Talk:Modern Benoni

First Impressions

Very good article indeed. I would not change much at all. By referencing all of the major, contemporary works, it should be much less susceptible to nuisance edits in the future. That's not to say that it won't evolve as more modern books appear, but blocking the casual POV entry can be problematic when the original sources are murky or non-existent. I think the depth is about right too. Some long lines were probably necessary to show typical long term plans/play in the strategy sections, whereas you have been much more restrained when discussing individual lines, thus avoiding any arguments over the absolute, up-to-date, cutting edge theory. Well judged I think. A couple of small suggestions - for consistency, I'd probably move the Snake Benoni stuff to Benoni Defense- it is after all just another deviation away from the Modern Benoni, not unlike the Czech Benoni or Benko Gambit. Secondly, not sure if I saw Albert Kapengut wiki-linked - maybe it happened early in the article and I missed it. Finally, I'd probably mention the Mikenas Attack in the Variations section. I think it has enough history/notoriety to be regularly looked up by readers and its inclusion there will make it much easier to find. Maybe just say something like "7.f4 - Leading in most cases to the Taimanov, or the less popular Mikenas Attack" if you are concerned about it having an unwarranted equal emphasis. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I love your suggestions and have incorporated all of them. I didn't see how I could avoid mentioning the Four Pawns if I mentioned the Mikenas there (the latter is half as common as 8.Nf3), so now I've mentioned all of them. That Four Pawns transposition is an unusual situation—ECO actually classifies that line under the Modern Benoni, so it's not wrong to call it the Four Pawns Attack of the Modern Benoni and some books that do just that (even though White's only got three pawns!), but it's become the main line of the Four Pawns Attack in the KID these days, which is covered in some detail over at King's Indian Defence, Four Pawns Attack#The main line and there was no point in me duplicating the coverage in this article. Originally I decided not to mention the Mikenas in the spot you mentioned just to avoid the whole issue of whether or not to call the Four Pawns a transposition, but now the cat's out of the bag :)

If you ever get a second chance to look at the article, let me know if you have more thoughts. Thanks again. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I scanned my copy of Beating The Indian Defences (1997) by Burgess & Pedersen (about 10 pages on the Modern Benoni), to see if there was anything of independent worth, but it really just mirrored part of your historical summary—and whilst the analysis there appeared well referenced (several named originators and sources), it probably wouldn't add anything useful at the entry level, where I think the article should stay.

I'm curious that you've referenced Donner as 'Erven J. H.' in connection with The King. Can you elaborate on that? Brittle heaven (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. That's how he gives his name next to the copyright, but elsewhere in the book it's just J. H. Donner. I'll fix that. Thanks for pointing out Burgess & Pedersen — it could come in handy if we ever wanted to expand on the history of the MML. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, 'Erven' means that the copyright is with the inheritors of Donner's estate, as the book was published after his death. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course. That makes sense. Thanks again for spotting that. Cobblet (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Modern Benoni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. I'm more of a Nimzo-Indian fan myself, but this opening certainly has merit :) I'll have comments up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, so am I :) I do have a question that I couldn't find answered in WP:MOS: is the use of vide infra and vide supra or their abbreviations discouraged? There are several places in this article where I want to refer to things said earlier/later and while wikilinks help, I still need text I can wikilink. Or maybe you can suggest ways I could organize things better. Thanks for your help and I look forward to your comments. Cobblet (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't answer your question, but it is related to it: WP:IBID. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you've solved this issue with anchors. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments. I thought this was a very well-written article, and I enjoyed reading it. Below are some suggestions for you to consider. I'll spot-check some of the sources soon. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• first paragraph of "Initial moves" needs a citation
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "which will likely transpose into the Fianchetto Variation" likely->probably
  • Changed to "often transposes." Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Sämisch Variation should be linked earlier
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• final sentence of Alternative move orders and transpositions section needs a citation
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• give the first names for Capablanca, Botvinnik, Gurgenidze, Cuijpers (to be consistent with others)
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• ""unfortunate" "extravagance"" are those central quote marks needed?
  • In Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, Watson quoted Nimzowitsch as saying "unfortunate extravagance", but according to Keene's Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal the full quote appears to have been "Marshall permitted himself a few extravagances in the openings at New York; an unfortunate affair in a top class tournament." Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "the name "Modern Benoni Defence" had appeared in print by 1957." in what? Was this the first known use of the name?
  • The source in which it appears is cited. I don't know if this was its first mention in print, but it's the oldest mention I could find using Google Books. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "he wheeled out the Modern Benoni" should avoid idiomatic expression in encyclopaedic prose
  • Changed to "he answered Spassky's 1.d4 with the Modern Benoni" Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Korchnoi should be linked earlier, and his first name given on first appearance
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "a few years later, he had given up the opening altogether." is this fact sourced in one of the citations that follows the end of the next sentence?

• Reading on, I see that article twice states that Nunn gave up the Benoni because of the Taimanov attack, but only the second instance is cited. Consider removing the first instance.

• Done, and I've reworked the discussion in the History section to take a more general viewpoint; the details remain in the Taimanov Attack section. Cobblet (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of the decade, the Modern Main Line had also emerged as a dangerous weapon for White, which only compounded Black's troubles." source?
  • Source added. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• "According to Donner, while he spent over two hours on the game, Tal used only fifteen minutes." Is this detail relevant for this article?
  • It's definitely not essential and I wouldn't mind removing it. I included it to illustrate how easy Black's play can be (for Tal, anyway!) and how even grandmasters can have trouble coping with it. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• link Ojanen, Keres
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Black's half-open e-file also grants him a certain degree of influence" why "also"?
  • Removed. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "A rook on e8 will pressurize White's e-pawn" I don't think using "pressurize" like this is "proper" English (see here)
  • Changed to "puts pressure on." Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "… Tal would go on to win his first Soviet championship." Perhaps unnecessary detail? If you disagree, then at least add a source.
  • Source added. I wanted to provide some context for this historically notable game and I reworked the discussion a little to reflect that better. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• end of first paragraph of "Variations" needs a citation
  • The last sentence refers to the somewhat more substantial discussion of this issue in Modern Benoni#Initial moves, where a citation is given. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Nevertheless, the most critical lines"
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "Here theory divides into three major branches:" Need a source for this and for "White also has several important alternatives, the most popular of which are:" soon after
  • Palliser's Chess Developments: Modern Benoni divides the 7.Nf3 lines into three chapters in exactly the way I mentioned. I could cite the book but I'm not sure what page number to cite—the table of contents, perhaps? With respect to statements regarding popularity, these are generally observations I glean from databases (chesstempo.com is what I use these days.) If this is considered WP:OR I could remove the words "most popular". Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
    • General observations from chess databases sounds like OR to me ... probably best to remove those words. As for a source, you could cite the appropriate page range from Palliser's book. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
      • "Most popular" and "most common" changed to "popular" and "common". I forgot Palliser doesn't cover the Classical, so I've cited Franco instead. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• "which was recently recommended for White" avoid the use of the dateable term "recently"; similar issue with calling Gashimov the "current" strongest practitioner ... is there a way to reword this?
  • Removed all instances of "recently" and "current(ly)". Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Still one more in Gashimov's image caption; perhaps just reword to "... a leading practitioner of the MB"? Sasata (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• link theoretical novelty
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "In addition, the other capture"
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• "However, by far the most popular continuation"
  • Done. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• the article has many duplicate links (see here for a handy tool to find them); please go through and see if they're all necessary
  • All fixed. How useful :) Cobblet (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• page numbers for footnotes 14 & 15?
  • Fixed. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• according to Petrov (2013), Alekhine played the MB a few times "despite having stated it was not a good opening" (from the introduction). Worth including? Sasata (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know which games Petrov had in mind here—I can't find a single example of him defending the MB. He did play 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 and 1.d4 e6 2.c4 c5 a couple of times but none of his opponents played 3.d5. He's also misquoted Alekhine—in the New York 1927 tournament book Alekhine writes "the intended mobilization plan is not to be condemned off-hand," which Keene also quotes correctly in The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-Reviewer Comment. I note that Marshall is given credit for the MB's 'invention' on three occasions (lede/photo/history). Whilst I can see that Keene may have inferred this in Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal, he chooses the word "introduced" rather than "invented". The reason for this word choice becomes more apparent in Palliser's Modern Benoni: Revealed pp.18-20, when he explains that the Modern Benoni concept first appeared in Alekhine-Capablanca, played earlier in the same tournament, and we can see that Marshall then develops the idea a step further. Notice Palliser also uses the term '"introduced" rater than 'invented'. It may depend on your definition of 'invent', but my dictionary mentions "an original idea" and for that reason I would probably change the wording slightly. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly there were previous games that featured the opposing pawn majorities that characterize the Modern Benoni. The earliest example I could find was Burn–Pollock, Hastings 1895. But the point of the 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 move order is to force this pawn structure, and Marshall was the first person to play this way. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've spot checked a few sources and found them to be accurately represented. The sources are reliable and relevant for an article of this nature. All images have appropriate licenses. I'm confident that the article meets all of the good article criteria, and am happy to promote it at this time. Good work, and please write more articles! Sasata (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect quotation from Nimzowitsch?

″History″ says: ″Nimzowitsch […] labelled Marshall’s opening an ′unfortunate′ ′extravagance′ in his annotations […]″. This is possibly not correct. What does the original quotation from Nimzowitsch say? And what is the original source of this quotation? It is a well-known fact that Nimzowitsch’s books and articles are in German. Nimzowitsch says in his annotations on the game against Marshall (New York 1927) only this (after 1. c4 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3. Nf3 c5): ″Ergibt ein beeengtes Spiel.″ (″Results in a cramped play.″) The source of this quotation is Nimzowitsch’s book Die Praxis meines Systems. --Wikiraven65 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Unlike Keene, I do not have access to Nimzowitsch's extensive writings. If I had to find the original quote I'd probably start by looking through issues of Bernhard Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Only in the 21st century has"

Does anyone else besides Cobblet oppose changing this to "In the 21st century, [past tense]"? I support this change as this is a more natural wording (both in terms of word order and using simple past instead of perfect) and the current unusual wording makes it jump out, giving it undue weight. As for getting rid of the POV "invent" in favor of NPOV "first played" (open to similar alternatives), MaxBrowne2 seems to endorse this based on his recent edit. Dayshade (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Name me another opening that went from being used in a world championship match, to being considered refuted in two different ways, to being used in a world championship match again, all in the space of 32 years. If you cannot, how is it undue to draw attention to this aspect of this opening's history? Invent: "to produce (something, such as a useful device or process) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment." How is that a non-neutral characterization of what Marshall did? Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you not aware of the invent versus discover debate, which can be applied to math, chess openings, and many other things? And I'm seeing more database representation in the late 80s and 90s of the Modern Benoni than today (and on par with 00s), which makes me doubt the "refuted" claims were actually a widespread consensus. I have been convinced by sources you've linked that it is considered a reasonable option as an anti-drawing line (btw Cobblet, the "uncompromising" hints at this, but maybe this should be made more explicit? Can cite Pavlovic 2024). Not sure if you noticed, but I'm now fine with keeping "made a recovery", I just want "Only in the 21st century has... made" changed to "In the 21st century, the... made", to make it stick out less jarringly. I'm fine with conceding on the rest about the nature of the refutedness and recovery despite my continuing doubts, so I don't understand why this isn't an acceptable compromise to you. Dayshade (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Because your ignorance of the subject matter is obvious, and that ignorance is leading you to see ghosts that nobody else sees. Reliable sources have been extensively cited in the article: please read them and use them, rather than database statistics, as the basis of an informed opinion. I will not take you seriously unless you make an honest effort to educate yourself. Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get around to it, but this has nothing to do with the awkwardness of the "Only in the ___ did/has ___" phrasing, which apparently is also repeated in a thing about the 1950s in the body, and the invent/discover POV issue. I expect you to and insist that you take me seriously on those matters. What is so attractive to you about that word order that I find so jarringly strange? Dayshade (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm also now agreeing to concede to everything you want except these two things, despite database data contradicting the extravagant way the theoretical crisis and recovery is described and the opening not appearing again in a WC since 2004 (right? and seems it's been a while for a Candidates now too). Don't understand why that doesn't mean anything to you. Dayshade (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"I find so jarringly strange" = WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mindlessly repeating your personal opinion without reflecting on where that opinion comes from (i.e., a rationale) does not help build consensus. Be constructive, or be reverted. Cobblet (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No. "a more natural wording (both in terms of word order and using simple past instead of perfect) and the current unusual wording makes it jump out, giving it undue weight" was given above. Your reply said "how is it undue to draw attention to this aspect of this opening's history?", but I don't think including it in the lede/lead/intro at all is undue. Dayshade (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I explained why using the word "only" to draw attention to the timeline was appropriate and not undue. "Natural" and "unusual" are your personal judgments, nothing more. Perhaps if you read more, you'd be less triggered by different sentence structures. Cobblet (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

No I read a fuck ton. I just don't like it in this situation. Dayshade (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Still unclear to me why the opening was played significantly more in the 1990s than the last 10 years if it was considered "refuted" in the 1990s but that 2001 book suddenly turned everything around. I will track down those pdfs but the claims just seem sensationalist. Plenty of chess authors get a bit sensationalist at times. Dayshade (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Great WP articles are supposed to be "enjoyable to read", not sanitized. "Only in the 21st century" evokes "Wow, happy to be alive", but am exaggerating to make a point. --IHTS (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I reread my prose in the article and found a couple places where I used this sentence structure without it serving much purpose. I have rephrased those instances. I'm receptive to constructive criticism and am capable of self-reflection, but I do still think this structure makes sense in the lead, and in the other places where it remains. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The actual Marshall games began with 1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.Nc3 exd5 6.cxd5 g6 and 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 e6 4.c4 d6 5.Nc3 exd5 6. cxd5 g6. So he reached it by transposition both times, rather than by the modern move order. If you redefine the Modern Benoni to include the moves up to 6....g6 (which this article doen't do) then you could say Marshall "invented" it. But there were earlier games with 6...Be7. Maybe "pioneered" is a better word? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Or "introduced"? What do you think of the other issue (the wording)? Dayshade (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This article does not discuss putting the bishop on e7 at all, and as far as I know, that option has never been seriously analyzed. Conceptually, the Modern Benoni combines obtaining the queenside pawn majority with putting the bishop on g7. I don't think any reliable source contradicts this. All evidence points to Marshall being the first to play this way. Unless that is doubt, I don't see what is gained by using weasel words. Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Pioneered and introduced are not weasel words. Dayshade (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree that this wording isn't the best for a simple reason. "The Modern Benoni was invented by Frank Marshall at the New York 1927 chess tournament." Is that actually likely? Marshall debuted it at New York 1927 or he introduced it at New York 1927, but isn't it likely he invented it before the tournament? Just not the best way to write that because it claims something that is probably not true and that we likely don't have evidence for. Words have meaning and there are obvious better ways to write this. Quale (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'm fine with "introduced" in that sentence and have made the change. But even if Marshall might have come up with the idea before the tournament, he's still the inventor. Cobblet (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It's still in the caption to his picture that he "invented" the Modern Benoni. He happened to transpose into what is now considered the main line of what is now called the "Modern Benoni". Back then it was just called the "Benoni Defence", or maybe even "irregular defence". I wish I could find Alekhine's NY 1927 tournament book (apparently available only in German until recently). Anyway saying Marshall "invented the Modern Benoni" is a stretch, and POV pushing. There were definitely precedent games all the way back to the 19th century. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"Happened to transpose" is disingenuous. The point of the Modern Benoni is to play ...e6 and ...exd5 and force White to recapture with cxd5, before White puts a pawn on e4 and can recapture with exd5. That is what Marshall did against Capablanca and Nimzowitsch. In both games he followed up with ...g6, which is also characteristic of this opening. See Watson's Gambit Guide to the Modern Benoni, p. 14: "One might argue that the Benoni proper doesn't begin until after 4...exd5 5 cxd5 d6 (or even after 6...g6)." If multiple precedents exist for what Marshall did, it should be easy to provide one. Cobblet (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

He played it twice by different move orders, it was criticized by most of the commentators, then he abandoned it. This can be mentioned of course, but pinpointing the origin of the opening specifically to Marshall is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources say he played the Modern Benoni first. You are welcome to find sources stating otherwise. Cobblet (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)