The Kibitzer
by Tim Harding

Anyone for the Franco-Benoni?

Why play a main line defence that your opponent may know well
beyond move 20 when you may be able to surprise him at move
two with 1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5!?

Black's chief expectation is that White will reply 3 d5, leading to
Benoni-like central pawn structures, which is why if this defence
has any accepted name, it's the Franco-Benoni.  

It was played against me in the preliminary round of the 5th
European Team Correspondence Championship, which obliged me
to research it in depth. 

I soon found that authors writing on the French Defence do not
consider 2...c5 part of their brief; you won't find it, for example, in
"The Complete French" by Lev Psakhis. Benoni books do not
bother with it either, for White need not play c2-c4 and if the e-file
is opened (which often happens) the central pawn structure is quite
different. The line can also arise via 1 e4 c5 2 d4 e6 but again there
is little help to be had. In his 1981 book "The Morra (Smith)
Gambit", Hungarian IM Janos Flesch did give a brief discussion of
the line, pointing out the trap 3 c3 d5 4 exd5? Qxd5! and saying
that 3 c3 d5 4 e5 is a French Defence, Advanced Variation: that's
true, but Black has alternatives at move three, perhaps 3...cxd4.

This is uncharted territory, as is the possibility 3 c4 cxd4 4 Qxd4
Nf6 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 Qd1 Bb4 (Dluski-Drazic, Cattolica open 1993).
White's main choice is between 3 Nf3, consenting to an open
Sicilian (although 3...a6, for example, has been seen), or trying to
take advantage by 3 d5. Flesch wrote: "3 d5!.... ensures a healthy
space advantage for White. Black cannot hope for a Benoni type
counterplay, for White puts a piece and not a pawn on c4."
However, he gave no concrete examples to support this argument
and 3 d5 gives a kind of middle game that may be unwelcome to
many 1 e4 players. In fact it is a form of Old Benoni (also
reachable 1 d4 c5 2 d5 e6 3 e4) and is considered briefly under the
heading A43 in ECO (the "Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings"). 

Similar material is to be found in the second edition of Kasparov
and Keene's "Batsford Chess Openings" (BCO2). Such sources as
do consider the variation generally imply a slight edge to White
with 3 d5. I amassed about thirty games, the majority of which
went 3...exd5 (3...Nf6, 3...d6 and even 3...e5?! have also been
played.) 4 exd5 d6 5 Nc3 Nf6 6 Nf3 or reached the same position
by a slightly different route, but in "Informator 61" (published
December 1994) there was a game fragment with a new move.

G.Timoshchenko-Zelcic, Passau 1994, had gone 1 d4 c5 2 d5 e6 3
e4 a6 4 Nf3 d6 5 a4 Ne7 6 Be2 exd5 7 exd5 Ng6 8 0-0 (8 h4!?
Timoshchenko) 8...Be7 9 Na3 (9 Nc3!? Timoshchenko) 9...Bg4 10
Nd2 Bxe2 11 Qxe2 0-0 12 Nac4 Nd7 13 a5 Re8 14 Ra3 Bg5 15
Qd1 Nde5! with an unclear position. 

The main discussion that I could find which did not sneer at the
Franco Benoni was by American masters Joel Benjamin and Eric
Schiller in their "Unorthodox Openings" book. They had found an
improvement for Black in one of the principal games cited by
ECO. Subsequently I found a 120-page Chess Digest booklet by
Soltis entitled "Franco-Benoni Defense", but it didn't contain any
games previously unknown to me in the 1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 line; at
least half the monograph was devoted to lines like 1 d4 e6 2 c4 c5
which normally won't transpose at all to the line that interests us
here, that is the 1 e4 variety.

Move order in the Franco Benoni seems flexible, which makes its
study even harder, and after 1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 it
was not easy to find grounds to choose between the different
knight developments. If White wants to retain the option of c2-c4
then of course he must choose Nf3.

Anyway, my game (against correspondence international master
Xaver Steiner) began 1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 and now
I actually chose 5 Nc3. 

However, the second diagram position after 5...Nf6 6 Nf3 Be7 7
Be2 0-0 8 0-0 is just as likely to arise if White develops the king's
knight first. (See Diagram)

The main book line runs 8...Na6, intending Nc7 before....b6, but
8...Bg4 also comes into consideration. Then 9 Re1 Nc7 10 a4 b6
11 Rb1 (surely not best?) 11...Re8 12 h3 h6 13 Bc4 and now
"ECO" gives 13...Bf8 14 Rxe8 Qxe8 15 Be3 which is at least
slightly in White's favour (Vaganian-L.Bronstein, Sao Paulo
1977). However, Schiller and Benjamin reveal 13...a6! which they
consider, probably rightly, to be a very significant improvement for
Black. The game Bohm-Konikowski, Dortmund II 1981, continued
14 b4 Bd7 15 bxc5 bxc5 16 Qd3 (If 16 a5, with the idea N-a4-b6,
then 16...Nb5!) 16...Qc8 17 Bf4 Bf5! 18 Qd2 Bf8 = and Black
even won in the end.

Quite a few games featured White playing Bb5+ instead of Be2.
This check is sometimes effective in the Modern Benoni but that is
usually because it involves variations with e4 e5, not available
here. The case for Bb5+ hardly seemed compelling to me; the
bishop was liable to be exchanged for a knight or driven back with
loss of time.  

Danish super-GM Bent  Larsen had played this line twice with
Black with few problems: 1 d4 e6 2 e4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 5
Nf3 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bb5+!? Nbd7 8 a4 0-0 9 0-0 when
O'Kelly-Larsen, Palma de Mallorca 1967 went 9...a6 10 Be2 b6 11
Re1 Re8 12 Bf4 Nf8 13 h3 Ng6 = while 9...Re8 10 Re1 a6 11 Bf1
b6 12 b3 Nf8 13 Bb2 Bb7 14 Bc4 Ng6 = was Gligoric-Larsen,
Busum 1969. 

A more recent grandmaster game Tseitlin-Kuzmin, Cappelle la
Grande 1994, had gone similarly until after 9 0-0 a6 10 Be2 Re8
11 Re1 b6 12 h3 Bf8 (instead of Nf8) but this game too was a draw
in the end. "BCO2" cites a game going 5 Bb5+ Nd7 6 Nf3 Ngf6 7
0-0 Be7 8 Re1 a6 9 Bf1 0-0 10 a4 b6 11 c4 (Bohm-Johansen,
Amsterdam 1983) but that light-squared bishop does not seem to
have much of a future here. 

The most promising game for White that I could find was Van
Wely-Meulders, Brussels zonal 1993: 1 d4 e6 2 e4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4
exd5 d6 5 Nc3 Nf6 6 Nf3 Be7 7 Be2 0-0 8 0-0 Na6 9 h3 Nc7 10 a4
Rb8 (If 10...b6 11 Re1 Bb7 12 Bc4 a6 13 Nh4 Re8 14 Nf5 with
advantage in D.Gurevich-Kavalek, USA Champ 1984.) 11 Bf4 b6
12 Bb5! (Only now that c6 is available) 12...a6 (If 12...Nxb5 White
could choose between a-file play after 13 axb5 or piece pressure by
13 Nxb5 Qd7 14 Re1.) 13 Bc6! Bd7 14 Re1 Re8 15 Qd2 Bxc6 16
dxc6 (Now we see why White wanted his bishop on f4.) 16...Ne6
17 Rad1 Rc8 18 Bxd6 Rxc6 19 Bg3 with persistent pressure
despite the symmetrical pawn structure and piece exchanges. 

If Black prefers 8...b6 from the diagram then I could take as my
model the "Informator 48" game Chandler-Mik.Tseitlin, Palma de
Mallorca 1989: 9 Re1 Na6 10 Bb5! (threatening Qe2) 10...Nb8
(Not 10...Nc7 11 Bc6 Rb8 12 Qe2+ ) 11 Qe2!? (11 a4 Chandler)
11...a6 12 Qxe7 Qxe7 13 Rxe7 axb5 14 Bg5 Nbd7 15 Nxb5 Nxd5
16 Nxd6! and White won in 45 moves.
However, a further surprise was in store for me. My very
experienced Swiss opponent met 5 Nc3 by 5...a6!?, a move I had
never seen before. It seemed a good idea to maintain White's space
advantage by 6 a4 and postpone major decisions until Black
revealed his plans for his king's bishop.

The game then continued 6...Nd7 7 Nf3 g6 at which point I noticed
that we had transposed to a 1983 postal game,
Wiedenhofer-Kerinnis, which went 8 Bf4 f6 (ugly but effective;
8...Ndf6!? also comes into consideration.) 9 Bd3 Nh6 10 0-0 (10
h4!?) 10...Nf7 11 Re1+ Nde5 12 Bf1 Bg7 13 a5 0-0 14 Nd2 b5 15
axb6 Qxb6 16 Ra2 Bf5 and Black even went on to win; his firm
control of e5 and the lack of an f2-f4 advance negated White's
efforts to exploit the weaknesses around e6 and f7. 
I decided on normal development by 8 Bd3 with a view to early
occupation of the e-file by my rook. 

I conclude by giving my game in full. Maybe a reader will discover
an improvement for White somewhere? 

Tim Harding - Xaver Steiner
corr 1995-6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 5 Nc3 a6 6 a4 Nd7 7 Nf3 g6 8
Bd3 Bg7 
Black could play 8...Qe7+ forcing 9 Be2 but after 10 0-0 and 11
Re1 it is Black who ends up losing time.
9 0-0 Ne7!
Not 9...Ne5 10 Nxe5 when 10...dxe5? 11 f4 Qb6 12 Kh1 exf4 13
Qe2+ Kf8 14 a5 Qd8 15 Qf2 Bd4 16 Qxf4 gives a good initiative
and 10...Bxe5 11 Re1 Ne7 12 Bh6 is also fairly promising.
10 Ne4!?
Note that if 10 Bg5 0-0 11 Qd2 (11 Re1 f6!?) 11...Ne5!? 12 Nxe5
dxe5 White must avoid the trap 13 Bxg6?? f6! 
10...Ne5 11 Bg5 0-0! 
Black is right to get his king into safety. Obviously 11...Bg4 12
Nf6+ favours White and trying to prevent the knight check by
11...Ng4 12 h3 f5 (12...Bxb2 13 hxg4 Bxa1 14 Qxa1) allows 13
Nxc5!
12 Nxe5 
My calculations showed that White is driven back after 12 Nf6+
Kh8 13 Nxe5 dxe5 14 c4 h6! 15 Bh4 Nf5! (but not 15...g5? 16
Bxg5 hxg5 17 Qh5+)  while 12 Bf6 Bxf6 13 Nxf6+ Kg7 is also
inconclusive.
12...Bxe5 13 Bf6 
My idea was to liquidate Black's most dangerous piece and create
weaknesses in his King position.
13...Bxf6 14 Nxf6+ Kg7 15 Qd2!
This was the move I was counting on.
(See Diagram)
15...Ng8!
Black finds the right answer. Unfortunately he is under no
compulsion to go in for 15...Kxf6? 16 Qc3+ Kg5 17 Qg7 when
White has a very promising king-hunt, e.g. 17...Nxd5 18 h4+! Kg4
(18...Kf4!?; 18...Kxh4 19 Qh6+ Kg4 20 f3+ Kg3 21 Qh2# mate) 19
Rae1!  Nf4 20 Re4; I had expected instead 15...Nf5 when I had
hopes of some initiative with 16 Ne4 or 16 Ng4.
16 Nxg8 Rxg8 17 b4
I was trying to keep the initiative while his queenside was
undeveloped and maybe force a passed d-pawn or weakness on
b-file, since there seemed nothing doing on the kingside. 
17...b6 18 Qc3+ f6 19 bxc5 bxc5 20 Rab1
Maybe 20 Rfe1!? could be preferred but my judgment by now was
that Black had conducted a successful defence and that I should be
wary of drifting into an inferior position.
20...Ra7! 21 Rfe1 Kf7 22 Qd2 Re8 
At this point I decided the prudent thing was to haul in the half
point while there could still be no doubt about it, so:
23 Qh6 Rxe1+ 24 Rxe1 Kg8 25 Bxg6! hxg6 26 Qxg6+ 
and I made my opponent an offer he couldn't refuse (a draw).
Anyway, whatever the merits of 5 a6!?, there would appear no
obvious way for White to achieve any substantial advantage by
force against 2...c5 and the line clearly deserves more attention
from both theoreticians and practical players than it has so far
received.

