MNb wrote on 09/14/07 at 21:41:45:


Declining means that you do not accept a gambit. Avoiding means that you do not go into playing that gambit in the first place.

Example: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 e3 is declining the BDG
              1 d4 d5 2 e4 c5 (or 2...e6) is avoiding the BDG.

I just want to point out the difference between AVOIDING (not entering the gambit at all) and DECLINING (entering the gambit but not accepting it).

Just for your information.

Ouch, poor Lev is getting tempramental. I would hardly say my analysis of this line is "so ridiculous as to be absurd" at all, but there we go (and no, I can't speak German - I'm sure I'm not the only person who can't...). In answer to that unbelieveable brilliancy against a GM, however (incidentally, a 3 minute game, Lev? Just a guess...), why would white play Rxa3?

8...Bxa3 9.Rb1 Qa2 (please correct me if there's a better square... 9...Bb4+ 10.Nxb4 wins) 10.Nxc7+ Kd8 11.Nxa8 Bb4+ (what else? 11...Nb4 12.Nd4 seems to do the job though, I must confess, I only took 5 seconds to decide this. I could have missed some brilliant sac) 12.Nd2 and I really don't see how black continues - Bxd2+ Kxd2 doesn't seem to give black enough for his matieral. You can continue to point me down the "correct path" Lev, but whatever moves you throw out, I always refute them.

It's ignored for a reason - I play neither side, and prefer not to play things I could refute myself OTB. There's a reason why none of your ideas are played at international level, Lev, and it has nothing to do with cowardice or fashion, I promise you. If you enjoy your lines, then that's great - but it's one thing enjoying something, it's quite another trying to convince the world it's a great idea, and then getting quasi-abusive when people disagree. Just because someone doesn't share your point of view, you don't need to call them ignorant, a coward, or so on. If everyone had exactly the same ideas in chess, then it would be a very dull game indeed.

Your 6...Bd7 looks like an improvement - again, I'm not picking inferior defences for a reason, just going on what games I've found in the line. 7.Bxc6 Bxc6 8.O-O might offer black a little play for the pawn, but I doubt it's enough - 8...Qd7 planning to castle q-side looks strongest, but now 9.exd6! Nxf4 10.exf4 Bxd6?! 11.Re1+ looks good for white. Perhaps 9...O-O-O can be essayed, but then 10.Bg3 and again I don't think black has enough against correct play. 7.Bg5 Qc8 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.e4 might be a simple way to return the pawn and keep a small positional edge, but playing in such style isn't my way.

I'm not up for having a match, because it would prove absolutely nothing - I am not disputing the gambit, like the BDG, may have practical value. I'm not a GM or a computer, I'm not likely to find the best moves, I might even lose. Does it mean the gambit is any better? No. I've won OTB games with 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.d4? exf4 4.Qf3 - completely unsound, but I've beaten 2000-strength players with it. Proves nothing other than that, in that game, the opponent made the last mistake. 

Scenario A: I win. Lev will still claim his opening is good.
Scenario B: Lev wins. I'll still claim his opening is junk. 

The only difference is that I won't get called a coward in scenario B - that I can live with. (Incidentally, Lev, I find your arrogance ( Quote:
) incredibly amusing, both for presuming I don't know about your gambits, and presuming that you would beat me. If you were a GM I'd not argue, but the fact is you're pretty much as much of a patzer as I am. Maybe if you toned down the arrogance and self-righteousness, people would be more encouraged to contribute in discussions.)   

Anyway, this is where I draw a line under the nonsense (and my apologies if any feel I've stepped over any lines here; I do not feel that I have, but everyone draws different borders on when banter and debate goes too far...); the debate on the opening can continue, in good spirit. But there's no need to point out others' ignorance, lack of knowledge, lack of playing ability, etc etc. In the end most of us are here to have fun, and maybe learn something - we don't all have to agree, and it shouldn't be taken personally if someone disagrees with you. However, if someone posts "x is good", and it isn't, I will continue to quite merrily point it out. I hope you can accept that.

Bibs wrote on 09/14/07 at 08:32:13:


Dude, you don't know jack about the BDG! For starters, the BDG starts after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3   NOT 1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6, which  is a French Defense!

jeupham wrote on 09/14/07 at 07:47:10:


John, I'm all for having the match. Now if Craig Evans would join me,  the match would be on.


Internet Chess Club would be good. We can set the time control for Game/30 minutes, Game/60 minutes, as the case may be. You can join in and watch.

CraigEvans wrote on 09/13/07 at 17:55:12:


Don't make me laugh, Craig. Your analysis of the Kopiecki Attack is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Go read Kaissiber #5 and #6(assuming you can read the German language), which covers this line.

However, let me refute your analysis:

1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 Ng6 5 Bg3 Qe7 6 Nc3 Qb4! 7 Qd2 Qxb2! 
8 Nd5  and now:

8...Kd8 is indeed good for White. But this only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about in this line.

cendrier (GM) - Zilbermints
Internet Chess Club
10 April 2004

8...Bxa3 9 Rxa3 Qxa3 10 Nxc7+ Kd8  11 Nxa8 Qc3+  12 Nd2 Nb4  13 Qb1 Nxc2
14 Kd1  Na3  15 Qc1 Qa5  16 e6 Qa4+  17 Nb3 Qxb3+  18 Kd2 Qb4+  19 Kd3 Qb5+  20 Kc3  Qc5+  21 Kb2  Nc4+  22 Ka2  Qa5+  23 Kb3 Qb5+  24 Kc3  d5
25 Nc7 Qa5+ 26 Kc2 Qa4+  27 Kc3 Qa5+  28 Kb3 Qb6+  29 Kc2 Qc6  30 e7+ Kxe7  31 Qg5+ f6  32 Qxd5 Ne3+  33 Kd3 Nxd5 34 e4 Nxc7 0-1

I will check Leisebein's games later. Btw, I never called him a "hero", but merely stated he played the BDG. There are of course, Masters and International Masters Stefan Buecker, Alan Watson, Charles Diebert, and other masters who play the BDG.

Your unfortunate ignorance of the published literature on the Zilbermints Gambit
means that you do not know that theory does exist.

At a glance, after 4 Bf4 Ng6 5 e3 d6!  6 Bb5 the best move appears to be 6...Bd7! threatening to win back the pawn via 7...Nxe5 8 Bxd7 Nxd7.  Now 7 Bxc6 Bxc6 gives Black the Bishop pair and some pressure for the pawn. Thus, 6...a6? and 6...Qd7? are actually weak moves!

My openings have sound basis to them, are unorthodox, sharp, and win me games. Granted, I draw some and lose some games, but that's chess.

If I ever play you in an over-the-board tournament, rest assured... I will defeat you with gambits you never heard about.  I may also use the BDG or the Zilbermints Gambit to do the job of beating you. 

CraigEvans wrote on 09/11/07 at 16:38:34:



Craig,

You obviously do not know the theory of the Klein Defense (or Variation, as you would put it). A couple of important points come to mind.

First, after 4 Bf4 Ng6 the overwhelming majority of players play 5 Bg3. A few play 5 Bg5. And a very distant third is 4 e3 or 4 g3.

Secondly, after 4 Bf4 Ng6  5 Bg3 Qe7  6 Nc3! Qb4!  Black enters the Kopiecki Attack, with its myriad complications. I analyzed it extensively in the literature
mentioned, and even now, new ideas are still being discovered.

The alternative to 5...Qe7 is the Brea Attack, 5...Bc5!? While not as complicated as the Kopiecki Attack, it can get very tactical.

Thirdly, after 4 Bf4 Ng6 5 e3 Black plays 5...d6! 6 exd6 Nxf4   7 ef4 Bxd6. Here Black has the Bishop pair, good development and attacking chances for the pawn.

Finally, when I get the chance, I'll post some games.

This gambit is good.

 

CraigEvans wrote on 09/09/07 at 15:52:54:


Craig, I wonder where you have been the last 14 years? The line 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 -- Klein Defense to the Zilbermints Gambit --  has been analysed and played by me all this time. You can find analyses of it in the following literature:

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World magazine #s 61, 62, 63 (1993-1994)

Illinois Chess Bulletin, Nov. - Dec. 1995 (a recap of the previous articles, by NM Alan Watson)

Kaissiber #5 and #6 (1998) - Stefan Buecker's chess magazine

Unorthodox Chess Openings (2nd edition) - by Eric Schiller

The Klein Defense is the most complicated line in the Zilbermints Gambit. There are variations in which gives up two pieces, a Rook and a Bishop, to force draw or win the game. The complications are hair-rising, with a difference between a win and a loss  often decided by one move. Then there is a line where Black sacrifices the Queen for a Rook, a Bishop, passed pawn, and the advantage of the Bishop pair.

Wild and unorthodox.

If you want, I can play you online at Internet Chess Club, at a time limit of say, Game/30 or Game/60. Let me know if you are interested in playing with the White pieces against the Zilbermints Gambit.

Keep in touch. 

Incidentally, Danner-Casagrande 1998 saw 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 h6 4.e4 g5!! - I'm surprised Lev didn't mention this line, although I'd imagine given that it was played by someone else first he has no interest in it.

1-0, 23, if anyone's interested.