I lost a game against this beast and would like to know more about it. I followed the advice of a d4 repertoire, but found the resulting situation utterly disappointing

I saw that more classical play is probably an alternative, but this was turned out in an incredible pawn race which my opponent won. Am quite charmed by this variation now... Any comments?

Is playing Bd6 a move early a line (after d5)?

Don't know anything about it myself, but Mark Ginsburg made a great video about it: Modern Benoni 3: The Snake Benoni

Looks like something Tal would have liked...

too bad we couldn't consult him, but he would probably say he wouldn't get too bogged down in the theory of it...lol

tal played the benoni right?  I'm not sure if he played the snake though.  Probably the modern benoni. 

This forum has also spark my interest about this opening.

That is what I was getting at somewhat...

the other thing I was mentioning was that if Tal would have been interested in any modern sound theory for an opening he liked, except he probably would have skipped out on the theory side of things due to his nature and style...

Had he been into playing according to sound theory, instead of figuring out how to out play his opponents, in spite of the theory for the positions he was in, he might have been the one to either come up with this or maybe would have expounded on it...

I can't find anything one how Tal contributed to opening theory except that he didn't really contribute much, but I can find a ton of quotes about how and why he played in spite of the theory...

http://www.academicchess.org/Focus/Tal/tal_quotes.shtml

Which repertoire book did you use?

I've seen it before, but don't know much about it.  When were you utterly disappointed?  The end position doesn't seem so bad (?)

Never seen it, nostly because i never face the benoni.

Looks double-edged.

Ok, thanks mathot, great video. Did not know about the snake but i like openings that i lose against. Have watched it and my wedge is probably not the best way to deal with this.

@wafflemaster: the black pawns are unstoppable.

If I recall correctly, the actual Snake Benoni is 4 ...Bd6, Black doesn't hurry to exchange on d5.  If White plays 5 e4 the Bd6 can "snake" to e5 with a whole different set of ideas.

As with most oddball ideas in the opening, White does best not to try to refute it outright, just develop solidly and soundly.  Black is going to end up either spending a lot of time on his Bishop and/or have the deficiencies of the Modern Benoni without its assets.

Thanks, typo 7.e4 i imagine. Do you think the snake is a possible defence for black? It seems to have some potential to me...

Regardless of you not being able to see Black's idea, I would rather be in a Snake Benoni position as Black than a Taimanov Attack Benoni as Black.

I don't think Tal "skipped the theory"

From the link you provided:

"...Naturally, every chess player improvises over the board in accordance with his talent and imagination. But what is already known, must be known" Mikhail Tal

@Eseles I didn't mean it in terms of Tal never examing, using or even memorizing some theory. It would be impossible to not make use of some of it along the way, for any decent player, but especially for a GM.I meant that, once Tal began using the Benoni, beyond the first half dozen moves, he probably was already looking to improvise, instead of sticking to memorized lines It stands to reason that, a player who wants to not play theory moves, would be looking to get his opponent out of it at the first chance. It stands to reason the longer you follow a line of known theory that, your best options for leaving the line are sooner than later. Besides, by your own contribution, Tal's admission and my conclusion, What is already known, must be understood...but that doesn't include what wasn't already known at the time Tal stated it. It is on this basis that, using this context for my statement, gives it merit....