1. d4. Nf6.... 2. d5!?

benoni is refuted, unless you are tal, then you can play it and beat everybody.

Of course I would use your recommendation, no one else recommends anything aginst 2. d5. It was also pretty straighforward to remember and in a 5 minute game it's got to be better to play a plan that a good player thought of than make something up on the spot.

During the game, I thought I should be trying to use c5 and e5 too. I just wasn't good enough tactically to push off the b-pawn.

I did feel that the plan at the outset gave me a straightforward path to equality. And I wouldn't expect to get more than that just from the mistake 2. d5.

I like to think about quality of openings in the context of several hypothetical examples.

1. In a human correspondence tournament, which side would fare better?
2. Imagine the same correspondence tournament, but with computer-aided humans.
3. Which side would do better in a long OTB super-GM tournament?
4. Which side would do better in a long "draws don't count" world-champion-style match? Think about the same setup as the 1978 K-K match.

Loomis, in this context, I think you're right on with your last point. I think that with the move 2.d5 that white gives away his entire opening advantage, but not more, because either he has to give up the center, or he gives black some amount of compensation for the loss in space (as in your game, the line I recommended).

If anything, I think I'd rather play black, and it would be interesting to see it play out in one of the above scenarios... but of course the funding wouldn't be there. And even if it were, it would be more interesting to have a different thematic tournament than 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5, right?

paul211, there are already some pretty well thought out ideas in this thread. You should take a look at them.

If white plays dxe6 I think that black just gained several tempi, and has the better position.

If white plays 3.c4 your analysis is a bit superficial. First, it's 4...Bb4+ (not ...Bc4+) and further why would the "likely" continuation be 5.Bd2, losing a pawn? Much more thematic is the straightforward 5.Nc3, when a black ...Bxc3 no longer doubles white's c pawns.

It is an interesting question though - should black play ...exd5 before ...Bb4+? And what about jemptymethod's recommendation of 2...e5, trying to get straight into a Budapest declined? The idea behind my recommendation of playing

2...e6 3.c4 Bb4+

is to eventually get the d6-e5 pawn structure with the bishop outside of the pawn chain (and possible gone, traded for the b1 knight or the c1 bishop). My idea is that because white can't (shouldn't) play 4.Nc3, because black just plays 4...Bxc3+ and white has doubled pawns for no real good reason. So white must either play Nbd2 or Bd2, neither of which is the natural move for the position. I don't like sticking in ...exd5 as much, just because of this.

Playing 2...e5 is going to work out great for black if white plays c4 - but what if white does not. (White shouldn't, because it just weakens white's position). How about something silly like 3.a3? Or 3.Nf3? I don't really know. Could be that 2...e5 is correct. Look at 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5 e5 3.Nf3 e4 4.Nfd2 e3 5.fxe3 Nxd5 6.Nf3; is this better for black? Or something more normal: 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5 e5 3.Nf3 d6 4.c4 is likely best at that point, but black shouldn't be playing 3...d6

musikamole

great research and post

very helpful

thank you

What about d6? Transpose right away into a KID or Pirc.

I would probably answer with 2...d6 (to prevent d6 by White) and then either e6 or c6.  Of course, I never have to worry about this.  I play 1...g6.  After 1.d4 g6 2.d5, I just say "Thank You for re-opening the Diagonal for my Bishop!"

i will try this out in my next game