I hereby present the apparent refutation to the Taimanov Variation, 8... Nbd7 in the Benoni Defense. Obviously, I did NOT create the line myself. However, I will endeavour to counter any flaws you percieve in the line. Have fun analysing! 

I thought the whole point was that Nbd7 was trying to be refuted.

Apologies. One second please, I will add my more obvious refutation of that line...

How about 11...Nb4 in the above line?

Nevermind, BlackWaive, I have changed the game to the Nbd7 line.

MCO gives it as +/-.

Oops, I played Qg2 at some point, so it wasn't the same as your variation.

How about playing 14...Qg2 instead of 14...Bxc3+?

Probably 15. Qf3 Qxf3 16. Nxf3, which is still likely to end up +/=, at least. Interesting inequality, though! I'll let Rybka ponder for a few hours.

Seriously, try refuting Nfd7.  It's the better move

Ok, I'll try that later. (Maybe tomorrow). The guy on the other thread said Nbd7, however.

Also, can anyone explain this graph I just stole?

In the end position, my (odd) database has 12 games, white scoring 54.1%. White's average rating was 2386, and his TPR only 2364. Add to that Rybka's score, and it's clear that MCO is wrong. From what year is it?

The last few years analysis of this line has gone insanely deep. I think when Yermolinsky played this in 2007, only his 25.Kc2! was new. Chesspublishing had it in an update suggesting the line wasn't forced for black, but I'm not a subscriber (for those who are: august 2007). Now it's two years later, analysis will be way further still.

Obviously, people are buying less stock in the Taimanov variation. I should probably go sell mine before I lose more...

Re: that graph; I think the early 80s was when Kasparov took it up and started beating everybody with it, and black started avoiding it.

My MCO is the 14th Edition, out 1999... regrettably, when chess engines were only just entering the scene. The new one that came out recently should be more informed on the issue. Perhaps I should go and pick it up.

On the final position in the first post- I ran it through Rybka with depth set to 15, and unfortunately ended up with a draw, although white was a pawn up the pieces resorted to moving around pretty much aimlessly...

So, I need to purchase the new MCO. Great! 

Anyway. I don't know all of this 25-move-deep theory. Where can such a thing be found? Things such as the Yearbook (which actually comes out 4 times a year) are way out of my price range- I'm not prepared to spend that much on my hobby!

http://www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/Default.aspx?PageID=200

Well, books about specific openings, Yearbooks, Chess Publishing, TWIC theory, Chessvibes theory, what have you. Nothing systematic for free though.

But my database is just filled with games downloaded from TWIC, which is for free. Just no annotations etc.

That said, I do own a few Yearbooks, and according to my notes the line from Qh4+ is covered in YB 79, which I own. But I'm moving soon and the chess books are packed already, can't check it.

The one time I actually got this on the board, I misremembered, played 12.Kd2?, got into a lost position, escaped into a pawn down endgame -- which I promptly won, without much trouble. Go figure.

That's the thing with all this discussion- in the end, it won't be these moves that decide who wins, for us anyway- it will be the game that occurs afterwards.

Well, only sort of. As the 1900 player that he was, he should really have seen the tactic that would have easily won it for him, after he played some strong moves following my 12.Kd2? I think that three quarters of the time, he would have seen it, and then I would have lost because I didn't know the theory well.

The lesson I learned was not that the theory didn't matter at my level, but rather that I should play openings where the theory doesn't matter at my level. In this line, it certainly does.

Generally, when you start talking about specific lines 12 moves into the game, then the theory is going to matter, no matter what the opening is.

Not really. It's just that the positions in this case become extremely sharp (one mistake can mean end of game) and also very unusual. That's not true of every opening line that goes 12 moves deep.

Would you stop contradicting everything I say? 

Fine, maybe not. However, the deeper we go, the closer we must stick to theory, because we're nearer the endgame and in higher level play precision is required.

On a related note, how long will it be before opening theory goes 30 moves deep? 40 moves? Whole games are theorised? Of course, these would never be played, variations would be brought out (even when slightly inferior).