I know a lot has been published in recent decades about the Benko Gambit. (Typical sequence: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6… then different lines depending on accepting/declining the second pawn, Kingside development options, etc.)
We had a casual discussion in our club the other night on the longer-term prospects for Black in this opening. One member pointed out: “If the second pawn is accepted, and Black cannot expect to easily get it back, then White now has a substantial Q-side advantage (including an early passed pawn)… I can’t see how Black can have much hope of winning.”
I pointed out the relative freedom and scope of Black’s Q-side pieces, including the open a-file. But as we looked at a number of possible sequences into the early middle game, I couldn’t establish the lasting positional advantage to compensate for his point - White’s superiority in the passed pawn, with decent winning chances.
Surely I’m not saying that we exhaustively analyzed this, as some have done in the past. So I’m just asking, in general terms: what is Black’s lasting advantage, and does he derive reasonable winning chances?
How strong are the Benko lines, relative to, say… the Benoni?
Any opening/defense that sees play at the GM level can be considered decent. Now, obviously the Benko Gambit is a rather uncommon opening at the highest levels of play, it still sees daylight on occasion.
dunno how often it would be played by a high level computer, but nowadays, they’re clearly stronger than even the best human player on the planet.
I should probably phrase the question more specifically:
In the case where White accepts the Benko Gambit, Black certainly gains some mobility of his Queen-side pieces. But is that enough to compensate for the Pawn, as well as the fact that White is left with a passed a-Pawn, and the potential for connected passed pawns? In other words - does Black’s middle game superiority outweigh/eclipse a potentially significant endgame superiority for White?
The answer to your question is yes, at least at the class level. Nobody should have the slightest hesitancy about playing the Benko against any player below 2200. I have been teaching this opening to my students for years. At the lower levels the initiative and active piece play is everything. Such players generally do not have the skills to exploit long-term pawn structure or endgame advantages.
One of my former students was (now GM) Joshua Friedel. When he was rising to the higher levels he finally had to learn the more solid Nimzo/Queen’s Indian stuff that all GMs need to know. But he stuck with the Benko for a long time. As recently as the Foxwoods Open 2004, he played it against GM V. Akobian and won.
Hal - thanks for your feedback and for a very interesting example.
In that game, in fact, White in essence declined the gambit (second pawn) with the push 5. b6. In my cursory review of a few dozen Benko Gambit games, this is not a very common maneuver. But as it played out, it appears to be a valid alternative to either accepting - or other modes of declining. In my opinion, White limited the mobility of Black’s pieces (especially the QB, early on), and himself enjoyed great range of his own Bishop pair for much of the middle game… from approximately moves 20 to 30.
But indeed your colleague/ ex-student made a brilliant combination, ultimately with his QB and Knight, to force the Exchange. Very nice. The potential in his position, playing the Benko as Black, was borne out - even if not quite the same motif as an “accepted” gambit. The wide variety of this opening is also a selling point for learning it in more depth, in my opinion - which I will try to do.
And as you also point out, there is evidence that this remains popular at the highest levels - played at a reasonable frequency. Thanks again for your posting and for including that interesting game.
I have played the Benko Gambit since Pal first wrote about it in CL&R around 1973. My highest USCF rating was 1900+ and I remember having great success with it during those years. Now I play almost exclusively 5 minute games on ICC and I don’t study anymore, but I still win most of the games where white accepts both pawns. The tactical possibilities are just too much to defend against in a fast game. The thing is, these days white RARELY accepts both pawns, no matter what rating they are. they either decline altogether, letting the pawn hang there until I have to make a decision about it, or decline the second one either with the push you mentioned or again just doing something else. This tells me that current theory probably still gives black good chances in the original gambit accepted.
BTW, I also use the Steiner variation of the Marshall with great success, and again I am finding that modern speed chess players more often use an anti-marshall setup than accept in the original fasion.
I think the real question you are asking is, is the Benko Gambit “correct” in that Black gets sufficient compensation for his pawn?
The answer to that question is “NO.” Black has not demonstrated clear compensation in all lines - that’s why it was called a “Gambit” in the first place, because it involves some risk. Black gives up a pawn and achieves some play for it, without doubt.
On the other hand, neither can it be claimed the Benko has been “refuted” conclusively, since White cannot demonstrate a clear superiority in all lines either. Opening theory is always changing, and that’s just one of the fascinating aspects of our game.
The Benko Gambit offers decent practical chances, though, and if those positions appeal to your style, there is nothing wrong with playing it. You don’t see it very often at the highest levels of GM play, but then you probably don’t face many Super-GMs at the average weekend Swiss event.