At 04:01 AM 4/30/2005 -0000, Ervin Matthew/ Maliq Adonai Soter wrote:
Peace...

Sam, how is this not CLEARLY a Benko Gambit? It is the equivalent
of playing 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. Nf3 Bb7 5. a4 bxa4, which,
although not the most common line of the opening, does amount to a
Benko Gambit. Pray tell, how was the pawn never offered when c4 was
not addressed by protection of the b-pawn? Here, you are quite
overzealous in your assertions. This is, indeed, a living,
breathing Benko Gambit from before Benko was born.

Hotep,

Maliq

I disagree completely and I am surprised at your remark.

The game Rubinstein-Spielmann went 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 c5 3. d5 b5 4. c4
Bb7 5. a4 bxc4 6. Nc3 e6 7. e4 Nxe4

Spielmann never offered to sacrifice a pawn. If Rubinstein had
captured the pawn with 5. cxb5, Spielmann would have captured the
center pawn with Nxd5 which would clearly be bad for White.

Calling the game Rubinstein-Spielmann a Benko Gambit would be like
calling a game that starts with the moves 1. e4 e5 2. d3 d6 3. f4 a
King's Gambit.

Sam Sloan