To crush or not to crush - a dubious new course on the Taimanov Attack

Copyright © 2020 Ammerbucher - All rights reserved.

It has been a while since I have posted something here in my blog. And in this of all posts I will breach the limits that I have set to myself in the beginning, when I said "I do not want to write about things like great openings, attacking schemes and other specific tactics". Because "I am no pro", and I would leave such articles to them.

However, in preparation on a thematic tournament I stumbled over a course on another site (chessable.com), dealing with a specific line in one of the respective openings, which first shocked me - and then made me angry.

As it was relevant for an introduction to that tourney, I wrote something about that line and that course there. However, I think it may be interesting for others as well, so I will post it here as an (extended) review, and thus hopefully not too far from the original intention of my blog, and my own "expertise" as just a consumer of chess literature and tutorials.

The opening I am talking about is the Modern Benoni. I do not want to explain too much here - for those who are not familiar at all with that, I can really recommend the article on wikipedia on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Benoni

One - but not the most common - variation of the Modern Benoni is the so called Taimanov Attack (A67 ECO-code). It was developed 1956 by Mark Taimanov, but became only popular in the early 1980's. However, then, it was regarded as the sharpest line for White for long.  

The thematic move of this attack is after 7. f4 (which still is just the "Pawn Storm Variation) 8. Bb5+. After Black's best response 8. ... Nfd7, white has several options to continue. 9. Bd3 has been the main line first, yet then 9. a4, established by Kasparov, has been seen as the most promising move for White in that attack.

This move lead to a crisis for the Modern Benoni. If it was still played, then mainly with move orders where Black tried to avoid the Taimanov line. Only in the 21st century it became evident that Black indeed has chances to withstand 9. a4. Yet even then 9. a4 remained the main line in the Taimanov Attack. (We have played the 9. a4 line with my club Chess House Cafe as Black in a Vote Chess encounter against a really strong opponent lately - and won ...)

https://www.chess.com/votechess/game/138828

However, an anonymous author on chessable.com, offering since end of March 2020 a course on chessable.com, declares now there would be lines that "banish the Modern Benoni to history". (The author calls himself "chessforlife" there, he says he has 2100 FIDE-rating and around 2550 online. The course can be purchased for 10,99 €.)

https://www.chessable.com/crush-the-modern-benoni-three-pawns-attack/course/36435/

The central variation promoted in that course - as it concerns the Taimanov main line - is what the author calls the "Three Pawns Attack". This attack shall be "a devastating response that crushes this dodgy Black defense". What you would write if you want to sell a book or a course.  

I have bought this course, and looked into it. 

The author of that course claims he has detected in the games of Grandmasters another crushing line for White: To play 9. Nf3 instead of 9. a4. I hesitate to say "new", because that move is not really a novelty - it is the second common move, if you look into the explorer here.

But maybe it has suddenly proven to be the better line?

Sadly, we do not learn that from the author himself. The author just states that move to be the best: He explains literally nothing, and does neither discuss the alternatives for White, nor alternative answers by Black. The only thing he explains is that his line should prevent a b5 push by Black - yet Black will have this push, if they just do not castle, like the author wishes, but answer immediately with a6 (which would be the best answer according to the explorer here and also the engine on chessable.com). In fact, of the three (even four) most common moves, 9. Nf3 is the only one that gives Black the chance to force this push at that stage!

Other than in his tutorial, he shows at least Black's (natural) answer 9. ... a6 in some example games (all of them won by white ...). But even there, he does not explain with a single word this alternative, particularly why suddenly the following b5-thrust by Black isn't a problem for White anymore. (Just as a side remark: He also promotes his course for players with Black - at least for them he should have explained which answer by Black would be better.)   

There's also the point that the author claims this line would be played by Grandmasters today (well, to be precise, he says literally "Grandmasters know them" - you notice the difference?).

The author also says he "believes" that this line is the reason why the Modern Benoni was "ditched by GM's".  Well, I cannot discuss his beliefs.

Yet his basic observation at least seems not to be fully true.

I will leave a more profound research to others, but for a quick impression, I have checked the Master games with the Taimanov attack since 2018 in the explorer here (Blitz and Rapid included). To get a sample that is big enough, I have looked at all games where both players have been (at least) above 2400 (FIDE) at the moment of the game.

* Games with most common Taimanov Attack lines in chess.com explorer. Since 2018: Both players rated >2400 at the date of the game. In brackets games with at least one player >2500: Both / White / Black. Rapid and Blitz included. 

The (traditional) 9. a4 still seems to be the main line also on this level. In contrast, 9. Nf3 is both rare and rather unsuccesful for White, but 9. Bd3, even if only third common also on this high level, seems to be pretty successful for White (three wins, one draw, no loss). Furthermore, 9. a4 and 9. Bd3 have been also played relatively often by players above 2500 (the former four, the latter three times) - and most of the players that played Bd3 were even above 2600 FIDE. 

9. Nf3 on the other hand was never played in a game where both players were on GM level.

Also interesting: When both players were above 2500, 9. a4 was only played in Rapid and Blitz, 9. Bd3 only in standard.

So if you would look for a better (and somehow underestimated) line in the Taimanov Attack for White, it could be 9. Bd3 indeed. And 9. Bd3 is also engine's first choice, even over 9. a4, here and on chessable.com (another fact the author of that course ignores completely).

For a quick overview, I list here all the Taimanov-games played by two players above 2500 since 2018 that can be found here in the archive:

For everybody who wants to dig a bit deeper into this, here are direct links into the archived Taimanov-games, with the most common options for white after 8. ... Nfd7 (main line):

Master games with 9. a4

Master games with 9. Nf3

Master games with 9. Bd3

So is the Modern Benoni theoretically refuted by the Taimanov Attack?

As it seems, at least not by 9. Nf3. Maybe 9. Bd3 indeed will have a revival (or already has, but unbeknownst to that author then). 

However, Black also could just avoid the Taimanov Attack at all, like in the past, before the Taimanov Attack had been seen as playable for Black again. Either by refraining from the kingside Fianchetto or from the exd5, which will lead to other variations (A60, A65) of the Modern Benoni. Or Black could literally make White refraining from Taimanov ideas himself. Because an early Nf3 (A61-64) - which is still the main line in the Modern Benoni, btw - excludes the Taimanov , as the knight would block the f-pawn. (And the alternative Nd2 excludes the line of the "Three Pawn Attack" as well.) Black can at least try to delay the e6-push, until White has been provoked to play Nf3. Indeed, as the Taimanov Attack always has been seen as strong, this may be one reason for so many delayed Modern Benonis on the highest level. 

Black however could also just boldly thrust e5 - and literally push White with a veritable Czech Benoni out of Modern Benoni theory lines. 

I must say I am really curious to see how the Modern Benoni (and the Taimanov Attack) will develop over the next years. 

But would this online course be useless for someone who is interested in the Modern Benoni?

I also would not say that. Naturally this course deals also with other lines, also attempts to avoid the Taimanov Attack early on. These may be useful. (And would have been even without the claim that White can crush Black with this attack.)

But the reasoning of the specific variation, which shall support the central claim and idea of that course, is not only poor, but literally non-existent. And even if it is just an online course, he should not make such an assertion without giving a comprehensible reason. Particularly if the blurb for this course promises "10k+ words and visuals that clearly explain White's plans and the reason behind each move". What a joke.

So should one buy this course?

Yes, maybe. And then probably use the 30-days-money-back guarantee, which seems to be very convenient in this case indeed.

Best regards

Ammerbucher