Thank you for the input. It is odd that Aveskulov does not consider the 6...c4 move at all in his book (even though the book was published in 2012 so all these games had already been played). The only alternative to 6...d6 he provides is 6...exd5 leading to a position in which black can very easily err. I will definitely look into this c4 idea further.
Benko Gambit: Playing for win against 5.f3 (Dlugy variation)
Sort:
c4 gambit seems unsound but very difficult to meet at the board.
There is an entire chapter on this variation, in the book Dangerous Weapons Benoni and Benko, written by... Gawain Jones (1 year before the game given by Deirdresky) !
Aveskulov's book provides an awesome repertoire : very trustworthy, powerful (up to world top level!), solid. Once again, it is a repertoire book, he cannot mention all variations.
I should warn u about something very important : most players think that to win a game, u have to create unbalanced play, and not equality.
But u should try to win some equal and even dry games : technic is part of the game,and in most of the games, opponent just think it is a draw whistling, play for draw, make mistakes, and lose...
Here is another good and more unbalanced line against the Dlugy.
Warning: Requires good memorization, and strong nerves.
Oct 5, 2017
0
#5
This idea should be worth investigation if you need to create an unbalanced position from the very beginning.
suvenlaljee wrote:
Thank you for the input. It is odd that Aveskulov does not consider the 6...c4 move at all in his book (even though the book was published in 2012 so all these games had already been played). The only alternative to 6...d6 he provides is 6...exd5 leading to a position in which black can very easily err. I will definitely look into this c4 idea further. >>>
If he doesn't consider it at all, he's a fraud. I'm convinced that many chess writers deliberately ignore correct lines because they challenge whatever line they are pushing too strongly. Many of them write to try to make money. If he were to consider it and reject it, giving his reasons, then he would be far more trustworthy, even if he were wrong.
Repertoire books should be avoided like the plague. They don't teach chess except by turning people into automatons. If people don't understand alternative approaches to positions then they don't understand what they are playing. It's all very well to build a repertoire but it's best done by the individual as a result of an honest endeavour to learn different aspects of an opening and different ways of playing it. Otherwise, the temptation to learn moves off by heart becomes too great and the player will never improve.
Optimissed έγραψε:
If he doesn't consider it at all, he's a fraud. I'm convinced that many chess writers deliberately ignore correct lines because they challenge whatever line they are pushing too strongly. Many of them write to try to make money. If he were to consider it and reject it, giving his reasons, then he would be far more trustworthy, even if he were wrong.
If he doesn't consider it at all, he's a fraud. I'm convinced that many chess writers deliberately ignore correct lines because they challenge whatever line they are pushing too strongly. Many of them write to try to make money. If he were to consider it and reject it, giving his reasons, then he would be far more trustworthy, even if he were wrong.
Are you serious? He does not consider it because he thinks it is not good, simple as that. Being a couple of pawns down for an advantage in development and some inconvenience to the opponent's king can surely be rewarding in practical play, but objectively it cannot be very good.
Aveskulov's book is top notch, actually a very honest work.
Thanks for starting a thread on the Dlugy variation. I'm beginning to study the Benko, and immediately took interest in this line. First, queens-pawn games turn my brain off, so I play 1...Nf6; second, gambits have always appealed to me because they're more fun; third, the sharper the better. I'll look into both Aveskulov and Gawain Jones.
My best wishes to my friend, Pfren, if he's still around. In the past, we had many interesting and fun discussions, as well as some reparte. But there are many lines which, objectively, may not be good. Speed chess is becoming more and more of a thing and it would be helpful if our teachers would provide practical guidance.
Against a good player, the Benko is, if anything, a stodgy system for black, who is often attempting to win a long drawn out endgame. One exception is the continuation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cb a6 5. Nc3 ab 6. e4
Even that is somewhat stodgy if black plays the right moves.
I thought I heard that he is.
Recently GM Cheparinov preferred Aveskulov's suggestion in #1 game 2, but he also analysed the complex 4...e6 as well.
It is a great course, although not very Benko-esque: Against 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.axb5 a6 5.bxa6 he goes the modern "computerized" way with 5...e6!? which is almost no strategy and plenty of tactics.
... e6 is a reasonable variation against something I have often played, which is a waiting move, 4. Nf3 but again, it hardly ever gets played. I know that white is supposed to have an edge with 5. ba, after 4, cb, maybe by playing g3 to allow the king to g2 or by means of other approaches. There will be lots of other wrinkles but it's all heavily analysed. So I like to take black out of their normal book with either 4. Nf3 or the continuation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.ab a6 5.Nc3 ab 6.e4. I've won quite a lot of games with both of those. They're sort of diametrically opposite so it keeps opponents guessing with their preparation.
Sep 17, 2025
0
#17
Optimissed wrote:
... e6 is a reasonable variation against something I have often played, which is a waiting move, 4. Nf3 but again, it hardly ever gets played. I know that white is supposed to have an edge with 5. ba, after 4, cb, maybe by playing g3 to allow the king to g2 or by means of other approaches. There will be lots of other wrinkles but it's all heavily analysed. So I like to take black out of their normal book with either 4. Nf3 or the continuation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.ab a6 5.Nc3 ab 6.e4. I've won quite a lot of games with both of those. They're sort of diametrically opposite so it keeps opponents guessing with their preparation.
a 1500 arguing with a IM is crazy
piratebt99chess wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
... e6 is a reasonable variation against something I have often played, which is a waiting move, 4. Nf3 but again, it hardly ever gets played. I know that white is supposed to have an edge with 5. ba, after 4, cb, maybe by playing g3 to allow the king to g2 or by means of other approaches. There will be lots of other wrinkles but it's all heavily analysed. So I like to take black out of their normal book with either 4. Nf3 or the continuation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.ab a6 5.Nc3 ab 6.e4. I've won quite a lot of games with both of those. They're sort of diametrically opposite so it keeps opponents guessing with their preparation.
a 1500 arguing with a IM is crazy
Thinking people are arguing with an IM is a lot crazier. 
Anyhow, My FIDE equivalent rating is still about 1900. You'd be a lot better off if you were here to learn about chess instead teaching people how to be childish.
Greetings. I have played the Benko gambit casually for a while but recently decided to invest in Aveskulov's book "Attack with Black" to gain a proper understanding of the opening and learn the critical lines. My next opponent in a tournament has consistently played the following variation when faced with the Benko:
Aveskulov recommends that black respond in the following manner:
These positions certainly look fine for black but I do not quite see how black intends to provoke weaknesses on white's part in these variations. Please advise as to how you think black should proceed in general terms (or perhaps even if you think I should examine other avenues if I am determined to play for a win)?
All suggestions are welcome.