CraigEvans wrote on 09/14/07 at 18:55:55:
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: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.
) 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.
You bet I am getting temperamental. I take the view that theory is one thing, practice is another. That was why I challenged you to a honest match, which
you, of course, declined.
"I'm not a GM or a computer, I'm not likely to find the best moves, I might even lose. "
This is what you wrote, Craig. What do you expect? Perfection in chess? No such thing as being perfect. And if you lose, it would prove that your argument is faulty, nicht war (not so? German) ?
Now, why did the Grandmaster I played on ICC not play something else beside
9 Rxa3 ? Probably because he is human, not perfect, and makes mistakes. Because, in his view, 9 Rxa3 was the best move according to his not-so-perfect analyses. But, you, Craig, apparently want perfection, the best possible moves from both sides. It does not happen like that, Mr. Evans. This is an imperfect world we live in.
As for the international scene, why don't you look on the chesslive.de database? There are quite a few Zilbermints Gambits in there. Many of them were played by players other than myself, in countries other than U.S. of A.
I also take issue with being called patzer, since I regularly beat masters in OTB tournaments. Frankly, I don't care if you are Kramnik, Mr. Evans -- I would still challenge you to a chess duel. I want to see you back up your analyses and words in a match or tournament play, with a clock ticking at your side. You are only human, just like I am. And that means you can be beaten.
In the old days, the time of Morphy, challenges were accepted and met. Gambit play was the law of the day. Now, in 2007, we have people who say one thing and do another.
Bush, too, thought the theory of post-Saddam Iraq was going to be easy. We all know that is not so. With chess, it is the same. Theory is one thing, practice, another. So why not accept the challenge instead of talk, talk, talk?
When I say someone is ignorant, I mean that there is literature on the subject, but you are not aware of it. As any good reporter or researcher will tell you, finding literature on a given topic often requires some effort and searching the books, magazines, Internet, etc. Only after you have made a decent effort and come with nothing can you argue that there is no literature on a given subject.
You think you know my gambits? Wrong! I have no less than 18 different gambits named after me, in different openings. And I am always inventing new ones. Recently, I have began giving the new gambits names of the towns I have lived in, just to differentiate between different gambits.
So... what's going to happen when we do sit down to play each other over the board?
I will know the theory of the gambit. You won't.
Here is one example:
1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 Ng6 5 e5 d6 7 Bb5 Bd7! 8 00 Bxf3! 9 Qxf3
dxe5 10 Bg3 Qc8 and Black is OK.
Your 8...Qd7? is just a weak move.
Pages: 
Englund Gambit (Read 63195 times)
