My response to Partrik about the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG is this:

First, you better know the theory of the gambit. If you do, then you have great attacking chances, better development, and a good position for 2 pawns.

Second, play the gambit in anything EXCEPT circumstances where your opponent may use computers to do his thinking for him.
By this I mean play the gambit in over-the-board tournaments, blitz, Internet Chess Club, casual -- that is, anywhere where your opponent has to think for himself, and not use a computer to do it.

Third, be a good tactician and a positional player.

Fourth, have confidence in what you are doing. Think before you make a move!

Fifth, contact me personally if you have any questions about the theory.

Sixth, you can make the reasonable assumption that your most of your opponents have no idea how to defend against the Zilbermints Gambit.

Keep in touch.

Sorry, got all that wrong. The line I'm referring to is 1. e4 e6 ; 2. d4 d5 ; 3. Ktc3 ed ; 4. Ktxe4 Bd7 ; 5. Ktf3 Bc6 ; 6. Bd3 Ktd7 ; 7. 0-0 (or 7. Be3) Ktgf6 ; 8. Ktc3 (avoiding exchanges, but again maybe not best) Bxf3 ; 9. Qxf3 c6.
Maybe Alumbrado will kindly correct my previous post to spare me the humiliation of not being understood...

Dear Glenn,

Wow, my first post and allready receiving challenges and scolding!
I'd be happy to play anyone who wants to take me on in the BDG. You can find me on the ICC under the same handle. However, whether I win or lose will depend on the strength of my opponent more than anything else.
On the subject of this particular variation with ...Bg4 (there are plenty of other strong set-ups) speeking strictly in abstract terms, what have we got on the board? A kind of Caro, or perhaps the position is best compared with a line of the Rubinstein French [1. e4 e6 ; 2. d4 d5 ; 3.Ktc3 ed ; 4. Ktxe4 Bd7 ; 5. Bd3 Ktd7 ; 6. Ktf3 Ktf6 ; 7. Ktc3 (admittedly, this may not be best, not very familiar with this stuff) Bxf3 ; 8. Qxf3 c6]. White is missing his f-pawn, and his kingside dark-squares in general are weak. He hasn't even got development to compensate for this (in the French line, Black played ...Bd7-c6-xf3 without any prompting from h3, as opposed to ...Bg4xf3), so what is the deal? The f-file? Does White have a mating attack? In your honest opinion, can this possibly justify the surrender of a pawn by White (unbalancing the play is a better excuse for Black gambits) at such an early stage? 

                                                        Looking forward to your reply,
                                                                                 Hubert Decker

Dear Alumbrado,

There is not a trace of arrogance in my previous post - contrary to what you seem to be implying. It was simply surprise. Indeed things are not so simple - chess is a complex game!! My point was merely that  this critical test of 1. ...c5 deserves at least to be mentioned before moving on to a lengthy discussion of other lines.

[quote author=Uberdeker(Guest) link=1064964543/30#39 date=1142443180]First of all, there is no reason to avoid the blunder of a pawn which goes by the name of Blackmar-Diemer. Among other refutations, 1. d4 Ktf6 ; 2. Ktc3 d5 ; 3. e4 de ; 4. f3 ef ; 5. Ktxf3 Bg4 ; 6. h3 Bxf3! ; 7. Qxf3 c6 forces a rapid White resignation.
Second of all, 2. ...c5 is inferior on account of the simple 3. d5 (which hasn't been mentioned here once!), when White will ensconce his K Knight on -c4 without allowing the usual Benoni counter-play on his e-pawn ( ...e6 and ...ed is met by ed).
All this is old hat. I wonder why I'm the first to mention these things!?[/quote]
[color=#ff3300][size=12]
If indeed you are the first to mention it, it is probably because matters are not quite so simple as you suggest.

A word to the wise, if I may: arrogance does not go down well on these boards.[/size][/color]

Quote:


I wrote that sometime ago.  Have there been any developments in this line?
Is it still considered an effective equalizer for Black.  I also think I've read somewhere that Plaskett recommended the 2.dxc5 approach for White in his 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 book.

You make some excellent points Patrik

On reflection I was a little hard on you and your gambit, after all all openings have a right to exist.

Sometimes I rely more on my intuition, judgement and chess experience not just hard concrete analysis to reach a determination on the correctness of a particular Opening or Opening line.

Trying to prove everything you say by concrete analysis is not always practicable, hence the common phrase ' Practical tests required'. Of course ultimately, practice over many many games played at a high level will allow one to reach more accurate conclusions.

I am always accused of yapping too much without analytical proof, but having sound chess judgement is just as valuable to a 'Human' player as the ability to analyse long variations. 

If good judgement and intuition were not valuable chess assets then Kasparov would not have been able to compete on equal terms with Deep Fritz or whatever the machine was that he played.

Think about it, the machine can analyze millions of moves per second and yet the best players can still hold their own. 

That brings me to another point, many inexperienced players today even some more experienced ones that should no better allow FRITZ or some other engine to come up with all their moves and ideas for them. 

A Chess engine's conclusions can only be analysis based, this is what they do, for humans to try an emulate such a style for want of a better word is futile as a human being will never be able to number crunch as effectively as a computer.  

What strong chess masters seek to do is to hone their intuition to such an extent that analysis becomes almost secondary, simply a means to confirm what one's intuition immediately tells you is so. This is the goal.

In a recent Dragon thread I started, I introduced a powerful novelty for black. Later some on this forum dismissed it as just computer analysis, but if one were to run an analysis engine on the position you would see that they strongly disagree with me till near the end when they suddenly have a radical change of heart.

The point is computers only believe what they can see, a strong Chess Master sometimes has to believe in what he can feel. I really do not know how to explain this much better, without using up a few more screens, I suppose a whole book could be written on such a topic.

Perhaps someone can do a poll here to determine how big a factor intuition plays in the thought process of strong players.

Well I think I have rambled on enough in this thread for one day.

Till next time, take care.

Top      

Top Notch:
Yes, you are right, my BDG games on chessbase.com are of very poor quality. I´m not especially proud of them. But thats life. 
I dont like claims like "If the BDG was worth anything, Master level players would use it often against their peers in OTB play, and I don't mean blitz." Master level players are mostly "result-oriented". And BDG doesnt give you too much "certainty". And, what is the most important, most of us, chessplayers like to copy moves from different books, databases, ECO and NCOs etc. We are just followers of ideas which have been proposed in the past. There are dozens of examples where strong players (2400 and higher) are copying variations from some books (where they were "recommended") though a variation is not correct and can be busted and refuted. As for me, "BDG is not played by Master level players" is not a reason and an evidence, that BDG is bad.
It is a pity you do not want to play a match here. I have followed your posts here and on many other threads. But what do you want? You want me to reply to your every suggestions for black? Once again, it is very easy to argument in way you are doing. Simply to propose ten or twenty different ways for black claiming that he is at least equal, mostly without any lines to prove such a claim. But you should realize, it is not possible to counter all such "flat statements" with analytical evidence. I reject to waste my time to defend BDG in this way. It seems to have no end.