:te8
A more ambitious plan for Black is
Hebden's earlier 15 ... tiJc8!?, freeing the
queen's rook to attack the b-pawn. After
16 tiJd2 l:.b8 17 tiJb3 'ird7 Black was al­
ready close to rounding up the pawn in
Groszpeter-Hebden, European Team
Championship, Plovdiv 1983. Although
Fedorowicz believes that White has suffi­
cient compensation after 18 tiJaS ttJxbS 19
tiJc6 ttJxc3 20 bxc3 l:tb3 2 1 l:a2 .txc3 22
'Wc4, I think that as long as Black plays
22 ... l:[b2 instead of 22 ... 'irb7?? 23 l:.c2 gS
24 .tel 1-0 (as in the game) he should be
fine. For example, 23 .:txal!? (23 'irxc3
:.xa2 24 i.h6 f6 25 l:[b1 tiJb6 does not
look like anything special) 23 ... ttJxa7 24
'W'xc3 l:fb8 25 ttJxb8 :Xb8 26 i.h6 f6 and
there is no way through.
1 6 .i.g3 WbS 1 7 lLid2 a6 1 8 bxa6 WeB
1 9 lbb3
Or 19 a7 'irb7 and Black regains the
pawn.
1 9 .. Jlxa6 20 Wf1 l:txa 1 21 :xa 1 lLid7 22
lba5 lLibS 23 lbc4 % - %
 4 &fJ f3 g 6

Summary
The main advantage of 4 lt:Jf3 from White's point of view is that it keeps open many
of his options. After the usual 4 ... g6 White can either transpose to Chapters 1-3 with 5
cxb5 a6 6 bxa6, play in similar fashion to Chapter 4 with 5 b6 or try one of the many
other moves that are covered in this chapter. The sharpest of these ideas is 5 cxb5 a6 6
tLlc3 axb5 7 d6!?, which leads to totally bizarre positions, as we saw in the first two
games of this chapter.
A more prudent course of action is 5 'ii'c2, trying to force through e2-e4, which is
covered in Games 57-58. In that case I like the simple 5 ...bxc4 followed by the usual
... i.g7, ... d7-d6 and ... 0-0. Topalov's play in Game 58 would have been a nice example of
how to handle this variation if he later hadn't blundered the game.
Finally, White can try 5 lDbdl (Game 59} or 5 a4 (Game 60}, but as we have seen,
Black has nothing to worry about in those variations.

1 d4 &fJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 &fJf3 g6

5 cxb5
5 'ii'c2 (D)
5 ... i.g7 - Game 57
5 ... bxc4 - Game 58
5 lDbdl - Game 59
5 a4 - Game 60
5 . . a6 6 &fJc3 axb5 7 d6 (DJ Wa5
.

7 ... i.g7 - Game 56

8 e3 (DJ - Game 55

5 'ii'c 2 7 d6 8 e3

131
 CHAPTER TEN I
4 lt:Jf3 i-b 7 and Other
Fourth Moves for Black

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lLlf3
In this chapter we shall consider Black's
alternatives to 4 ... g6 after 4 tt'lf3. By far the
most common of these is 4 ... .ib7 (Games
61-64), preventing White from taking on
b5 (5 cxb5?! .ixd5 gives Black a huge pres­
ence in the centre). White has numerous
ways to counter 4 ... .ib7 and we shall con­
sider 5 a4 (Games 61 and 62), 5 'ill'c2
(Game 63) and 5 tt'lbd2 (Game 64) in some
detail.
Black's other fourth move alternatives,
4 ... bxc4 and 4 ... b4, are considered in
Games 65 and 66 respectively. Note that Although Black would ideally like to
4 ... e6 transposes to the Blumenfeld Gam­ keep the tension, this move is somewhat
bit, which 1s outside the scope of this risky. The opening of the a-file is to
book. White's advantage as it is much easier for
him to mobilise his remaining forces. It is
Game 61 better for Black to block the queenside
Dorfman-Mochalov with 5 ... b4 or 5 ...'ill'a5+ 6 .id2 b4 (see the
USSR 1981 next game), since 5 ... bxc4 6 tt'lc3 leads to
an inferior version of Game 60. In that
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lLlf3 ..tb7 5 case it is far from clear that Black's bishop
a4 performs any useful function on b7, as the
see follo wing diagram
following variations demonstrate:
a) 6 ... e6 7 e4 tt'lxe4?! (7 ...exd5 8 exd5 d6
A standard move which aims to force 9 i.xc4 .ie7 is better, although the black
Black to commit himself immediately on bishop would much rather be on g7) 8
the queenside. tt'lxe4 exd5 9 tt'lc3 d4 10 .ixc4! dxc3 11
5 ... a6?! .ixf7+ �xf7 12 'ill'h3+ and White went on

1 32
 4 ti:J f3 i.b 7 a n d O th e r Fo u r t h M o v e s fo r Bla c k
to victory i n the famous game Rubinstein­
Spielmann, Vienna 1922.
b) 6 ... 'ii'a5?! 7 .i.d2 tba6 8 e4! tbb4 9
.ixc4 .i.a6 10 b3! tDd3+ 1 1 �e2 tbb2 12
ttlb5 and White had rebuffed his oppo­
nent's premature attack in Sosonko­
Knaak, Amsterdam 1974.
c) 6 ... g6 7 e4 d6 8 .i.xc4 tbbd7 9 a5 .i.g7
10 h3 0-0 1 1 0-0 tbe8 12 'ii'e2 tbc7 13 .i.f4
and White had a slight plus due to the
misplaced bishop on b7 in Sadler-Vescovi,
Malmo 1995.
6 axb5!
The only real test of Black's idea. 6
"i'h3 gives Black the chance to change his
mind with 6 ... b4!, when the queen on b3
is in the way of a queenside fianchetto,
while 6 tbfd2?! bxc4 7 e4 e6 8 dxe6 dxe6 9
ttlc3 tbc6 was already slightly better for
Black in Kavalek-Miles, Haifa Olympiad
1976.
6 axb5 7 l:txaa i.xa8 8 ti:Jc3
...
This forces Black to make a difficult de­
cision about what to do with his threat­
ened b-pawn.
a . . :eas
Since 8 ... bxc4? 9 e4 d6 10 1i'a4+ tbbd7
1 1 .i.xc4 is clearly bad for Black {Fedoro­
wicz) Black must choose between the
game move and the alternative 8 ... b4,
when White has two possibilities worthy
of consideration:
a) 9 'ii'a4!? bxc3 10 'ii'xa8 cxb2 (after
10 ... tbc6 1 1 1i'xd8 tbxd8 12 bxc3 White is
a pawn up in the ending, although the win
is problematic with so little scope for his
bishops) 1 1 .i.xb2 1i'b6 12 'ii'a3 with equal­
ity - ECO.
b) 9 tDb5 1i'b6 (or 9 ... 'ii'a5 10 e4!? tbxe4
1 1 'ii'e2 1i'a1 [ 1 1...f5 12 tbd2] 12 1i'e3 tba6
13 .i.d3 with a powerful initiative for the
pawn) 10 .i.f4! tbxd5 (or 10 ... tDa6 1 1 e4!?)
1 1 cxd5 1i'xb5 12 e4 and again White has
plenty of play for the pawn. For example,
12 ... 1Wb7 13 1Wa4 e6 14 1i'b5! wins the
knight on b8.
9 i.f4
9 tbd2 b4 10 tbb3 is also promising for
White, e.g.
a) 10 ... 'ii'd8 11 tbb5 d6 12 .i.f4 tbbd7
(not 12 ...tba6 13 'ii'a 1! .i.b7 14 'ii'a4 tbd7
15 g3 g6 16 .i.h3 with very unpleasant
pressure in Bernard-Hauchard, Paris 1989)
13 1i'a1 .i.b7, and now instead of 14 e4 g5!
15 .i.xg5 tbxe4 16 .i.h4 .i.g7 with an un­
clear position in Gligoric-Hodgson, Sochi
1986, 14 tba5 looks quite promising.
b) 10 ... 1Wb6 (hoping to discourage 1 1
tbb5) 1 1 tbb5! (anyway; 1 1 tba4 'ii'c7 12
tDac5 e6 13 tDd3 'ii'xc4 allowed Black to
unravel in McCambridge-Hebden, Lon­
don 198 1) 1 1 ...tbxd5 12 cxd5 1i'xb5 13 e4
1i'b6 and now Fedorowicz suggests 14
.i.e3, when 14 ... d6? fails to 15 tbxc5 dxc5
16 'ii'a4, while after 14 ... tba6, 15 .i.xa6
'ii'xa6 16 tbxc5 looks simple enough.
9 ... d6 1 0 ti:Jd2 b4 1 1 ti:Jb5!
Although 1 1 tDb3 1i'b6 12 tbb5 is also
playable, the knight on d2 serves a useful
function in supporting the advance of the
e-pawn.
11 ... g6
As usual it is very risky for Black to
snatch the pawn, e.g. 1 1 ...tbxd5 12 cxb5
1i'xb5 13 e4 1i'b7 14 1i'a4+ or 13 .. .'i'd7 14
1i'a1 .i.b7 15 1i'a7. In Donaldson-Alburt,
Reykjavik 1986, Black decided that he
could not face a passive position and tried
to mix things up with 1 1...tbh5 12 tbb3
1 33
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
1i'a2!? 13 �cl g6 14 e4 �g7 15 ltJc7+
<iti>d8!? 16 ltJxa8 �xb2 17 �xb2 1i'xb2 18
ltJb6 �c7 19 ltJa4 1i'a3 20 ltJaxc5 dxc5 21
�d3 ltJd7 22 0-0, but when the dust had
settled White still had the better game.
1 2 e4 lLlbd7 1 3 lLlb3 'i'b6 1 4 'i'a 1 i.b7
1 5 'i'a5
A dream position for White. Black's
queenside exertions have just left him with
plenty of weak squares. Furthermore,
Black must always be wary of e4-e5, since
... d6xe5 would then leave the black c­
pawn terminally ill.
1 5 . . .lLlh5 1 6 i.c1 i.g7 1 7 g4 lLlhf6 1 8
g 5 lLlh5 1 9 i.h3 'i'xa5 20 lLlxa5 - i.c8 21
lLlc6 lLlb6 22 lLlc7+ �8 23 i.xc8 lLlxc8
24 0-0 b3 ! ?
A valiant but unsuccessful attempt to
mix things up. White was ready to play
b2-b3 himself, solidifying his position.
1 34
25 f4 lLlb6 26 ltf3 lLlxc4 27 ltxb3 i.d4+
28 lLlxd4 cxd4 29 lLlb5 �g7 30 ll'lxd4
lta8 3 1 ltb4 lLla5 32 i.d2 ltc8 33 �2
�8 34 b3 e5 35 dxe6 fxe6 36 ll'lxe6+
1 -0
Total domination.
Game 62
Xu Jun-Fedorowicz
World Team Ch., Lucerne 1989
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 lLlf3 i.b7 5
a4 b4
5 ...1Wa5+ 6 i.d2 b4 is very similar. Black
reckons that the bishop on d2 is a hin­
drance to his opponent, who would ide­
ally like to fianchetto this bishop. After 7
1ic2 d6 8 e4 g6 9 �d3 ltJbd7 10 0-0 i.g7
1 1 h3 0-0 12 �e3 l:ae8 the situation was
fairly level in Kuzmin-Mainka, Ostend
open 1991.
6 lLlbd2
After 6 g3 g6 7 b3 i.g7 8 �b2 0-0 9
�g2 e6 10 0-0 exd5 1 1 cxd5 d6 12 ltJfd2
ltJbd7 Black had already equalised in
Gulko-Fedorowicz, Cannes 1987, while 6
1ic2 d6 7 e4 e5 8 dxe6?! fxe6 9 ltJbd2 ltJc6
10 g3 g6 1 1 ltJb3 �g7 12 �g2 0-0 13 0-0
1i'e7 led to a disaster for White in Reshev­
sky-Alburt, Reykjavik 1986: 14 h3? ltJxe4
15 1ixe4 ltJd4 16 1ixb7 ltJe2+ 17 �h2
1ixb7 18 ltJg1 'i'a6 19 ltJxe2 'i'xc4 20 i.f4
1i'xe2 21 �xa8 llxa8 22 �xd6 1Wd3 0-1.
 4 l:i:J f3 i.b 7 a n d O th e r Fo u r th M o v e s fo r Bla c k
6 . . . d6
Preparing to stake a claim in the centre
with ... e7-e5. Another viable approach is
6 ... g6 7 e4 d6 8 b3 .i.g7 9 .i.b2 0-0 10 .i.e2
l:te8!?, as in Yrjola-Fedorowicz, Reykjavik
open 1986, preparing ... e7-e6 and ready to
meet 1 1 0-0? with 1 1. ..lbxe4 12 .i.xg7
ltJxd2.
7 e4
If instead 7 b3 Black should not rush to
play ... e7-e5, but should instead simply
develop his kingside with 7 ... g6 8 .i.b2
J..g7 9 g3 0-0, keeping open the option of
... e7-e6.
7 . . . e5!?
This move is still far from mandatory.
After 7 ... g6 8 .i.d3 .i.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 l:le1
lbbd7 1 1 l:la2 lbg4 12 .i.fl e6 Black had no
problems in Kiselev-Jurka, Pardubice
1994, so White should prefer 8 g3! .i.g7 9
J.. g2 0-0 10 0-0, and if 10 ... e6 or 10 ... e5
then 1 1 dxe6 fxe6 12 e5 dxe5 13 lbxe5
J..xg2 14 'iPxg2 lbfd7 15 lbef3, when
Black's c- and e-pawns were something of
a liability in Aagaard-Busch, Copenhagen
1992.
8 g3 !
This time 8 dxe6 fxe6 allows Black a
firm grip on the centre, while after 8 .i.d3
g6 9 b3 .i.g7 10 .i.b2 0-0 1 1 'ili'c2 lbh5
White ended up playing 12 g3 in less fa­
vourable circumstances in Baikov­
Rogozenko, USSR 199 1 .
8 . . . g 6 9 i.g2 i.g7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 l:i:Je 1
l:i:Jbd7
Both sides have developed most of their
forces and the battle now revolves around
whether White can satisfactorily achieve
f2-f4 and/or Black ... f7-f5.
1 2 f4?!
Probably premature, as this allows
Black to take full advantage of the long
dark-squared diagonal. 12 llJd3 llJh5 13 f4
gxf4 14 exf4 comes to the same thing,
whereas if White tries to exploit the posi­
tion of the knight on h5 with 13 .i.f3 then
Black can build up slowly with 13 ... lbdf6
14 14 b3 .i.c8 15 .i.b2 aS 16 'ili'e2 l:la7 17
l:lae1 l:le7, when White ran into a brick
wall in Mileto-Godena, Forli 199 1. Fe­
dorowicz suggests that White's best plan is
the immediate 13 b3, 14 .i.b2, 15 'W'c2 and
16 l:lae1, when he probably has a very
slight edge.
1 2 . . . exf4 1 3 gxf4 l:i:Jh5 1 4 l:i:Jd3 f5!
In the recent game Vaisser-Rogozenko,
Cairo 1997, Black varied here with
14 ... .i.d4+ 15 �h 1 'ili'h4, but after 16 'W'e1
he was not really going anywhere.
1 5 exf5 i.d4+?
A complete waste of time. There was
nothing wrong with the simple 15 ... l:lxf5,
when in Glynets-Kozlov, Kemerovo 1991,
White quickly experienced serious prob­
lems with his c-pawn after 16 lbe4 lbb6 17
'ili'c2 .i.a6.
1 35
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

1 6 �h 1 .l:l.xf5 1 7 lLlf3 i.g7

31 i.xf8 .l:l.xf8 32 d6 �h8 33 lDd4 'iFh4

1 8 i.e3
The critical move was 18 tlJg5, when af­
ter 18 ... ttJb6 19 i.h3 Black can consider
the self-pinning 19 ...1i'd7!? as the c-pawn
will inevitably fall, leaving Black with
ample compensation for the exchange.
1 8 . . . lLlb6 1 9 'ifc2 i.a6 20 lbd2 .l:l.b8!
The threat of ... b4-b3 forces White to
place his queen on a very poor square.
21 'ifb3 .l:l.f8 22 .l:l.ae 1 i.c8
The bishop has done its job on a6 and
now changes diagonal to probe the weak
light squares on the white kingside.
23 lLle4 i.f5 24 lLlg5 'ifd7 25 i.e4 h6
Black happily refuses to accept the
bounty on a4. His appetite will not be
satiated by a mere pawn.
26 i.xf5 'ifxf5 27 lLJf3
Fedorowicz demonstrates that 27 tlJe6
tlJg3+! 28 hxg3 ..h3+ 29 �g1 ..xg3+ 30
�h 1 l:r.f5! is curtains for White.
27 . . . 85
34 'ife3 lLJxf4 35 lLlc6 lbd3 36 .l:l.xf8+
lLlxf8 37 .l:l.f1 'ifxc4 38 t:De7 �h7 39 'ifg3
lLle5 40 .l:l.d 1 b3 41 'ifg2 h5 42 'ifd5 'iff4
43 'ifg2 'ifxa4 0-1
Game 63
Speelman-Mestel
Hastings 1982
1 d4 lLJf6 2 lLlf3 c5 3 d5 b5 4 c4 i.b7 5
'ifc2
We have already seen this idea in
Games 57 and 58. White wants to achieve
e2-e4 at the earliest opportunity, while his
opponent is left with the challenge of find­
ing a role of the bishop on b7.

see follo wing diagram

28 lLlxc5?!
A desperate attempt to complicate mat­
ters, but White's position was fairly hor­
rible in any case.
28 . . . dxc5 29 i.xc5 'ifh3 30 .l:l.f2 lLld7 !
Black calmly gives up the exchange, se­ 5 . . . bxc4
cure in the knowledge that his very active Black evidently has a wide choice here:
pieces will ensure him of the full point. a) 5 ... e6 6 e4 exdS?! {6 ... bxc4 transposes

1 36
 4 liJ f3 i. b 7 a n d O th e r Fo u r t h M o v e s fo r Bla c k
to the main game) 7 cxdS 1i'e7 i s too risky.
After 8 tt:lbd2 �xdS 9 �xbS �xe4 10
llJxe4 Wxe4+ 1 1 1Wxe4+ tt:lxe4 12 0-0 �e7
13 l:r.e 1 Black was struggling to complete
his development in Miralles-Andruet,
Marseilles 1988.
b) S ... g6!? is similar to Game 57, except
that here Black has prematurely commit­
ted his bishop to b7. However, this should
not be a problem if he plays for an early
... e7-e6, e.g. 6 e4 �g7 7 cxbS 0-0 8 tt:lc3 a6
9 a4 e6 with an unclear position in Moska­
lenko-Murashko, Alushta 1994.
c) After S ... llJa6!? 6 a3 bxc4 7 e4 e6 8
�xc4 exdS 9 exdS llJc7 Black takes aim at
the exposed white d-pawn. Although, in
Sachs-Miles, London {Lloyds Bank) 1993,
White was able to develop some initiative
for the pawn after 10 0-0 �xdS 1 1 �xdS
llJfxdS 12 l:r.e1+ tt:le6 13 �gS �e7 14 'ii'fs,
it was not really enough.
6 e4 e6 7 dxe6
After 7 �c4 exdS 8 exdS Black can
again consider snatching the d-pawn with
8 ... �xd5 9 �xdS tt:lxdS 10 0-0 �e7.
7 . . .fxe6 8 e5 liJd5 9 liJbd2 i.e7 1 0 i.xc4
1 0 . . . 0-0?!
10... tt:lc6 is calmly met by 11 0-0, but
that looks better than the game continua­
tion.
1 1 i.d3! h6
1 1.. .g6 seriously weakens the dark
squares, but one way or the other Black
has to make a concession on the kingside.
1 2 a3 liJc6 1 3 0-0 :c8 14 :e 1
White must have been tempted by 14
llJc4!?
14 . . .liJd4 1 5 liJxd4 cxd4 1 6 ._d 1
White is in no hurry as the pawn on d4
is always going to be a worry for Black.
1 6 . . ...b6 1 7 ._g4 liJf4 1 8 liJc4 ._c6
Not 18 ...1i'b3? 19 �xf4 1i'xd3 20 �xh6.
1 9 i.xf4 :xt4 20 ._g6
White has cleverly managed to place his
queen ahead of the bishop on the b1-h7
diagonal. Left to his own devices he will
play 21 llJaS to exchange the key black
light-squared bishop. In the game Black
tries to muddy the waters, but he merely
hastens his own demise.
20 . . . i.g5 21 f3 .l:l.g4 22 �7+ Wf8 23
:e2!
Preparing to hoist Black by his own pe­
tard, as 23 ... lif4 24 llJd6 is terminal.
23 . . ...xf3 24 :n i.e3+ 25 liJxe3 :c1 26
:xc 1 1 -0
Game 64
Kanstler-Gershon
Tel Aviv 1997
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 liJf3 i.b7 5
liJbd2! ?
The other most common way of play­
ing for e2-e4. Several other moves have
also been tried here:
137
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
a) 5 t2Jfd2 bxc4! 6 e4 e6 7 dxe6 dxe6 8
t2Jc3 t2Jc6 9 �xc4 �e7 10 0-0 0-0 and Black
was already at least equal in Peicheva Han­
sen-Kinsman, Gausdal 1990.
b) 5 g3 g6 6 �g2 bxc4 7 t2Jc3 �g7 8 0-0
0-0 9 tLleS d6 10 t2Jxc4 t2Jbd7 1 1 :e1 �a6
with equality in Johannessen-Fischer, Ha­
vana 1966.
c) After 5 �gS t2Je4 6 �f4 (6 tLlc3 tLlxgS
7 ttJxgS b4 8 t2Jce4 d6 is also okay for
Black) 6 ... bxc4 7 t2Jc3 'WaS 8 �d2 t2Jxd2 9
t2Jxd2 �a6 10 e4 g6 1 1 'Wa4 'Wb6 12 l;b 1 a
quick draw was agreed in Gulko-Wilder,
Estes Park 1987.
c) 5 tLlc3 b4 6 t2Ja4 (6 'Wb3 'Wb6 trans­
poses to note 'd') 6 ... e6! 7 �gS d6 8 e4
�e7 and again Black was fine in Vaganian­
Anikaev, USSR 1982.
d) 5 'Wb3 'Wb6 6 tLlc3 b4 (6 ... bxc4 7
'Wxb6 axb6 8 e4 e6 9 tLleS exdS 10 exdS
turned out very well for White in
Korchnoi-Borik, Baden Baden 1981, but
Black later improved with the speculative
piece sacrifice 9 ... ttJxe4!? 10 tLlxe4 exdS in
Sarosi-Abel, Bad Soden 1988) 7 tLla4 'ii'c7
and now:
d1) 8 'Wc2 g6 9 e4 d6 10 �e2 �g7 1 1 0-0
0-0 was equal in Belotti-Kinsman, Biel
open 1987.
d2) 8 e4!?, when it proved too risky to
take the pawn with 8 ... t2Jxe4 9 'We3 tLlf6
10 tLlxcS �c8 1 1 t2Je4 in Birnboim-Fong,
St John open 1988, so Black should
probably settle for 8 ... d6 with equality.
5 . . . bxc4
Here the strategy of quite development
with 5 ... g6 6 e4 �g7 7 �d3 0-0 8 0-0 d6
makes less sense than in Game 58, because
Black has wasted a tempo on ... �b7, while
after the immediate 5 ... e6 White can con­
sider either 6 e4 or 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 e4!? tLlxe4
(7 ... bxc4 transposes to the note to Black's
seventh move below) 8 tLlxe4 �xe4 9 tlJgS
�g6 10 �d3 'Wf6 1 1 �xg6+ hxg6 12 cxbS
with a slight plus in Rogozenko-Sluka,
Pardubice 1997.
1 38
6 e4 e6!?
Utilising the bishop on b7 to strike
back at the white centre.
7 dxe6 dxe6
After 7 ... fxe6 White can consider the
speculative 8 eS ttJdS 9 tLlxc4 �e7 10
�gS!? (Adams suggest simply 10 �d3 with
a clear plus) 10 ...�xg5 1 1 t2Jd6+ �f8 12
t2Jxb7.
8 e5 lLid5
8 ... c3 9 bxc3 ttJdS does not really help
Black. After 10 t2Je4 t2Jc6 1 1 i.bS a6 12
�a4 tLlb6 13 .l:.b 1 tLlxa4 14 'Wxa4 'WaS 15
'Wc2 0-0-0 16 0-0 Black's king soon began
to feel a nasty draught in the encounter
Avrukh-Gershon, Czerniak Memorial
1997.
9 i.xc4 i.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 lLie4 "iic7
In view of the game continuation, it
may be more prudent to seek exchanges
with 1 1...tLlb6, e.g. 12 �d3 c4 13 �c2
'Wxd1 14 .l:.xd1 tLla6 15 a3 tLlcS and Black
was fine in Neidhardt-Alber, Hessen
Championship 1988.
1 2 "iic 2 lLid7 13 lLieg5
With the very dangerous threat of mate
on h7!
1 3 . . . g6 14 l:l.e 1 :tfd8 1 5 i.d2 "iic6 1 6 a3
i.f8 1 7 :tad 1 "iic 7?
White has achieved an ideal centralisa­
tion of his pieces. It is perhaps not surpris­
ing that a breakthrough can now be
achieved.
 4 liJ f3 i. b 7 a n d O th er Fo u r th M o v e s fo r Bla c k
1 8 liJxf7 ! ! �xf7 1 9 liJg5+ �e7 2 0 liJxh7
With both i.g5+ and 'Wxg6 on the
cards, White clearly has more than enough
for the piece.
20 . . . liJxe5 21 i.g5+ �d7 22 i.b5+ i.c6
23 i.xc6+ liJxc6 24 'ifxg6
Although this threatens mate, the more
straightforward continuation 24 i.xd8
llxd8 25 'Wxg6 'Wd6 26 'Wf7+ would have
been a smoother way to ensure the vic­
tory.
24 . . . 'ifd6
24 ... lbe5 would have slightly compli­
cated White's task.
25 i.xd8 .l:l.xd8 26 'iff7+ i.e7
Or 26 ... �c8 27 ltxe6.
27 .l:l.xe6! 'ifxe6 28 .l:l.xd5+ 'ifxd5 29 liJf6+
�d6 30 liJxd5 .l:l.f8 3 1 'ifh5 1 -0
After 3 1...i.f6 32 'Wh6 Black loses still
more material.
Game 65
I .Sokolov-Pogliano
San Bernardino 1989
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 liJf3 bxc4
This relinquishes the tension too easily.
5 liJc3 g6
5 ... d6 6 e4 g6 comes to the same thing,
but Black can also try 6 ... lbbd7!? or even
6 ... i.g4!? 7 i.xc4 lbbd7 8 0-0 g6 9 h3 i.xf3
10 'Wxf3 .::tb 8 1 1 'We2 i.g7 with a slight
plus for White in the game Baker-Forbes,
British Championship, Eastboume 1991.
6 e4 d6
7 e5
This central advance is popular and
strong. A rather insipid alternative is 7
i.xc4 i.g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 h3 and now:
a) 9 ... lbbd7 10 a4 lbb6 11 i.b5 .::tb 8 12
.:tel a6 13 i.fl lba8 14 e5 lbd7 15 exd6
exd6 with a small edge for White in
Bareev-Adams, Hastings 1992.
b) 9 ...i.a6! (the most natural move) 10
'Wd3 i.xc4 11 'Wxc4 lbbd7 12 i.d2 .::tb 8 13
lba4 lbb6 14 lbxb6 'Wxb6 15 i.c3 'ii'h 5 16
'Wxb5 .::txb5 and Black had no problems in
the ending in Tunik-Fominyh, Alushta
open 1993.
7 dxe5 8 liJxe5 i.g7 9 i.xc4 0-0 1 0 0-0
•..
liJfd7
It certainly makes sense to challenge the
white knight, and of course 10 ... lbbd7??
1 39
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
fails to 1 1 lbc6 'ii'e 8 12 l::te l. Black has
three other plausible possibilities:
a) 10 ... il.b7 1 1 'ii'b 3! 'ii'b 6 12 l::te 1 left
Black struggling to complete his develop­
ment in Korchnoi-Sax, London 1980.
Now 12 ...lbbd7 drops a pawn to 13 lbxd7
lbxd7 14 l:txe7, so Black tried 12 ... lba6 13
il.g5 'ii'xb3 14 il.xb3 l::tac 8, but he was still
in great difficulties after 15 lbc4!
b) After 10 ... iLa6 1 1 il.g5 iLxc4 12
lbxc4 lbbd7 13 l:te1 lbb6 14 lbe5! Black
was faced with the now familiar problems
of the e7-pawn and c6-square in Sadler­
Manca, Cappelle Ia Grande open 1993.
c) 10 ... lbe8 1 1 l:te1 lbd6 12 b3!? 'ii'c7 13
il.f4 and White had a very pleasant game
in Dautov-Heinemann, German Champi­
onship 1998.
1 1 lDxt7 ! ?
1 1 lbxd7 lbxd7 an d 1 1 lbc6 lbxc6 12
dxc6 lbb6 are harmless, so White must
throw caution to the wind if he wishes to
play for a win.
1 1 . . ..:txf7 1 2 d6 lDb6 1 3 .bf7+ �xf7 1 4
..f3+
In Stohl-Petr, Pardubice open 1995,
White introduced an interesting new idea
here, 14 lbd5!?, and after 14 ... il.b7 15
lbxe7 il.e5 16 'ii'h 3 + c4 17 'ii'h3 h5 18 l::td 1
'ii'd7 19 'ii'e3 Black paid the cost of his
weakened kingside. Black could try
14 ...lbc6, hoping for 15 lbc7 'ii'xd6 16
lbxa8 lZ'lxa8, when the three pieces should
140
be able to fend off the two rooks. How­
ever, White then has the dangerous 15
'ii'f3+ il.f6 16 dxe7 'ii'xd5 17 e8'ii' + �xeS
18 'ii'xf6. Were it not for the fact that the
game move is also very strong, 14 lLldS
might have been an important new move.
1 4 . . . �g8
Or 14 ...i.f6 15 dxe7 'ii'xe7 16 il.g5 �g7
17 l::tfe1 'ii'f7 and now, instead of 18 lLle4 ,
as in Sarosi-Siebert, Hungarian Team
Championship 1995, the simplest path to
an advantage is 18 i.xf6+ 'ii'xf6 19 'ii'xf6+
cjo>xf6 20 lbe4+ and lbxc5.
1 5 lDd5!
It is impossible for Black to meet the
threats of 16 lbxb6, 16 lZ'lc7 and 16 dxe7.
1 5 . . . lD8d7 1 6 dxe7 -.es 1 7 lDc7 -.xe7
1 8 tlJxaS
Two exchanges down, Black could al­
ready have thrown in the towel.
1 8 . . . tlJ85 1 9 ..d1 lDbc4 20 ..b3 1 -0
Game 66
Razuvaev-Loncar
Maribor 1996
1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 tiJf3 b4?!
We have already seen that this move
can be quite effective if White has already
played a2-a4. However, it is hard to rec­
ommend it here since Black is not only
effectively a tempo down, but also White
is able to undermine the pawn front with
 4 lD f3 i. b 7 a n d O th e r Fo u r th M o v e s fo r Bla c k
a2-a3!
4 ... a6?! is also dubious. White can con­
sider S a4, but his best plan of action is a
quick central expansion with S 'iVc2 e6 6
e4 exd5 7 eS!, when White already had a
promising position in Vegh-L.B.Hansen,
Budapest 1989.
5 a3!
S .!Dbd2 g6 6 e4 d6 7 a3 is also playable,
but the text move makes more sense as the
queen's knight can sometimes come to c3.
5 ... g6
Black has several other moves here:
a) S ... bxa3?! 6 l:txa3 followed by .!Dc3 is
obviously good for White.
b) After S ... .!Da6 6 axb4 .!Dxb4 (or
6 ... cxb4 7 g3 with a slight plus for White -
I.Sokolov) 7 .!Dc3 d6 8 e4 g6 9 �e2 �g7 10
0-0 0-0 White was in control of the centre
in I.Sokolov-Kir.Georgiev. It is worth
noting that the white rook can come to
a3, and then across to the centre or the
kingside.
c) S .. aS 6 .!Dbd2 (now that Black has
. plus for Black, but 1 1 eS looks more to
committed himself to ... a7-a5) 6 ... g6 7 e4
d6 8 axb4 cxb4 9 cS!? (a pawn sacrifice to
open lines for White's better developed
pieces) 9 ... dxcS 10 �bS+ �d7 (not
10 ... .!Dbd7 1 1 eS-e6) 1 1 �c4 and now:
cl) 1 1...e6 12 0-0 exdS?! (though after
12 ... �h6 13 .!Db3 White regains his mate­
rial) 13 exd5 �h6 14 llel+ �f8 1S .!DeS
�g7? (1S ... �e8 was more resilient) 16
.!Dxf7! 'iti>xf7 17 d6+ <ot>f8 18 l:le7 i.e8 19
.!De4 �xcl 20 .!Dxf6 �xb2 21 .!Dxh7+ l:.xh7
22 ...f3+ �f7 23 l:txf7+ 1-0 Seirawan­
D.Gurevich, USA Championship 1986.
c2) 1 1...�g7 12 eS .!DhS (or 12 ... .!Dg4 13
...e2 with a plus for White - Kavalek) and
now instead of 13 .!De4?!, as in Levitt-Frias,
London 1990, Hertneck suggests 13 h3
'iVc7 (not 13 ... .!Df4? 14 g3 .!Dxh3 1S e6 fxe6
16 dxe6) 14 0-0!, to meet 14 ... �xeS 1S
.!DxeS ...xeS by 16 l:te1 with a strong ini­
tiative.
6 axb4
The immediate 6 i.e3 is also interest­
ing, e.g. 6 ... bxa3 7 l:lxa3 d6 8 .!Dc3 �g7, as
in Yermolinsky-Kaidanov, Philadelphia
199S, when Yermolinsky claims that
White would have been slightly better
after 9 i.gS, and it is hard to disagree with
him. In Informator 70 A.Kuzmin suggests
the improvement 6 ......c7 7 axb4 cxb4 8
�d4 �g7 (or 8 ......c4?! 9 e4 ...c7 10 d6!?) 9
e4 0-0 10 �d3 d6 1 1 h3 e5 with a slight
the point than the insipid 1 1 h3.
On the other hand 6 e4!? .!Dxe4 7 axb4
cxb4 8 ...d4 .!Df6 9 l:txa7 l:i.xa7 10 ...xa7
.!Da6 1 1 �e2 �g7 12 0-0 0-0 allowed too
many exchanges in Kuzmin-Vaisser,
Benasque open 1997.
6 ... cxb4 7 i.e3
7 e4 .!Dxe4 transposes to Kuzmin­
Vaisser in the previous note, while after 7
14 1
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

lt:'lbd2 i..g7 8 e4 0-0 9 .i.d3 d6 1 0 0-0 i..g4 14 �h2 'i'a6 1 5 f4 l:l.c8 16 ..ig 1 ..ie8 1 7
White was struggling to justify having e4 ltlfd7 1 8 'i'e2 'i'b7 1 9 ltl2f3
given Black an outpost on cS in Petursson­
Alburt, New York 1988. However, it may
best to fianchetto immediately, when after
7 g3 i.. g7 8 i.. g2 0-0 9 0-0 in Sadler-Adams,
London (Lloyds Bank) 1993, Black played
9 .. a5 of his own accord. Now 10 i.. e3
.

would transpose to the main game, but

Sadler chose 10 lt:'lbd2 i.. b7 1 1 'iia4 'iic7 12
lt:'ld4 d6 13 lt:'lbS with a slight plus.
7 . . .as 8 g3 ..ig7 9 ..ig2 0-0 1 o 0-0 d6
10 ... i.. b 7 1 1 lt:'lbd2 d6 transposes to the
next note.
1 1 ltlbd2
While Black has been faffing around,
White has built up a very threatening po­
sition on the kingside and in the centre.
1 9 . . . l2Jb6 20 l:l.fc1 l2Ja6 21 e5 ltlc5 22
h4! b3 23 l:l.a3 !
To prevent .. a4-a3.
.

2 3 . . . 'i'a6 24 ..if1 l:l.c7 2 5 h5 'i'c8 26

hxg6 hxg6 27 l2Jg5 'i'd8

1 1 . . . ..id7
An ambitious move, planning to ad­
vance the a-pawn. 1 1 ...i..b 7 is more solid,
when White had only a tiny advantage
after 12 i..d4 lt:'lbd7 13 :Z.e1 :Z.e8 in Sadler­
Kumaran, London (Lloyds Bank) 199 1 .
1 2 h 3 a4
12 ...lt:'la6 13 lt:'ld4 'iic7 looked more re­
strained in Gulko-D.Gurevich, USA Finally the time is right for a break­
Championship 1992. Indeed, after 14 'iic2 through.
a4 White decided to give up the exchange 28 e6! f6 29 ltlf7 ..ixf7 30 exf7+ �xf7
with 15 .:.Xa4 i..xa4 16 'iixa4 lt:'ld7 17 :Z.b 1, 31 ltle6 'i'hB+ 32 �g2
although it is doubtful whether he had Black's is caving in. The rest of the
enough compensation. game is just a mopping up operation.
1 3 ltld4 'i'c8 ? ! 32 . . .l:l.ac8 33 l2Jxc5 l:l.xc5 34 We6+ �8
Again 13 ...'iic7 looks better. The queen 35 l:l.e 1 ! ltlxc4 36 ..ixc5 l:l.xc5 37 l:l.xa4
does not really do anything on a6, except l2Jb6 38 Wxe7+ �g8 39 WdB+ �h7 40
get in the way of the knight on b8. Wxb6 l:l.c2+ 41 �3 'i'c8 42 ..id3 1 -0

142
 4 0. f3 i. b 7 a n d O th e r Fo u r t h M o v e s fo r Bla c k

Summary
After 4 ll:lf3, 4 ... i.b7 is a perfectly valid alternative to the 'pure' Benko move 4 ... g6.
Here, however, 5 a4 is much more dangerous than it is after 4 ... g6. I do not like
Black's chances after 5 ... a6?! or 5 . . . bxc4 (Game 61) and prefer the idea of closing the
queenside with 5 ... b4 or 5 ... 'W'a5 + 6 i.d2 b4 (Game 62) . Neither 5 Wc2 (Game 63) nor
5 ll:lbd2 (Game 64) should present Black with any undue problems.
The final two games of this chapter deal with Black's two main alternatives to 4 ... g6
and 4 ...i.b7. However, I cannot recommend either 4 ...bxc4 (Game 65) or 4 ... b4?! (Game
66) . Both of these highly committal moves go against the ethos of the Benko Gambit ­
they simply give White a free hand in the centre.

1 d4 0.f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 0.f3

4 . . . i.b7 fDJ
4 . . . bxc4 - Game 65
4 . . . b4 - Game 66
5 a4 (DJ
5 Wc2 - Game 63
5 ll:lbd2 Game 64
-

5 . . . b4
5 ... a6 - Game 61
6 0.bd2 (D) - Game 62

4 . . . i. b 7 5 a4 6 lLlbd2

143
 CHAPTER ELEVEN I
Other Fourth Moves
for White

1 d4 lt:\t6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 e4 (Game 72) are very sharp and there is

In this chapter we consider White's no way around the fact that they just have
main alternatives to 4 cxbS and 4 lL'lf3. By to be learnt thoroughly by Black players.
and large White is attempting to steer the
game away from the kind of theoretical Game 67
battles that we have seen in the book thus Ward-Adams
far, and towards a more positional game. Hastings Masters 1995
Having said that, many of these lines are
quite tricky and careful study is recom­ 1 d4 lt:\t6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 a4
mended if Black is not to find himself in
difficulties right from the opening.
In the past few years both 4 a4 and 4
lbd2 in particular have become quite fash­
ionable. Certainly 4 a4 (Games 67 and 68)
is not the sort of move that Black players
would normally enjoy facing, as Black
must either exchange on c4 or play ... b5-
b4, in both cases giving White good con­
trol of the centre. Nevertheless, Black
should be able to equalise with accurate
play, as we shall see. 4 lbd2 (Game 70) is
less committal. White waits to see his op­
ponent's intentions before deciding on a The main point of this move is that it
firm course of action. This move has en­ forces Black's hand immediately. He must
joyed a tremendous upsurge in popularity decide whether to take on c4, allowing
among top grandmasters, but it is not en­ White to develop his pieces smoothly, or
tirely clear why. close the position with ... b5-b4, when
Of White's other possibilities, 4 Wc2 Black lacks the usual queenside pressure
(Game 69) is quite similar to 4 lbd2. On and White can hope to gain control of the
the other hand both 4 .i.gS (Game 71) and centre.

1 44

4 . . bxc4
. Gipuzkoa 1985, and now Izeta suggests
The alternatives 4... b4 and 4...'ii'a5+!?
are consideroo in the next game.
5 lbc3
5 ... g6
Neither 5 ... e6 6 e4 exdS 7 eS d4 8 exf6
d5 9 .t.xc4! dxc4 10 'ii'f3 dxc3 1 1 'ii'xa8
.t.e6 (Fedorowicz recommends 1 1....t.d6
12 fxg7 'ii'e7+ 13 �e2 l:[g8 'with compen­
sation', but the simple 14 bxc3 .t.b7 15
'ii'xa7 followed by l:tb 1 looks very good
for White) 12 'ii'f3 �d7 13 'ii'xc3 �xf6,
when Fedorowicz suggests that 14 .t.gS is
clearly better for White, nor 5 ... e5 6 e4 d6
7 .t.xc4 g6 8 �f3 .t.g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 h3 �a6
1 1 �e1 l:tb8 12 �d3 �b4 13 :e1, as in
Sosonko-Sprotte, Lugano 1985, is satisfac­
tory for Black.
It is also quite risky to attempt to de­
fend the pawn on c4, as White gets a free
hand in the centre, e.g. 5 ... d6 6 e4 .t.a6
(6 ... g6 transposes to the main game) 7 f4!
and now:
a) 7 ... e6 8 �f3 exdS 9 eS d4 (not
9 ... dxe5?! 10 fxeS �e4 1 1 'ii'xdS 1i'xd5 12
�dS and White was clearly better in
Peev-Alburt, Lublin 1972) 10 exf6 dxc3 1 1
'ii'dS 'ii'c 7 1 2 .t.xc4 (12 'ii'e4+ �d8 1 3 bxc4
may be better) 12 ... .t.b7! (not 12 ... .t.xc4?
13 'ii'xa8 gxf6 14 �f2 .t.e7 15 bxc3 0-0 16
'ii'e4 d5 17 1i'f5 and White won quickly in
Vaisman-Knaak, Halle 1976) 13 1i'd3 gxf6
14 0-0 lbc6 15 1i'f5 .t.g7, Izeta-Kabo,
O th er Fo u r t h M o v e s fo r Wh i t e
that 16 bxc3 �e7 17 'ii'h s 0-0-0 18 'ii'xf7 is
clearly better for White, but after 17 ... 0-0
instead of 17 ... 0-0-0 Black is still very
much in the game. Having said that, it is
hard to recommend this line for Black as
his pawn structure is a heap.
b) 7 ... �bd7 8 �f3 g6 9 aS!? .t.g7 (if
Black tries to prevent e4-e5 with 9 ...1i'b8
then White has time for 10 �d2 .t.g7 1 1
.t.xc4 .t.xc4 1 2 �xc4 with a slight edge) 10
eS dxeS 11 fxeS �g4 12 e6 �deS 13 'ii'a4+
�f8 14 .t.e2 with a very pleasant position
for White in Fridh-Ernst, Gausdal 1993.
c) 7 ... g6 8 �f3 .t.g7!? (the critical move,
leading to very sharp play) 9 eS dxeS
(9 ...�fd7 is also quite unclear) 10 fxeS �g4
1 1 .t.f4 �d7 12 'ii'e2 1i'b8 13 d6 exd6!? 14
exd6+ �d8, and now:
cl) 15 �bS?! l:te8 16 'ii'e7 + l:txe7 17
dxe7 + �e7 18 .t.xb8 :Xb8 19 .t.xc4 �e3
and Black stood well in the endgame in
Ward-Kinsman, Wrexham 1998.
c2) White also has 15 �dS 1i'b7 (not
15 ... l:te8? 16 'ii'e7+! l:txe7 17 dxe7+ �e8 18
.t.xb8; 15 ... .t.xb2 16 �gS �h6 17 l:tbl;
nor 15 ...'ii'xb2 16 .t.gS+ �c8 17 �e7+ �b8
18 1i'xb2 .t.xb2 19 l:tb l) 16 'ii'e7+ �c8 17
'ii'xf7 'ii'xb2 18 �e7+ �b8 19 �c6+ �c8
20 �e7+ with a perpetual check.
c3) 15 'ii'e7+ �c8 and now instead of 16
'ii'e4, as in Colombo-Van Riemsdijk, Bue­
nos Aires open 1989, when Black can con­
sider 16 ... .t.b7 17 �dS .t.xb2, Chris Ward
suggests 16 �bS!? .t.xbS 17 axbS .t.xb2 18
.t.xc4!? .t.xal with a dangerous attack.
Black is a whole rook up - but it is stuck
on a8!
6 e4 d6 7 .i.xc4 .i.g7
7... .t.a6?! 8 .t.bS+ .t.xbS 9 axbS .t.g7 10
f4 0-0 1 1 �f3 transposes to the note to
Black's lOth move.
8 f4
8 h3, to prevent ... .t.g4, is too slow, e.g.
8 ... .t.a6 9 .t.bS+ .t.xbS 10 axbS 0-0 1 1 �f3
�bd7 12 0-0 �e8 13 l:te 1 �c7 with equal-
145
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t
ity in Kir.Georgiev-Vaisser, San
Bernardino 1989.
8 . . . 0-0 9 l:i:Jf3 ..ta6
Black must exchange this problem piece
if he can. 9 ... tLla6 led to a quick catastro­
phe for Black in Ward-Gurr, Guernsey
199 1: 10 0-0 tbc7 1 1 'ii'e2 .i.b7 12 �h 1 l:te8
13 .i.e3 e6 14 dxe6 lLlxe6 15 e5 dxe5 16
lLlxe5 'ii'e7 17 aS l1ac8 18 l:tae1 l:ted8 19 f5!
gxf5 20 l::txf5 .i.d5 21 lLlxd5 tLlxdS 22 tbxf7
1-0.
10 ..tb5!
This key move ensures that Black can
only achieve his desired exchange of light­
squared bishops at the cost of allowing
White a powerful pawn on b5 and a half­
open a-file for his rook. After 10 tLld2
Black can consider the speculative 10 ... e6!?
11 dxe6 fxe6 12 .i.xe6+ �h8, when
White's king was somewhat uncomfort­
able in Vaisser-Lputian, USSR 1983.
1 0 . . . l:i:Je8
White achieved his ideal position for
this variation after 10 ... .i.xb5 1 1 axb5
tLlbd7 12 0-0 tLle8 13 f5 in Ward-Berg, Co­
penhagen 1994. If Black wishes to avoid
this sort of bind, he can perhaps try
10 ... e6!? 1 1 0-0 exd5 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5
tLlg4 14 .i.g5 f6 15 exf6 lLlxf6 16 .i.xf6
.i.xf6 17 'W'xdS+ 'ii'xd5 18 lLlxdS .i.xb5 19
axb5 tLld7 20 tLlxf6+ :.x£6, when a draw
was soon agreed in Tella-Vaisser, Athens
1997.
146
1 1 0-0 l:i:Jc7 1 2 f5 ..txb5 1 3 axb5
White has agam achieved his desired
bind on the queenside and is free to let
loose in the centre and on the kingside.
1 3 . . . l:i:Jd7 1 4 'i'e2
14 'ii'e 1, intending to swing the queen
over to h4, is possibly even more danger­
ous, e.g. 14 ... lLlf6 15 'W'h4 'W'd7 16 .i.h6
l:tfb8 17 .i.xg7 �g7 18 e5 dxe5 19 lLlxe5
'W'd6 20 tLlc4 'W'd8 2 1 fxg6 hxg6 22 tLle5
tLlce8 23 lLlc6 'W'd7 24 l:.ae1! and White
was winning in Pergericht-Hodgson, Brus­
sels 1985, although Black later swindled a
draw.
1 4 . . . l:i:Jb6
In view of the fact that this knight
shortly returns to d7, 14 ... tLlf6 may have
been a better defence.
1 5 l:i:Jg5!
Forcing a weakness in the vulnerable
black castling position.
1 5 . . . h6 1 6 l:i:Jh3 l:i:Jd7 1 7 .l:.f3 l:i:Je5 1 8
.l:.g3 'i'd7 1 9 l:i:Jt2 .l:.tbS 20 :as 'i'ea 21
l:i:Jg4 l:i:Jxg4 22 'i'xg4
With the two black rooks and knight
on c7 stranded on the queenside, Black's
king is virtually having to fend for itself.
Not surprisingly White is soon able to
effect a decisive breakthrough .
22 h5 23 'i'g5 �h7 24 e5! dxe5 25 d6!
..•
exd6 26 l:iJe4 l:i:Je6 27 fxe6 'i'xe6 28 'i'd2
�g8 29 l:i:Jg5 'i'c4 30 .l:.c3 'i'd4+ 31
'i'xd4 exd4 32 .l:.f3

Although Black has three pawns for the
piece in the ending, his remaining pieces
are still unable to achieve any real cohe­
sion and White gradual reels in the bait.
32 . . . l:b7 33 ltle4 i.fB 34 i.f4 l:dB 35
..tg5 l:dbB 36 ltlf&t �g7 37 lLld5 l:xb5
38 l:xa7 l:5b7 39 i.f&t �h7 40 l:xb7
l:xb7 41 b3 i.g7 42 h4 �gB 43 �2 �8
44 i.xg7+ �xg7 45 �e2 l:bB 46 �d2
:es 47 �d3 l:e5 48 lLlf6 l:e6 49 lLle4 f5
50 ltlg5 l:e5 51 g3 �6 52 �c4 �e7 53
b4! �d7 54 b5 �c7 55 l:a3 l:e 1 56
l:a7+ �b6 57 l:a&t �b7 58 lLlf7 d5+ 59
�xd5 d3 60 ltld&t �bB 61 ltlc4 l:e4 62
�xc5 1 -0
Game 68
Brenninkmeijer-Fedorowicz
Wijk aan Zee 1988
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 e4 b4
If Black wishes to close the queenside,
he can also try 4 ... 1i'a5+!? in order to in­
terfere with White's standard plan of ll:ld2,
b2-b3 and �b2. The drawback of the
check is that Black's queen is hardly ide­
ally placed on aS. Play might continue 5
�d2 b4 6 f3 (White can also return to the
normal plan with 6 �cl!? g6 7 b3, since
after 7 ... ll:le4!? 8 �b2 ll:lc3 9 1i'c2 �g7 10
e4 0-0, as in Hellborg-Bator, Swedish
Team Championship 1996, White can
simply play 1 1 ll:le2 ll:lxe2 12 �xg7 with a
O th e r Fo u r th Mo v e s fo r Wh i t e
slight edge) 6 ... g6 7 e4 d6 8 �d3 �g7 9
l:.a2 (very artificial, but Black is fine after 9
ll:le2 0-0 10 0-0 ll:lbd7) 9 ... ll:lbd7 10 b3 0-0
1 1 ll:le2 e6! 12 0-0 exd5 13 exd5 ll:le5 14
�c2 :e8 with an ugly position for White
in Shikerov-Janev, Bulgarian Team
Championship 1992.
5 g3
5 ll:ld2, intending e2-e4, is also very
popular and seems to be a more critical
try. Black faces an important decision as
to whether or not to close the centre:
a) 5 ... e5!? 6 e4 (if White wishes to keep
the position open he can try 6 dxe6!? fxe6
7 e4 ll:lc6 7 ll:lgf3) 6 ... d6 7 �d3 g6 8 b3
�g7 9 �b2 a5 10 ll:le2 .:.a7 1 1 1i'c2 0-0
with equal chances in Janakiev-Zso.Polgar,
Mlada Boleslav 1994.
b) 5 ... d6 6 e4 g6 (6... e5 is very similar to
the previous note) and now:
b 1) 7 b3 �g7 8 �b2 0-0 9 ll:lgf3 e5 10 g3
ll:le8 1 1 �g2 f5 with an equal position in
Thorarinsson-Berg, Gausdal 1993.
b2) 7 �d3! �g7 8 f4 0-0 (8 ... ll:lh5?! 9
ll:ldf3 0-0 10 f5 ll:lf6 1 1 ll:lh3 gxf5 12 exf5
also favoured White in Ward-Wang Zili,
England-China 1997) 9 ll:lgf3 e6 10 0-0
exd5 1 1 cxd5 �a6 (1 1...�g4 12 ll:lc4) 12
�xa6 ll:lxa6 13 :e 1 and White was on top
in O.Rodriguez-Magem Badals, Spanish
Team Championship 1995.
5 . . . g6! ?
In this game Fedorowicz manages to de-
147
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

lay playing ... d7-d6 long enough to pre­ White has to recapture this way as 11
vent White from obtaining a grip on the cxd5 lle8 12 'i'c2 'i'e7 places his centre
centre. The alternatives are: under too much pressure.
a) 5 ... d6 6 i.g2 g6 7 b3 i.g7 8 i.b2 0-0 9 1 1 . . .d6 1 2 o-o liJbd7 1 3 4Jd2 :le8 14
tt:Jd2 i.b7 followed by ... e7-e6 with an liJf4 4Je5 1 5 liJf3 liJfg4 16 4Jxe5 4Jxe5
unclear position, as in Bem-Haugli, Nor­
wegian Championship 199 1 .
b) 5 . . . e5?! 6 i.g2 (again 6 dxe6!? comes
very seriously into consideration, as
Black's position was very loose after
6 ... fxe6 7 i.g2 d5 8 tt:Jh3! tt:Ja6 9 b3 i.b7 10
i.b2 in Winants-Marinkovic, Amsterdam
1987) 6 . . . d6 7 e4 g6 8 b3 i.g7 9 i.b2 0-0 10
tt:Jd2 a5 1 1 tt:Je2 l:.a7 12 0-0 tt:Jg4, when
Black can follow up with ...f7-f5 with a
fine position, as in Witt-Ermenkov, Baden
Baden 1985.
c) 5 ... e6!? 6 i.g2 (6 dxe6!? was consid­
ered in the previous note) 6 ... exd5 7 cxd5 Black has equalised comfortably and
d6 8 tt:Jd2 tt:Jbd7 9 tt:Jc4 i.a6 10 b3 g6 1 1 now proceeds to outplay his opponent in
tt:Jf3 .ltxc4 1 2 bxc4 i.g7 1 3 i.b2 0-0 fine style.
worked out well for Black in Brankov­ 1 7 %la2 �c8 1 8 �h3 �xh3 1 9 4Jxh3
M.Tseitlin, Plovdiv 1988. Wd7 20 �g2 Wt5 21 i..xe5
d) 5 ... i.b7 may be the most precise Under duress White exchanges his
move if Black wishes to play ... e7-e5 or bishop, leaving Black's dark-squared
...e7-e6, when after 6 tt:Jf3 we transpose to bishop in complete control of the long
Chapter 10. and c1-h6 diagonals.
21 . . .Wxe5 22 Wf3 �h6 23 liJg 1 Wc3 24
4Je2 Wxf3+ 25 �xf3

6 b3
Presumably the immediate 6 i.g2 could
also be met by 6 ... i.b7, dispensing with Black is in no hurry and is happy to ex­
... d7-d6 for the time being. change queens as the ending is superb for
6 . �g7 7 �b2 �b7 8 �g2 e6! 9 e4 0-0
. . him.
1 0 liJe2 exd5 1 1 exd5 25 . . .%le5 26 liJg 1 %lae8 27 %le2 %lxe2 28

1 48

llJxe2 �g7 29 .:d 1 .:e5 30 h4 f5 31 lLlg 1
�6 32 �g2 ..tg7 33 �f1 f4 34 lLlf3 .:e7
35 .:d3 h6 36 llJd2 �5 37 .:t3 ..te5 38
�g2 g5 39 hxg5 hxg5 40 .:td3 ..tc3 41
lbb1 ..td4 42 � 1 g4 43 gxf4 �xf4
Black's patient kingside advance has left
his opponent virtually move-bound.
44 .:td2 .:h7 45 �g2 .:h3 0-1
Game 69
Van der Z-Kogan
Vlissingen open 1997
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 'ifc2
White intends to force through e2-e4.
4 . . . e6! ?
Black has several other possibilities
here:
a) 4 ... g6 5 e4 d6 6 cxb5 �g7 7 ltJc3 0-0 8
ltJf3 e6 9 �c4 gave White an ideal position
in Meduna-Sluka, Czech Team Champi­
onship 1995/96.
b) After 4 ... bxc4 5 e4 d6 (5 ... e6 trans­
poses to the main game} 6 �xc4 g6 White
could consider 7 f4!?, since 7 liJf3 leads to a
position from Chapter 9, while 7 ltJe2
�g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 �g5 liJbd7 10 ltJec3 liJb6
1 1 �e2 h6 12 �h4 ltJe8 13 liJd2 ltJc7 14 f4
�a6 15 liJf3 �xe2 16 'i6'xe2 'i6'd7 was fine
for Black in Briffel-Kaidanov, Moscow
1985.
c) 4 ... ltJa6!? (trying to exploit the posi­
tion of the queen on c2} 5 cxb5 (the simple
O th e r Fo u r th M o v e s fo r Wh i t e
5 a3 may be better: 5 ... bxc4 6 e4 d6 7
�xc4 ltJc7, and now instead of 8 b4 cxb4 9
axb4 e6 10 ltJc3 exd5 1 1 exd5 �b7 12 Wd3
�e7, as in Juraczka-Lazarev, Oberwart
open 199 1, perhaps 8 .i.g5!?) 5 ... ltJb4 6
'i6'xc5 liJfxd5 (6 ... e6 looks even better) 7
�d2 (or 7 e4 e5!? 8 'ifc4 �b7 with ... l:tc8
to follow) and now Fedorowicz gives
7 ... �b7! 8 Wc1 l:lc8 9 ltJc3 ltJxc3 followed
by 10 ... �e4.
5 e4 bxc4
The risky 5 ... exd5 gives White the op­
tion of recapturing with the c-pawn: 6
cxd5! (6 exd5 bxc4 7 .i.xc4 transposes to
the main game) 6 ... 'ii'e7 7 ltJc3 b4 8 d6 (8
ltJb5 ltJa6 should favour Black) 8 ... 'ifxd6?!
9 ltJb5 'ii'c6 1 0 �f4! ltJhS, as in Poletov­
Shereshevsky, USSR 1975, when Tukma­
kov gives 1 1 �xb8 l:txb8 12 liJxa7 'ifa6 13
ltJxc8 with an edge for White.
6 .i.xc4
6 dxe6 fxe6 7 e5 ltJdS 8 �xc4 .i.b7 9
liJf3 ltJb4 (Fedorowicz} is satisfactory for
Black, while 6 liJc3!? exd5 7 e5 �b7! 8
�g5 (8 exf6 Wxf6 is fine for Black) 8 . . . 'ife7
9 0-0-0 'ii'xe5 1 0 ltJf3 We6 1 1 .i.xc4 dxc4 12
l:the1 �e7 13 l:txe6 fxe6 was the wild con­
tinuation of Bilunov-Arkhipov, USSR
1978. I prefer White after 14 ltJb5 ltJa6 15
'ii'xc4 0-0 16 liJd6.
6 . . . exd5 7 exd5 .i.d6 ! ?
Or 7 ...d6 8 liJc3 �e7 9 ltJge2 0-0 10 0-0
ltJbd7 1 1 a4 liJb6 (1 1...liJe5 12 �a2 �a6 is
also playable} 12 �a2 �a6 13 l:td1 l:te8 14
a5 liJbd7 with a fairly level position in the
game Agdestein-D.Cramling, Ostersund
1986.
8 lLle2?!
8 liJf3 was necessary.
8 . . . 0-0 9 lLlbc3 .:te8 1 0 ..tg5
10 0-0 ltJg4 would be asking for trouble,
but after the text move White cannot cas­
tle for the time being because of ... �xh2+
and ... ltJg4+.
1 0 . . . ..ta6 1 1 ..txa6 lbxa6 1 2 .:td 1 c4 1 3
'ifd2 lbc5 1 4 0-0 .:t b8 1 5 lLld4 lLld3
1 49
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
Black has a dream position after only 15
moves.
1 6 b3 �e5 1 7 ll:\f3 h6! 1 8 bxc4 ll:\b2 1 9
ll:\xe5 ll:\xd 1 20 ll:\xd7?
White completely loses the plot. After
20 llJxf7 <ltxf7 21 .txf6 'ii'xf6 22 :.Xdl his
position would have been grim, but not
entirely hopeless.
20 . . . 'ii'x d7 ?
And Black returns the compliment. Af­
ter 20 ... llJxc3 2 1 llJxb8 llJce4 22 .txf6
'ii'xb8 Black should be winning easily.
21 �xf6 ll:\b2 22 'ii'd4 gxf6 23 lL\e4 .:l.xe4
24 'ii'xe4 'ii'c 7?
This loses a pawn, but 24 ...l:.b4 25 :tel
'ii'c8 26 d6 is also unpleasant for Black.
25 'ii'g4+ Wt8 26 'ii'h 4! 'ii'e 5 27 'ii'xh6+
�e7 28 'ii'c 1 ! ?
After 2 8 c5!? l:tb5 (28 . . .'ii'xd5 29 :tel+)
29 'ii'd2 the game is just very unclear.
28 . . . ll:\d3 29 'ii'a3+ ll:\b4 30 'ii'xa7+ Wt8
3 1 a3?
After 31 'ii'a3 White is the one with all
the winning chances.
31 . . . ll:\c2 32 'ii'c 5+ �g8 33 g3?
Unnecessarily weakening the kingside.
33 a4 was preferable.
33 . . . ll:\d4 34 h4??
Over the last few moves White has lost
his way completely. Even at this late stage
the alternative 34 :dt would have kept
the game going.
34 . . . 'ii'e4 ! 35 f3 ll:\xf3+ 0-1
1 50
Game 70
Kramnik-Leko
Dortmund 1998
1 d4 ll:\f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 ll:\d2
Until recently this move was consid­
ered completely harmless. However, in
the last couple of years it has become a
trendy way of avoiding the reams of the­
ory of the main lines.
4 . . . bxc4
4 ...'ii'a5 seems unnecessarily compli­
cated, e.g. 5 b4 'ii'xb4 (5 ... cxb4 6 e4 looks
too risky for Black) 6 l:tbl and now Fe­
dorowicz suggests 6 ...'ii'a4 7 :.Xb5 'ii'xdl+
8 cltxdl llJa6 9 a3 d6 'with good play for
Black'. However, 9 a3?! looks like an utter
waste of time. If White plays 9 e4 d6 10
.tb2 he should be slightly better.
5 e4
Stohl suggests that 5 llJxc4 can be met
by 5 ... .tb7 6 d6 llJe4.
5 . . . c3!
This may be the move that sends 4 llJd2
back into oblivion. Black takes time out
to disrupt his opponent's pawn formation.
The alternatives are:
a) 5 ... e6 6 dxe6 (or 6 .txc4 exd5 7 exd5
.td6!? with equality according to Zagre­
belny) 6 ... dxe6 (6 ... fxe6 7 e5 liJd5 8 llJxc4
'ii'h4 9 llJf3 'ii'e4+ 10 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2+ 1 1 .txe2
.te7 12 .tg5 was better for White in Co-

lon-P.Cramling, Spanish Team Champi­
onship 1990, although Black won in the
end) 7 �xc4 :i.e7 8 ll:lgf3 0-0 9 0-0 �b7 10
e5 ll:ld5 1 1 ll:le4 ll:lb6 12 �d3 c4 with an
unclear position in Ostenstad-L.B.Hansen,
Copenhagen 1986.
b) 5 ... 'ii'a5!? and now:
b 1) 6 'ii'c2 e6! 7 �xc4 exd5 8 exd5 d6
was fine for Black in Sosonko-Adams, Ter
Apel 1992. White's d5-pawn is a perma­
nent weakness.
b2) 6 �xc4 �a6 (6 ...ll:lxe4 also looks
playable) 7 'ii'c2 �xc4 8 'ii'xc4 e6 and
Black was again doing well in Schroll­
Plachetka, Austrian Team Championship
1992.
c) 5 ... d6 6 �xc4 g6 7 b3 (7 ll:le2 �g7 8
0-0 0-0 9 ll:lc3 ll:lbd7 is too slow to cause
Black any real problems) 7 ... �g7 Gulian
Hodgson once experimented with the
bizarre 7 ... �h6?!, but stood slightly worse
after 8 'ii'c2 0-0 9 ll:le2 e6 10 0-0 ll:la6 1 1
dxe6 fxe6 1 2 'ii'd3 in Piket-Hodgson, Wijk
aan Zee 1993) 8 �b2 0-0 9 ll:lgf3 e5!? (or
9 ... ll:lbd7 10 0-0 ll:lb6 1 1 l:.e1 e6 12 dxe6
fxe6 13 'ii'c2 ll:lxc4 14 ll:lxc4 d5 15 l:.ad1
�b7 16 exd5 exd5 17 ll:lce5 'ii'h6 18 ll:lgS
and White was on top in Rowson­
Mannion, Scottish Championship 1998)
10 dxe6 fxe6 (after 10 ... �xe6?! 1 1 0-0 ll:lc6
12 l:.e 1 White stood slightly better in the
recent rapidplay game Kramnik-Ivanchuk,
Frankfurt 1998) and now 1 1 0-0! d5 12
exd5 exd5 13 ll:le4! is preferable to 1 1 e5?
ll:lh5! 12 'ii'c2 d5 13 �d3 ll:ld7 with good
play in Whitehead-Benjamin, USA Cham­
pionship 1983. The problem for Black is
that even after he has achieved his desired
... e7-e6, d5xe6 ... f7xe6 he is left with vul­
nerable hanging pawns in the centre.
6 bxc3 g6 7 ltJc4
An attempted improvement on the
older lines:
a) 7 c4 d6 and now:
at) 8 f4 �g7 9 �b2 0-0 10 ll:lgf3 ll:la6 1 1
�d3 l:.b8 1 2 �c3 ll:lb4 with a fine position
O th er Fo u r th M o v e s fo r Wh i t e
for Black in R.Kaufman-L.Kaufman,
Hampstead 1998 (son against father!).
a2) 8 �d3 �g7 9 :tbl 0-0 10 ll:lgf3
ll:lbd7 1 1 0-0 'i'c7 12 �b2 l:1b8 with equal­
ity in Ornstein-Brynell, Sollentuna 1995.
a3) 8 �b2 �g7 9 'ii'c2 0-0 10 ll:lgf3 e5!?
(10...e6 looks better) 11 dxe6 �xe6 12 �e2
ll:lc6 13 0-0 l:tb8 with an unclear position
in Weischede-Mainka, Dortmund open
1992.
b) 7 �d3 �g7 8 ll:le2 0-0 9 0-0 e6!?
(9... d6 10 ll:lc4 ll:lbd7 also looks fine for
Black) 10 ll:lf4 exd5 1 1 e5!? ll:le8 12 ll:lxd5
ll:lc6! (12 ... �xe5 13 ll:lc4 �g7 14 �f4 is
promising for White according to Stohl)
13 ll:lf3 ll:lxe5 14 ll:lxe5 �xeS 15 l:.e1 d6 16
�h6 �e6! with a very unclear position in
Epishin-Khalifman, Elenite 1994.
7 . . . d6 8 i.d3 i.g7 9 ltJt3 0-0 1 0 0-0
ltJbd7 1 1 i.d2 ltJb6
Black has equalised with simple devel­
oping moves. White now attempts to jus­
tify his opening play but it rebounds on
him. According to Leko in Infomiator 73
White should have settled for 12 ll:lxb6
axb6 13 a4 with an unclear position.
1 2 ltJa5? c4! 1 3 i.c2
13 ll:lxc4 ll:lxc4 14 �xc4 ll:lxe4 also fa­
vours Black.
1 3 . . ."i'c7 14 :te 1 ltJbxd5 1 5 ltJxc4 ltJxc3
1 6 i.xc3 "i'xc4
The loose position of the knight on a5
has cost White a pawn.
151
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
1 7 i.b2 i.b7 1 8 i.b3 'ifa6 1 9 e5 lbe4 20
.l:lb 1 .!:lacS 21 exd6 'ifxd6 22 i.xf7+? !
A combination which only simplifies
Black's task.
22 . . ..1:lxf7 23 i.xg7 'ifxd 1 24 .l:lexd 1
liJxf2 25 �xf2 i.xf3 26 gxf3 .l:lc2+ 27
�g3 �xg7
The opening and middlegame have
been disastrous for White, who is left to
grovel two pawns down. If now 28 a4 l:.c3
29 l:.fl l:.a3 30 l:.b4 all White's pieces are
passive and he can only await the gradual
advance of Black's kingside pawns.
28 .l:lb3 .l:lxa2 29 .l:ld7 .l:la5 30 h4 h6 3 1
.l:lc3 e 6 32 .l:ld6 � 6 3 3 .l:le3 .l:le7· 34 .l:le4
g5 35 .l:lc6 .l:le5 36 .l:la4 gxh4+ 37 .l:lxh4
h5 38 .l:la6 .l:lg7+ 39 �2 .l:lb7 40 .l:lha4
.l:lb2+ 41 �g3 .l:lg5+ 42 �h3 .l:lb3 43 �h4
.l:lf5 44 f4 .l:lb7?
With the white king cut off, the ending
after 44...l:.e3 (44 ...l:.f3 45 l:.xe6 + !! �e6
46 l:.a6 + forces a draw by perpetual check
or stalemate!) 45 lha7 .:f3 looks fairly
desperate (Leko).
45 .l:le4 .l:le7 46 .l:lee4 .l:lb5 47 .l:lxa7 .l:lxa7
48 .l:lxa7 .l:lb4 49 �g3 .l:lb3+ 50 �g2 �5
51 .l:la5+ �xf4 52 .l:lxh5 � - �
Game 71
Murshed-Hodgson
London (Lloyds Bank) 1992
1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 i.g5
1 52
Although this move is played relatively
rarely, it contains plenty of pitfalls for the
unwary.
4 . . .lbe4
Numerous other moves have been
tried, but this is the most critical continua­
tion:
a) 4 ...1i'b6 5 .!Dc3 (5 o!Dd2 may be prefer-
able) 5 ... b4 6 .!Db1 ttJe4 {Fedorowicz sug-
gests 6 ... g6) 7 i.cl 'iff6?! (very artificial) 8
.!Df3 d6, and now instead of the routine 9
e3, as in Tukmakov-Rajkovic, Hastings
1972, Tukmakov gives 9 'ifc2! 'ifg6
(9 ... i.f5 runs into 10 g4! i.g6 1 1 'ifa4+
o!Dd7 12 h4) 10 .!Dh4 'ifg4 1 1 g3 .!Df6 12
i.g2 with a clear advantage.
b) 4...'ifa5+ 5 o!Dd2 bxc4 (5 ...o!De4 6 b4!)
6 i.xf6 exf6 7 'ifc2 d6 8 e3 i.e7 9 i.xc4 0-0
10 o!De2 .!Dd7 1 1 o!Dc3 i.a6 12 0-0 also fa­
voured White in the game Summerscale­
Ansell, British Championship, Notting­
ham 1996.
c) 4 ... d6 5 i.xf6 exf6 6 cxb5 g6 7 .!Df3
i.g7 8 o!Dc3 0-0 9 e3 a6 10 a4 f5 1 1 i.e2
axb5 12 i.xb5 'ifa5 13 0-0 i.xc3 14 bxc3
'ifxc3 15 o!Dd2 left Black with weaknesses
all over the board in Ubilava-Gorelov, Tel
Aviv 1982.
d) 4 ... bxc4 5 o!Dc3 d6 leaves White with
the tricky decision as to whether or not to
exchange on f6:
d1) 6 i.xf6 exf6 7 e3 i.e7 (perhaps this
is unnecessary; the straightforward 7 ... g6 8

J-xc4 J-g7 seems fine for Black, e.g. 9
1i'a4+ tt:Jd7 10 J-a6 0-0 1 1 J-xc8 1i'xc8 12
tl:Jge2 f5 13 0-0 tl:Jf6 14 l:l.ab1 l:l.e8 15 b4
tl:Je4 16 l:tfcl 1i'd8 17 bxc5 tl:Jxc5 18 1i'd1
'h-'h Arencibia-Pazos, Medellin 1987} 8
J-xc4 0-0 9 J-d3 tt:Jd7 10 tl:Jf3 l:tb8 1 1 1i'c2
slightly favoured White in Murshed­
Adams, London (Lloyds Bank Masters)
199 1 .
d2) 6 e 4 tt:Jbd7 (6 ...1i'a5 7 J-xf6 and 8
J-xc4 should be slightly better for White)
7 J-xc4 g6 8 tt:Jf3 J-g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 tl:Jd2 left
White with a comfortable edge in G .Flear­
Berg, Zug 1985.
e) 4 ... g6!? 5 d6!? (also possible is 5 tl:Jd2
J-g7 6 e4, when Black should play 6 ... dxc4
instead of 6 ... d6 7 tl:Jgf3 0-0 8 cxb5 a6 9
1i'b3, as in Parker-Stoeber, Hastings Chal­
lengers 1995) 5 ... bxc4!? (5 ... exd6?! 6 tl:Jc3
J-g7 [ECO quotes Skembris' 6 ... a6 7 tl:Je4
1i'a5+ 8 J-d2 1i'd8 9 $.g5 'with equality',
failing to spot 9 ttJx£6+ 1i'xf6 10 J-c3 pick­
ing up the rook on h8!] 7 tl:Jxb5 0-0 8 tl:Jf3
J-b7 9 tl:Jxd6 slightly favoured White in
Grivas-Lputian, Athens 1983, while
5 ... J-b7 6 tl:Jc3 a6?! 7 J-xf6 exf6 8 1i'd2
tl:Jc6 9 cxb5 tl:Jd4 10 e3 tl:Jxb5 1 1 J-xb5
axb5 12 tl:Jxb5 1i'a5 13 tl:Jc7+ �d8 14 tl:Jxa8
1i'xd2+ 15 �d2 J-xg2 16 f3 J-xh 1 17 �e2
was disastrous for Black in the game Miles­
Bellon, Surakarta!Denpasar 1982) 6 tl:Jc3
tl:Jc6 7 1i'd2!? {Fedorowicz gives 7 e4 l:tb8
'with a lot of counterplay') 7 ... J-g7 8 e4
h6 9 J-f4 g5 10 J-e3 exd6 1 1 1i'xd6 tl:Jg4 12
J-xc4 tl:Jxe3 13 fxe3 with a promising at­
tacking position for White in the encoun­
ter Grivas-Kjeldsen, Cannes open 1995.
5 ..tf4
In a later game Murshed experimented
with the wacky 5 h4 1i'a5+ 6 tt:Jd2 bxc4 7
1i'c2 tl:Jxg5 8 hxg5, but the game quickly
petered out to a draw: 8 ... g6 9 1i'c3 1i'xc3
10 bxc3 J-g7 1 1 l:tcl d6 12 e4 tl:Jd7 13
tl:Jgf3 tl:Jb6 14 tl:Jxc4 tl:Jxc4 15 J-xc4 l:tb8 16
�d2 �d8 17 �c2 'h-'h Murshed-Sermek,
Moscow Olympiad 1994.
O th e r Fo u r th M o ves fo r Wh i t e
5 . . . Wa5+
Here 5 ...bxc4 is met by 6 1i'c2 tl:Jf6 7 e4
and 5 ... d6 by 6 f3 tl:Jf6 7 e4, so Black must
choose between the text move and 5 ... e6 6
1i'c2, with the following possibilities:
a) 6 ... tl:Jd6?! 7 tl:Jc3 1i'a5 8 cxb5 tl:Jxb5 9
J-d2 lLla6 10 tl:Jxb5 1i'xb5 1 1 e4 tt:Jb4 12
1i'b3 1i'b6 13 J-c4 with a slight pull for
White in Kaidanov-Arkhipov, Moscow
1985.
b) 6 ...1i'a5+ 7 tl:Jd2 tl:Jd6 with an unclear
position according to Kaidanov, although
after 8 e4 tl:Jxc4 9 J-xc4 bxc4 10 tl:Je2
White has quite good play for the pawn.
c) 6 ...tl:Jxf2 7 �2 1i'f6 8 1i'e4! (8 tl:Jh3
e5! [8 ... g5 9 1i'c3! 1i'xc3 10 tl:Jxc3 gxf4 1 1
tl:Jxb5 favours White] and now both 9
1i'e4 and 9 1i'c3 can be met by 9 ... d6 and
10 ... J-xh3, so perhaps 9 tl:Jc31? exf4 10
1i'e4+ �d8 1 1 tl:Jxb5, intending d5-d6)
8 ... g5 9 tl:Jh3 gxf4 10 tl:Jc3 (10 dxe6 1i'xe6
1 1 1i'xa8 1i'e3+ 12 �e1 Wet+ leads to a
draw by perpetual check) 10 ... J-g7
(10 ... J-b7 is more critical, intending to
meet 1 1 tl:Jxb5 with 1 1...tl:Ja6 and 1 1 cxb5
with 1 1...1i'd4+) 1 1 tl:Jxb5 0-0 (or
1 1...1i'h4+ 12 �g1 f5 13 1i'f3) 12 1i'xf4
1i'xb2 13 l:td1 tl:Ja6 14 l:td2 1i'e5 (perhaps
14 ...1i'c1!?) 15 g3 J-b7 16 J-g2 l:tab8 and
now 17 a3! would have left White on top
in Arencibia-Lugo, Cuban Championship
1986.
6 llJd2 g5!
1 53
Th e Ben k o G a m b i t

Both 6 ... bxc4 7 1i'c2 tt::\f6 8 e4 d6 9 Seirawan has suggested 8 1i'c2 tt::\xd2 9
iLxc4 g6 10 tt::\gf3 iLg7, as in Zsinka­ iLc3, but the simple 8 ...'W'xd2+ 9 'W'xd2
Lazarev, Oberwart 1993, and 6 ... d6 7 f3 tt::\xd2 10 �xd2 d6! 1 1 iLg3 bxc4 12 e4 iLa6
tt::\f6 8 e4 g6 9 cxb5 slightly favour White. seems perfectly okay for Black.

7 .i.e5! 8 . . . Wxb4 9 lt:Jgf3 g4

The most critical move, although It might have been safer to play either
White has also tried: 9 ...4:\xd2 10 tt::\xd2 d6, e.g. 1 1 l:.b1 'ii'a3 12
a) 7 iLe3 bxc4 8 1i'c2 tt::\f6! 9 iLxg5 iLb2 'W'xa2 13 'W'c2 'W'a4 14 'W'xh7 l:tg6
4:\xdS 10 1i'xc4 tt::\ b 6 with a fine position with a very messy position, or ECO's
for Black in Grivas-Khalifman, Leningrad 9 ...'W'a5! 10 'ifh1 tt::\xd2 1 1 tt::\xd2 d6 and if
1989. 12 'W'xh7 then 12 ... l:g6.
b) 7 b4 1i'xb4 8 l:tb 1 1i'c3 9 l:tb3 1i'f6?! 1 0 :b1 !
(9 ... 4:\xf2! 10 �xf2 1i'f6 or 10 :Xc3 tt::\xd1 The start of a series of forcing moves
1 1 iLxb8 tt::\xc3 12 iLe5 l:tg8 13 iLxc3 b4 is that leave White in the driving seat.
correct) 10 tt::\xe4 1i'xf4 1 1 1i'h1! (not 1 1 1 0 . . . lt:Jc3 1 1 :xb4 lt:Jxd 1 1 2 :xb5 gxf3
1i'c2? bxc4 1 2 l:tf3 1i'e5 1 3 1i'c3 1i'xe4 14 1 3 exf3 d6 1 4 .ta 1 lt:Jxf2 1 5 �xf2 .i.h6
1i'xh8 1i'h 1+ 15 �d2 c3+ 16 1i'xc3 1i'xf1 17 1 6 lt:Je4
d6 f6 18 tt::\h 3 1i'xh 1 19 tt::\xg5 1i'xh2 20
tt::\e4 1i'e5 2 1 tt::\xf6+ exf6 0-1 Botsari­
Zsu.Polgar, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988)
1 1 ...g4?! (1 1...bxc4 12 e3 1i'c7 13 iLxc4
iLa6 might have been more prudent,
though White still has a large development
advantage) 12 e3 1i'h6 13 l:txb5 tt::\a6 14 a3
iLg7 15 iLd3 0-0 16 tt::\e2 d6 17 0-0 and
White stood better in Fischdick-Kinsman,
Wuppertal (rapidplay) 1993.
7 . . .l:l.g8 !
This is an improvement on 7 .. .f6 8 iLg3
d6 9 f3 tt::\xg3 10 hxg3 iLg7 1 1 g4, when
White was on top in P.Cramling­ White is now clearly on top. Despite
Hertneck, Dortmund 1986. Hodgson's best attempts to wriggle, Mur­
8 b4! ? shed eventually lands the catch.

1 54

1 6 . . . i.d7 1 7 :tb1 i.f5 1 8 i.d3 i.g6 1 9
:tb7 lbd7 20 :thb 1 i.g7 2 1 f4 i.xa 1 22
:txa 1 �d8 23 a4 �c8 24 :tab1 :tb8 25
:txb8+ lbxb8 26 f5!
After this move Black is left with a
hopeless endgame.
26 . . . i.xf5 27 lbxd&+ exd6 28 i.xf5+
�c7 29 .i.xh7 :tg4 30 i.d3 lbd7 31 .i.e2
:th4 32 a5 a6 33 h3 lbe5 34 :tb6 lbxc4
35 i.xc4 :txc4 36 :txa6 :td4 37 :ta7+
�b8 38 :txf7 :txd5 39 h4 c4 40 a6 :td2+
41 �3 c3 42 :tb7+ �aa 43 :tc7 :td3+
44 �4 d5 45 h5 :td4+ 46 �3 :td3+ 47
�2 :td2+ 48 �g3 :td3+ 49 �h2 :te3 50
h6 :te6 51 h7 :th&+ 52 �g3 c2 53 :txc2
:txh7 54 �4 �a7 55 :ta2 d4 56 g4 :td7
57 �e4 d3 58 �e3 :td8 59 :td2 :tg8 60
:tg2 :td8 61 :td2 :tg8 62 :tg2 :td8 63 g5
:td6 64 �d2 1 -0
Game 72
M irkovic-Nevednichy
Yugoslavia 1996
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 e4?!
A bizarre and probably dubious gam­
bit. White gives up a centre pawn in at­
tempt to force Black onto the back foot.
4 f3 is seen from time to time, but it
should not cause Black too many prob­
lems. After 4 ... bxc4 (Fedorowicz suggests
4 ... e6 5 e4 exd5 6 cxd5 'i'a5+ 7 .td2 'i'b6 8
li\�1 !.. A '�•:+!.. - 1 � •\ C: -A ...1 £
\VTL:._ l_
o y .. et-etl.
.. •-
.
1 55
O th e r Fo u r th M o v e s fo r Wh i t e
decide whether to recapture on c4:
a) 6 .txc4 g6 7 lt'le2 .tg7 8 lt'lbc3 (Black
had no problems after 8 0-0 0-0 9 lt'lec3
lt'lbd7 10 a4 lt'le5 1 1 .te2 c4 12 .te3 e6 13
lt'la3 exd5 14 exd5 .:le8 15 'i'd2 .ta6 \h - \h
in Urban-Shilov, Koszalin 1997) 8 .. 0-0 9 .
0-0 and now Fedorowicz recommends
9 ... lt'lbd7!, intending ... lt'le5 or ... lt'lb6,
instead of 9 ... .ta6?! 10 lt'lb5! lt'lfd7 1 1
lt'lec3 lt'lb6 12 .te2 lt'l8d7 13 a4, when
Black was overwhelmed on queenside in
Reshevsky-Emst, Lugano open 1987.
b) 6 lt'la3!? g6 7 lt'lxc4 .tg7 8 .td2
lt'lbd7?! (8 ... 0-0 seems better, e.g. 9 .taS
'i'd7 10 lt'lh3 lt'la6 1 1 lt'lf2 .:lb8 with bal­
anced chances) 9 lLlaS 0-0 10 lt'lh3 lt'le5 1 1
lLlf2 e6 1 2 f4 lt'led7 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4 .te2
lt'le8 15 'i'b3 lt'lb6 16 h4 .td7 17 h5 lib8
18 hxg6 hxg6 19 'i'g3 'i'f6 20 e5! and
White won quickly in Browne­
R.Anderson, US open 1990.
4 . . .lbxe4 5 'i'f3 'i'a5+
5 ...lt'ld6 is also playable, e.g. 6 cxb5 .tb7
7 lt'lc3 e6 8 .te3 lLlf5 or 6 b4?! bxc4 7 bxc5
'i'aS+ 8 lLld2 'i'xc5 9 .ta3 'i'd4 10 :tel
'i'e5+ when White was unable to justify
his sacrifices in Wyss-Nikolaev, Bad Ragaz
open 1990.
6 lbd2
After 6 lt'lc3 lt'lxc3 7 .td2 Black can
achieve good play with either Benko's
7... b4 8 bxc3 b3 or simply 7 ... .tb7 8 .txc3
L A f- 1 L _ _ _ _I L __

1 6 . . . .td7 1 7 .:.b 1 .tf5 1 8 i.d3 i.g6 1 9
.:.b7 lbd7 20 .:.hb1 i.g7 2 1 f4 .txa 1 22
.:.xa 1 �dS 23 a4 �cS 24 .:.ab1 .:.bs 25
.:.xbS+ lbxbS 26 f5!
After this move Black is left with a
hopeless endgame.
26 . . . .txf5 27 lbxd6+ exd6 28 .txf5+
�c7 29 .txh7 .:.g4 30 i.d3 lbd7 31 .te2
.:.h4 32 a5 a6 33 h3 lbe5 34 .:.b6 lbxc4
35 .txc4 .:.xc4 36 .:.xa6 .:.d4 37 :a7+
�bS 38 .:.xt7 :xd5 39 h4 c4 40 a6 .:.d2+
41 �f3 c3 42 .:.b7+ �as 43 .:.c7 :d3+
44 �f4 d5 45 h5 .:.d4+ 46 �3 .:.d3+ 47
�2 .:.d2+ 48 �g3 .:.d3+ 49 �h2 .:.e3 50
h6 .:.e6 51 h7 .:.h6+ 52 �g3 c2 53 :xc2
.:.xh7 54 �4 �a7 55 .:.a2 d4 56 g4 .:.d7
57 �e4 d3 58 �e3 .:.ds 59 :d2 :gs 60
.:.92 .:.ds 61 .:.d2 .:.9s 62 :92 .:.ds 63 g5
.:.d6 64 �d2 1 -0
Game 72
M irkovic-Nevednichy
Yugoslavia 1996
1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 e4?!
A bizarre and probably dubious gam­
bit. White gives up a centre pawn in at­
tempt to force Black onto the back foot.
4 f3 is seen from time to time, but it
should not cause Black too many prob­
lems. After 4 ... bxc4 (Fedorowicz suggests
4 ... e6 5 e4 exdS 6 cxdS 'i'a5+ 7 i.d2 'i'b6 8
tZ:lc3 b4 'with play') 5 e4 d6 White has to
O th e r Fo u r t h M o v e s fo r Wh i t e
decide whether to recapture on c4:
a) 6 i.xc4 g6 7 tLle2 i.g7 8 tZ:lbc3 (Black
had no problems after 8 0-0 0-0 9 tZ:lec3 ·
tZ:lbd7 10 a4 tZ:le5 1 1 i.e2 c4 12 i.e3 e6 13
tZ:la3 exdS 14 exdS .l:te8 15 'iid2 i.a6 lh-lh
in Urban-Shilov, Koszalin 1997) 8 ... 0-0 9
0-0 and now Fedorowicz recommends
9 ... tZ:lbd7!, intending ... tZ:le5 or ... tZ:lb6,
instead of 9 ... .ta6?! 10 tZ:lb5! tZ:lfd7 1 1
tZ:lec3 tZ:lb6 1 2 i.e2 tZ:l8d7 1 3 a4, when
Black was overwhelmed on queenside in
Reshevsky-Ernst, Lugano open 1987.
b) 6 tZ:la3!? g6 7 tZ:lxc4 i.g7 8 .td2
tZ:lbd7?! (8 ... 0-0 seems better, e.g. 9 i.aS
'i'd7 10 tZ:lh3 tZ:la6 1 1 tZ:lf2 .l:tb8 with bal­
anced chances) 9 lLlaS 0-0 10 tZ:lh3 tZ:le5 1 1
lLlf2 e6 1 2 f4 tZ:led7 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4 i.e2
tZ:le8 15 'i'b3 tZ:lb6 16 h4 i.d7 17 h5 .l:tb8
18 hxg6 hxg6 19 'i'g3 'iff6 20 e5! and
White won quickly in Browne­
R.Anderson, US open 1990.
4 . . . lbxe4 5 �f3 �aS+
5 ... tZ:ld6 is also playable, e.g. 6 cxb5 i.b7
7 tLlc3 e6 8 i.e3 lLlf5 or 6 b4?! bxc4 7 bxc5
'i'aS+ 8 tZ:ld2 "ii'xc5 9 i.a3 "ii'd4 10 .l:tcl
"ii'e5+ when White was unable to justify
his sacrifices in Wyss-Nikolaev, Bad Ragaz
open 1990.
6 tbd2
After 6 tZ:lc3 lLlxc3 7 .td2 Black can
achieve good play with either Benko's
7 ... b4 8 bxc3 b3 or simply 7 ... i.b7 8 i.xc3
b4 followed by ... e7-e6.
1 55
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t
6 . . . tLld6 7 cxb5 a6?!
This seems to allow White too much
play. Black has also tried:
a) 7 ... .i.b7 8 lLlh3 a6 (8 ... e6 9 lLlf4 lLlxb5
10 b4 'ii'c7 1 1 .i.xb5 'ii'e5+ 12 'ii'e2 'ii'x a1
13 0-0, as in Stojnic-Kogan, Ljubljana open
1997, gives White to sort of random at­
tacking chances he is looking for in this
variation) 9 b6 was seen in Mirkovic­
Solozhenkin, Yugoslavia 1996, but it all
looks a little ropey to me.
b) More to the point, there does- not
appear to be a great deal wrong with the
simple 7 ... lLlxb5 8 d6?! (8 .i.xb5 'ii'xb5 9
lLle2 .i.a6 10 lLlc3 'ii'd3 is also unconvinc­
ing for White) 8 ... lL\c6 9 .i.xb5 'ii'xb5 10
lLle2 e6 11 0-0 .i.a6 12 l:te1 'it'd3 13 'ii'xd3
.i.xd3, when Black was already in an
overwhelming position in Shchukin­
Khalifman, St Petersburg Championship
1998.
8 b6!
An improvement on 8 b4 'it'xb4 9 l:lb1
'ii'aS 10 b6 .i.b7 1 1 lLle2 lLlb5, as in Mirk­
ovic-Marinkovic, Belgrade 199 1 .
8 . . .g 6 9 b4 ! cxb4
Both 9 . . .'ii'xb6 10 'ii'c3 f6 1 1 bxcS lLlbS
12 .i.xb5 'ii'xb5 13 l:tb 1 and 9 ... 'ii'xb4 10
l:tb 1 'it'aS (10 ... 'ii'a4 11 .i.b2 f6 12 'ii'e3 or
10 . . . 'ii'h 4 1 1 .i.b2 f6 12 g3 are also good for
White) 1 1 .i.b2 f6 (1 l....i.h6 12 .i.c3
.i.xd2+ 13 'it>xd2 'ii'xa2+ 14 l:lb 1 'ii'a 1 15
.i.d3 is very risky for Black) 12 .i.c3 'ii'a4
1 56
(12 ...'it'xa2 13 l:ta1 'ii'c2 14 .i.d3 'ii'xc3 15
.i.xg6+ wins for White) 13 'ii'e3 favour
White according to Mirkovic.
1 0 .i.b2 f6 1 1 tLlb3 Wxb6 1 2 h4!
White must act quickly to exploit the
lack of development on Black's queenside.
1 2 . . . tLlb6 1 3 .i.xb5 axb5
Black suffers from a parlous lack of de­
velopment after 13 ...'ii'xb5 14 l:.ct i.b7
(not 14 ...'ii'b 7? 15 tLlaS) 15 l:.c5 'ii'b6
(15 ...'ii'a4 is met by 16 l:.aS) 16 .i.d4 'it'dS
(16 ...'ii'd6 17 tLlaS l:la7 18 lLlc4 and wins)
17 h5 (Mirkovic).
1 4 h5 l:l.g8 1 5 hxg6 hxg6 1 6 tLle2 .i.b7
1 7 0-0 e5 1 8 tLlg3 ..te7
18 ... lLla6 was a logical alternative.
1 9 l:l.fe1 d6 20 lbd4!
20 . . .ttJd7
Mirkovic gives 20 ... exd4? 2 1 'ii'xf6 'ii'c7
22 'ii'e6 l:.f8 (22 ... l:.g7 23 .i.xd4) 23 i.xd4
'ii'd7 24 'ii'xg6+ l:tf7 (24 .. .'it>d8 25 .i.b6+) 25
.i.f6 and wins. After the game move the
knight on c6 guarantees White a powerful
initiative.
21 tLlc6 tLlc5 22 ttJe4 tLlxe4 23 Wxe4
l:l.c8 24 l:l.ac 1 �d7 25 ..td4 Wa6 26 Wf3
..txc6
Not 26 ...exd4?? 27 l:.xe7 mate.
27 Wh3+ f5 28 dxc6+ l:l.xc6
28 ... 'itc7 29 'ii'h7 l:.ce8 30 .i.xe5! dxe5
3 1 l:.xe5 wins for White (Mirkovic) .
29 l:l.cd 1 ! Wxa2
After 29 ... exd4 30 l:.xe7+! 'itxe7 3 1

1i'h7+ Mirkovic claims that White is win­
ning with 3 1...'1tf8 32 l:te1! l:tg7 33 1i'h8+
'itf7 {33 ... l:tg8 34 1i'f6 mate) 34 'ii'e8+ 'il.>f6
35 1i'd8+ �f7 36 l:te7+ �f6 37 l:te8+ �f7
38 1i'e7 mate. However, Black can wriggle
out with the alternative 3 1...�d8 32
1i'xg8+ �c7, when the game is still very
much in the balance.
30 .i.xe5 'iff7 3 1 'ifd3 'ifc4?
It was better to play 31...l:tb8! 32 'ii'd4
and now, instead of Mirkovic's 32 ...1i'c4?
33 1i'a7+ 'itc8 34 .i.xd6! and wins or
32 ...l:tb7 33 1i'a1! with compensation, per­
haps 3 1...l:ta8!? to meet 32 1i'xb4 with
32 ... 1i'c4.
32 'ife3 J:l.dS
Not 32 ... l:tgc8? 33 ..txd6!
33 J:l.c1 ?
White misses his chance in time­
trouble. 33 ..tb2! would have placed Black
in serious trouble according to Mirkovic:
32 ... ..tf8 {33 ... l:te8 34 l:tcl 1i'a2 35 :Xc6
�c6 36 ..tf6 or 33 ...1i'f7 34 1i'a7+ l:tc7 35
1i'b6 1i'c4 36 l:tcl) 34 l:tcl 1i'a2 (34 ...1i'd5
35 'ii'a7+) 35 l:ta1! 1i'xb2 {35 ... 1i'c4 36 :a7+
l:tc7 37 l:txc7+ 1i'xc7 38 'ii'e6+ 'ii?c6 39
l:tcl+) 36 1i'e6+ �c7 37 1i'f7+ �b8
{37... �b6 38 1i'a7 mate or 37 ...l:td7 38
l:ta7+) 38 1i'a7+ 'itc8 39 1i'a8+ �d7
O th e r Fo u r th M o v e s fo r Wh i t e
{39 ... �c7 40 l:4a7+ 'it>b6 41 .l:ta6+) 40 'i'b7+
:c7 41 'ii'xb5+ mating.
33 . . . dxe5
Mirkovic gives this equalising move an
exclamation mark but it is not clear how
,
White would have continued after
33 ... 'ii'e4!, e.g. 34 'ii'a7+ �e8 or 34 l:txc6
�xc6.
34 J:l.xc4 bxc4 35 'ifxe5 .i.d6 36 'ifg7+
�cS 37 'ifa7 c3 38 'ifaS+ �d7 39 'ifa7+
�c8 40 'ifa8+ �d7 41 'ifb7+ J:l.c7 42
'ifb5+ J:l.c6 43 'ifb7+ % - %
A fine illustration of White's dynamic
chances if Black is careless in this line, al­
though it is not clear why Black does not
play 7 . .lLlxb5 more often.
.
157
Th e B e n k o G a m b i t

Summary
In this chapter we have considered some of White's alternatives to 4 cxbS and 4 tiJf3.
By far the most dangerous of these is 4 a4, a favourite line of the British grandmaster
Chris Ward, who has won several fine games with it. Black must make an immediate
decision whether to capture on c4 (Game 67} or close up the queenside (Game 68).
The former leads to some quite sharp positions in which White probably has the bet- .
ter practical chances, so I would recommend taking a close look at the solid 4 . . . b4 and
4 . . . 'ii'a5 + 5 �d2 b4.
The direct 4 'ii'c2 (Game 69) and 4 liJd2 (Game 70) can be considered rather toothless
- but that doesn't mean you should ignore them. These are the kinds of moves which
can often confuse Benko players and force them into unwarranted passive play - don't
be one of them!
Finally, the highly unusual 4 �g5 (Game 71) and 4 e4 (Game 72) should also be
looked at. They both lead to sharp positions which are certainly no worse for Black,
provided he has bothered to look at them in advance!

1 d4 ltJt6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 (D)

4 a4 (D)
4 'ii'c2 - Game 69
4 .!iJd2 - Game 70
4 �gS - Game 71
4 e4 - Game 72
4 . . . b4
4 . . . bxc4 - Game 67
5 g3 (D) - Game 68

3. . . b5 4 a4 5 g3

1 58
 INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES I

Adla-Komljenovic, Coria 1 995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Akopian-Leko, Wijk aan Zee open 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Bareev-Khalifman, Russian Team Ch. 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Beliavsky-Adams, Tilburg 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Beliavsky-Khalifman, Linares 1 995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
Beliavsky-Leko, Cacak 1996 ........................................................................ 18
Birens-Kinsman, Toulouse open 1 990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13
Brenninkmeijer-Fedorowicz, Wijk aan Zee 1 988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Burgess.G-Beaumont, Aarhus 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 14
Dorfman-Mochalov, USSR 1 981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Epishin-Georgiev.Kir, German Bundesliga 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Ermenkov-Hebden, Euro. Team Ch., Haifa 1 989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Gelfand-Adams, Munich 1993 . . .......... .... ..................................... . . .. ........... . 99
Gelfand-Hertneck, Munich 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Georgiev.Kir-Rogers, Biel Interzonal 1 993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Georgiev.Kir-Topalov, Elenite 1 992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Gofshtein-Manor, Givatayim 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Goldin-Fominyh, Russian Championship 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Greenfeld-Polgar.}, European Team Ch., Haifa 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Groszpeter-Hertneck, Mitropa Cup 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9
Gulko-Vaganian, R iga 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Gurevich.M-Azmaiparashvili, Euro. Club Cup, Strasbourg 1 994 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Gurevich.M-Hertneck, Munich 1 993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Gurevich.M-Miles, Manila lnterzonal 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Haba-Andruet, Toulouse open 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Hansen.L.B-Cramling.P, Reykjavik Zonal 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Hjartarson-Cramling.P, Nordic Zonal 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Hjartarson-Ziiger, Winterthur 1 996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Huss-Vaisser, Swiss Grand Prix 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Illescas-De Ia Villa, Pamplona 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1 59
Th e B en k o G a m b i t

Kallai-Adorjan, Hungarian Team Ch. 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Kanstler-Gershon, Tel A viv 1 997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Knaak-Hertneck, Bad Lauterberg 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Koerholz-Leko, Budapest 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Kramnik-Leko, Dortmund 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Lalic-Khalifman, Linares open 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
I..autier-Richter, German Bundesliga 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Liardet-Wang, Geneva open 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6
Minzer-Khalifman, Linares open 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mirkovic-Nevednichy, Yugoslavia 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Mowzisian-Berg, Hamburg 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Murshed-Hodgson, London (Lleyds Bank) 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Naumkin-Ivanov.V, Moscow 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Nenashev-Van der Weide, Groningen open 1 997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Nickoloff-Wolff, Toronto 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Notkin-Khalifman, St.Petersburg 1 995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Panos-Komljenovic, Pamplona 1 995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Piket-Topalov, Madrid 1 993 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Piket-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Razuvaev-Loncar, Maribor 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Rogozenko-Alterman .B, Euro. Team Ch., Debrecen 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Seirawan-Alburt, US Championship 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Seirawan-Belotti, Lugano 1 988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Seirawan-Van Wely, Merrillville 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Servat-Van Riemsdijk, Capablanca Memorial 1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
Shirov-Adams, Chalkidiki 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Sokolov.I-Fries Nielsen, Torshavn 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Sokolov.I-Khalifman, Parnu 1 996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1
Sokolov.I-Pogliano, Sa n Bernardino 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Solozhenkin-Dunnington, Paris Championship 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Speelman-Mestel, Hastings 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Stohl-Ziiger, Prague 1 996 ............................................................................ 30
Ti.moshchenko-Adams, London (Lloyds Bank) 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5
Tisdall-Fishbein, Gausdal 1 990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Van der Sterren-Hertneck, German Bundesliga 1 994/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Van der Sterren-Hertneck, Munich 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Van der Sterren-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Van der Z-Kogan, Vlissingen open 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Voiculescu-Ghinda, Romania 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Ward-Adams, Hastings Masters 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Xu Jun-Fedorowicz, World Team Ch., Lucerne 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Zviaginsev-Topalov, Pamplona 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

1 60