Indeed, 8.a3 is a prophylactic move, not a developing move. Bad sign for a development gambit. And of course after 8...h6 Black will not castle kingside as long as that sac on h6 is possible. Every schoolboy learning chess everywhere in the world should know that.

I just enjoyed a little debate with TopNotch about the role of logic and instinct in opening theory. Both tell me that 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.a3 can't be good for White. Black has developed his pieces to natural squares; White is playing a development gambit. As 8.a3 does not contribute anything to White's attack it looks like White's compensation (a lead in development) is vaporizing.
Sounds nice - but I can't refute 8.a3. That once again reminds me what a patzer I am. Perhaps 8...h6 is the way to go.

CraigEvans, when you play 7.Bd3 Nc6 you are not forced to play the Zilbermints gambit, 8.a3 is quite good.

The Zilbermints gambit may be good as a surprise weapon and with time limits but it doesn't seem to resist to a good analysis.

Lev,
The line I've posted gives black a clear advantage. If there are no improvements for white's play, then your 7.Bd3 leads to a clear advantage for black. I'd suggest that "?!" might actually be generous if this is the case.
I'm not looking to belittle the idea here, I just want to ascertain it's viability. At the moment, it appears to be bad with best play. The onus is on you to improve white's play - you cannot defend the gambit if you are unable to defend the position.

The problem is that none of this is particularly helpful - the critical line has been posted here previously (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6!? 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Kh1 c6 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.Qe1 Qc5 12.Qh4 h6 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe4 f6 - I'm not aware of any moves which have cast doubt on the evaluation of -/+. Therefore, the discussion of a sub-optimal line for black is pointless, surely? Practical chances aside, the gambit is not sound against correct defence. And as shown on other threads, white probably has lines to reach a playable position against the Euwe, so there's no need for him to play 7.Bd3?!

I applaud your pioneering efforts with finding terra incognita, Lev, but sometimes you've got to realise the horse you're flogging is crocked.

It's a pretty idea, which sadly meets with a pretty refutation - instead of 15...Kxg7, black has the almost prozaic 15...Nh5!! attacking the Bg7 with the queen and the Qh5 with the Be7, where black consolidates with his extra loot.

Checked it out:

13...Qd4! (iso 13...gxh6??) 14.Qg5 Qg4 15.Qxe5 Bd6 is dead equal.

10...h6! (iso 10...0-0?) 11.Qh3 e5 12.Qh4 Be6 and White has to prove something. No doubt, that Black would have found this if he either had played through a couple of BDG, Euwe Defence games or simply had more time.

Dear  Uberdeker,

Thank you for reminding me about that previous post. I had forgotten about it.  Yes, that's correct,  1 e4 h5  2 d4 c6  3 Nc3 d5

Now, as far as  the line 1 d4 Nf6  2 Nc3 d5 3 e4  is hardly a blunder. It is a GAMBIT.   

After 3...Nxe4  4 Nxe4 dxe4 4 Bc4 you have the Hubsch Gambit.

       3...de4  4 f3 leads to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.

And if Black decides to play something like 3...e6  you have a French Defense.


Please check your messages  on Internet Chess Club.  I challenge you to  a match in the BDG.