OK RobKing, what if I am the one to quote Kasparov who said the Benoni has been refuted.
A title doesn't really change the message, just the delivery person.
1 d4 nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 Nc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+ Nbd7 9 e5 dxe5 10 fxe5 Nh5 and now what?
What if, instead of 9. e5, white chooses 9. a4. I think this is better than your suggested line:
Gonnosuke wrote: "I stand by what I said: If black wants equality in the Ruy Lopez, black achieves equality in the Ruy Lopez. If you can show otherwise can I get your autograph now...before you become world famous for busting the Berlin Wall?"
In the same article where Kasparov opined that "anything" is good to play against the Benoni, he shares your opinion about the Ruy Lopez - but not because of the Berlin. He said something along the lines of "Another Lopez, another Marshall, another draw, *yawn*".
I don't play the Benoni so it's silly to ask me to prove why it's bad. So let me re-phrase your argument as follows:
"Kasparov says it's refuted, but I don't see why"
That is my point. It seems way too extreme for people to be claiming lines are refuted if they don't have the evidence to back it up. You don't need a degree in anything to know a rocket can go to the moon, because when I ask you for evidence you can say: "here look, a rocket went to the moon". But when you say a line is refuted and can't point to anything but a quote then I have trouble buying it.
At the last tournament I was at, I asked some very high rated friends about the Botvinnik in the Semi-Slav and they were actually able to show me why people essentially stopped playing it for a long time. They were able to point to all the ideas or knew the games for me to look at to understand where the trouble comes from. If you claim a line is refuted, point to some games or something. That's all I'm saying. Title or not.
RobKing, please read my above post. Pretty please. 
Your challenge is to refute my posted refutation. Then I shall refute your refutation of the refutation.
I guarantee I'll win this game. 
The Taimanov Benoni is widely regarded to be advantageous to White. I also agree with these claims. But it's still very double edged, and requires theoretical knowledge on both sides.
The Hromadka Benoni is solid, and it is Fischer's line that I referred to in his 5-million dollar match against Spassky.
There is ALOT of room for freedom in that line that you gave Nytik. I'm not claiming that I know everything or anything. I'm not master or anything like that. I think if we want to show something one way or another, why don't we start another thread and actually talk about CHESS and analyze what's going on so that we all LEARN something.
Ok. I'll start a new thread with the refutation I posted as the topic. Then, we can see what people think.
The Taimanov Benoni is widely regarded to be advantageous to White. I also agree with these claims. But it's still very double edged, and requires theoretical knowledge on both sides.
The Hromadka Benoni is solid, and it is Fischer's line that I referred to in his 5-million dollar match against Spassky.
Sweet. So let's start a new thread and let's analyze these lines and that way I get my money's worth from Chess.com because I learned something concrete.
Right. Heres a thread I just created, with the refutation as I know it:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/benoni-defense-taimanov?lc=1#last_comment
Nytik--in your line you are making assumptions for Black--I like 11...Nb4 instead of Nc7.
Also instead of 12...Nb6 I would probably play a6--these are all tough lines for Black to play but they are not losing at the level of play for most people
I don't play the Benoni so it's silly to ask me to prove why it's bad. So let me re-phrase your argument as follows:
"Kasparov says it's refuted, but I don't see why"
That is my point. It seems way too extreme for people to be claiming lines are refuted if they don't have the evidence to back it up. You don't need a degree in anything to know a rocket can go to the moon, because when I ask you for evidence you can say: "here look, a rocket went to the moon". But when you say a line is refuted and can't point to anything but a quote then I have trouble buying it.
Oh, I may have misunderstood your argument. I thought you knew that the Benoni was in trouble but just thought that it didn't matter because "people make mistakes" or something.
I don't play the Benoni so it's silly to ask me to prove why it's bad. So let me re-phrase your argument as follows:
"Kasparov says it's refuted, but I don't see why"
That is my point. It seems way too extreme for people to be claiming lines are refuted if they don't have the evidence to back it up. You don't need a degree in anything to know a rocket can go to the moon, because when I ask you for evidence you can say: "here look, a rocket went to the moon". But when you say a line is refuted and can't point to anything but a quote then I have trouble buying it.
Oh, I may have misunderstood your argument. I thought you knew that the Benoni was in trouble but just thought that it didn't matter because "people make mistakes" or something.
I have claimed from the beginning that I play the Benoni and think that it is fine. It is highly tactical and gives both sides chances. I'm looking for why people think it is not good when my experience has been the opposite.
I read somewhere that Kasparov has had a way of criticizing openings he just lost in (e.g. the 2 c3/Alapin Sicilian). Make what you will of that ....
Gonnosuke wrote: "I stand by what I said: If black wants equality in the Ruy Lopez, black achieves equality in the Ruy Lopez. If you can show otherwise can I get your autograph now...before you become world famous for busting the Berlin Wall?"
In the same article where Kasparov opined that "anything" is good to play against the Benoni, he shares your opinion about the Ruy Lopez - but not because of the Berlin. He said something along the lines of "Another Lopez, another Marshall, another draw, *yawn*".
I only used the Berlin Defense as an example because it's widely considered by my betters to be an equalizer. My own personal belief is that most of the Closed Ruy complex allows black to equalize pretty easily -- blacks advantage in space certainly "feels" like an equalizer to me and if I win such games as white, it's only because I've outplayed my opponent. To see any advantage as the first player requires a level of technique that is beyond me (and most of the people in this thread).
I find it ridiculous that these debates about theoretical advantages and disadvantages are being waged by players who have never in their life played a single OTB game that was decided by opening theory. Ever.
The truth of the matter is that what Kasparov thinks about the Marshall or the Benoni is interesting but of little or no practical use to me. I'm sure Kasparov would dismiss the London, C-Z and Torre openings too. Why then do they give me so much trouble? When I learn how to channel Kasparov at-will, I'll religiously adhere to all of his opening ideas but until then, I'll have to make due with the old-fashioned strategy of playing what works best for me. Strange as it may seem, what works best is usually what I know best...and is often completely at odds with the assessments in NIC/Informant.
So is Kasparov right or wrong?
I don't like highly theoretical openings exactly because they feel "incomplete". You can lose the game against an opponent who never actually did any middlegame planning.
As I did in my last round game from my most recent tournament.
What also sucks is going over openings with someone, then playing them. There's not much life to the games if they are not tactical, because both sides know their and their opponents plans. It causes me to play a suprise opening, maybe the benoni lol.
Yes, it's probably a lot like the Venus v Serena finals we had a couple of years back every couple of months...
By playing the Benoni or something like it, no matter how well you play as black (so if you follow theory I guess you will play the best moves) your opponent could still put you into trouble and wipe you out and this is the reason I would not make it my main move. I think it will best work for suprise but the shaky nature of the opening draws me away. How could I ever become a great player if I'm always playing the benoni? I would have to pick a new opening at some point but then I have to leave behind what I learned in it.
I don't play the Benoni so it's silly to ask me to prove why it's bad. So let me re-phrase your argument as follows:
"Kasparov says it's refuted, but I don't see why"
Sure, fine, but it's disingenuous to tell other posters that because they don't have a title then you don't take what they say seriously. Perhaps you should do some research - I'll take Kasparov's word that it's been refuted. I'll grant you that "refuted" may be a tad strong - probably because he's prone to exaggeration - but still, if I were really curious, I'd research it myself, not discuss it with a titled player that doesn't really know anything about it. :-)