Is The Benko Gambit a Waste of Time?

I looked at this opening but I noticed that the positions that arise seem very independent and that they don't arise elsewhere in chess. This leads me to think that learning it is just a waste of time better spent on other openings that lead to typical structures that I may realistically have to play. It seems that even if I was "good" at this opening I'd just be good at the opening but learn nothing useful about chess or I'd learn nothing that would be useful in the average chess game.

Maybe someone could play this because they wanted to just win points but I don't see any other benefits to playing it. If I played 1.d4 I'd likely just decline or avoid it altogether it and get into some  structures that are typical. Sure I could attempt the main line and go into the irrational positions but the only reason to do that would be to win points. But at my level I win or lose points no matter what I play. So I don't see the benefit of going into the typical Benko positions with the White pieces either.

Does anyone else have thoughts about this?

The Benko Gambit has worked well for me in OTB play.

Penandpaper0089: U have exaggerated. King's gambit positions as well as many others are also quite unique. If U wanna play only "typical" positions, it's not a funny game but a tiresome job!

As you point out, you don't open with d4, so you don't have to worry about it. However, if you do start playing d4, people will play it and if you decline it, black just gets a good game. Up to you whether you want to let that happen so easily.

I don't understand the Benko Gambit very well, so I can't say. 

Only people with low self-esteem play the Benko gambit. 

It's a chess opening, and chess is a waste of time. So yeah.

Unless you're me. I play chess to hustle kids at NYC to make the big bucks.

This is a weird argument IMHO. There are many ways of playing chess. Each opening has its themes.

If the gambling chess kids of NYC play into your Benko's Gambit a lot and lose, I will concede that Benko's Gambit is not a waste of time (for you).

I agree, I would say that more than weird it is kind of stupid... It is also poorly written, what does the OP define as "typical structures" and "independent structures"? Maybe defining that first of all would help the discussion.

Also, I wonder why learning it would be useless, if you learn it you play it and therefore you use it. If you are learning new openings to learn about middlegame structures you are probably doing something wrong.

BronsteinPawn: OP probably means typical pawn structures which is absolutely clear thing.

Definition. Two pawn structures are called independent if their greatest common predecessor is equal to the initial pawn structure.

Voila, a mathematical definition especially for U.

N.B. The notion of greatest common predecessor (GCP) is defined here:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/gcp-and-lch-of-2-pawn-structures

Typical structures are structures that are commonly reached in chess like isolated pawns, slav, stonewall, small center, fixed center e.t.c;

As far as I know you could play your entire life and never reach the structures reached in the Benko so why bother with it? The theoretical value of it isn't relevant to me but rather how useful it is in learning. When you play the Benko you're playing a position that is rarely reached at all and it seems like something that is only played for novelty or to just win points rather than learning to play structures in chess that have a realistic chance of appearing on the board in other openings.

Playing openings to reach certain structures is a pretty common thing... It's hard to practice playing certain structures if you never get them on the board.

Playing openings to reach certain structures is a pretty common thing which you did not state in your first post, please dont start to blend the truth. You were talking about common structures, not about reaching certain structures.

I play openings because I like the positions that arise from them, so I play openings to reach certain structures, but I dont play them to reach "common structures".

With that out of the way, you have to be pretty self absorbed in your own little word of misunderstanding to believe that you will not learn something new that "would be useful in the average game". For starters you will learn about pawn sacrifices to get long lasting positional pressure, an idea which can be applied to the whole game of chess.

Even then your statement is a little bit too broad, what do you consider an "average game"? For example, I play the King´s Indian as black, an average game for me as black against 1.d4 would be one arising from the many lines of the King´s Indian defense, in this case it is very helpful for me to study the King´s Indian defense because that is how my average game will look like. If my average game were to be an IQP position then studying the King´s Indian Defense would not be helpful.

We need to get more specific because of know we are just throwing blind punches into the air. 

The Benko is a fun and interesting opening to play it, if you enjoy the positions that arise from it then play it (at the end of the day for all of us mortals chess is more about enjoying it than choosing the "best opening" ), dont worry about not knowing other structures in depth as if your repertoire is well made you should not find any structure you dont know.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/classic-pawn-structure-pt-2

Don't fight, U are both partially right ... and partially wrong too.

Arguments would be appreciated.

This was posted about 5 minutes after GodsPawn answered the question definitively and with a reference to an excellent article by Silman. 

I will follow Godspawn's example and not reiterate what Silman wrote. But anyone who is interested in the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread should read it.

"This leads me to think that learning it is just a waste of time better spent on other openings that lead to typical structures"

I don't know how to make this any simpler... The word "typical" implies that I'm referring to certain structures. And if you're going to get a tantrum and throw around anti-social nonsense because someone asks a question and doesn't know something you do then don't bother answering.

Self-absorbed? How about misinformed or unsure? Inexperienced?

Blending the truth? Am I on trial now as well? Ridiculous... 

Please, before posting anything else, read Silman's article.