@LDZ
You are the one who is constantly whining on computers ....
If comparing with 19th century farmers is ridiculous, you might prefer to compare the anti computer policy in chess with the anti alcohol policy in the USA some 70 years ago.
If you really think the BDG is sound, you must be confident, that it will survive computer analysis too.
Enough of this; as soon as I have time I will take a close look to the Zilbermints Gambit - this time I think this name is justified - with the aid of my computer.

Quote:


Comparing this situation to 19th century farmers is ridiculous. We live in the early 21st century, not the 19th. Who knows, maybe the 19th century farmers were afraid of pollution? Anyway, this is neither here nor there.

  I don't mind using the computer to STORE games. However, I draw the line at using the computer to assist in analyzing an e-mail game in progress.  It is my view that a corres. chess game should be between two people, not between two computers.  The machine analyzing the game for the player when he/she should be doing the work... no, thanks!!

  FYI, I really think a chess match between a computer and a human is not a fair one. A computer can think millions of variations per second, a human, maybe 10-20 moves. It's like playing an opponent who has 3 heads while you have one.

  Old-fashioned? Traditional? Sure. But that is me, so stop whining about it. My next post will focus on games with the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG. 

You have to understand, with today's technology, I have no wish to see this turn into a contest of whose computer analyses is better.
In the old days, you had books. However, books could not analyze for you. The computer, however, CAN analyze the game and key moves for you.

Quote:



  Perhaps you would. But remember this: I play many different openings, some of which you have not seen. More to the point, if you and I were paired in a chess tournament, you would be hard-pressed to remember ALL the analyses against ALL OF MY OPENINGS. I can be unpredictable.

Quote:



  Let me respond to both Markovich and HgMan, point by point. Perhaps then you will understand  where I am coming from.

  First of all, T. Costa WAS NOT the first to play the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG. The first game on record is J. Fechner - W. Schneider, First Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World correspondence  chess tournament, 1968-1975.  Sources give this game as 1970.

  Secondly, after this game, no one ever bothered to play 9 Kh1 again for a quarter century. I was the first one to deeply analyse the move and play it. Thus  it is called the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG.

  Thirdly, 1 Na3 and 1 Nh3 are perfectly good moves. You can play them in regular games as well. For example, 1 Na3 e5 2 b3 with a follow-up 3 Bb2. In some lines the Knight can go to c4.  I could say the same about 1 Nh3, except it's on the Kingside -- 2 g3 and 3 Bg2.

  Fourth, five-minute chess are good for testing ideas prior to playing them in regular tournaments. It is not my fault if people are too conservative -- or too chicken! -- to play 7...Nc6 and then 8...Nd4 in OTB tournament chess against me. Since 1998, I only had one (1) player do it. 

Fifth, I never said postal chess was bad. All I said is that
I have no way of knowing when someone is using the computer to help or not. Granted, most correspondence players are decent folks.  Unfortunately, all it takes is a few bad apples to spoil the barrel. But that can be said of any sport. Look at Tonya Harding is skating a few years back. Or baseball players using steroids. Or the infamous "Birchbeer" using a computer to play his BDG games on ICC from 1994-1998. Just making a point.

Sixth, my approach is not "drawing stick figures and calling them art". Baloney!! I have created many beautiful games over-the-board, beating masters and international masters.  I analyse, all right.  It is just that I do not have time for correspondence chess because it takes too long. The same way you prefer correspondence chess to OTB chess because of various commitments.

   Sure, I played a few correspondence games back in 1995-96  and 2000. My win against German BDG'er Kurt Stummer with White is theoretically important.  There I tried the line 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 c6 6 a3!

   The point is that in over-the-board chess, I can create lots and lots of complications, with a limited time control to analyse. In correspondence chess, however, you can move the pieces around -- something you cannot do in OTB chess -- and have more chance of avoiding all the complications. I am not going to sit there for hours  and hours, figuring this and that, just to have my opponent move the pieces around and avoid the fun. Simply put, correspondence chess is not my style any more than OTB chess is the style for some correspondence players.
I prefer having my opponent to analyze in hours, not days and weeks. Puts more pressure on them, you see.

Later, I will post some of my few correspondence games here. I will also post some of my OTB games that demonstrate "sport, science and art" on my behalf.

You like correspondence, that is well and good.  Me, I prefer playing over-the-board games. At least there I can be certain no one will use Fritz8 computer program to pull any tricks. Not when I see my opponent face to face.

Maybe at some point in the future I will try correspondence chess, but not now. For now I will stick with the over-the-board chess.

Quote:


Again with the time limits!

You know, I would be happy to play the Black side of 1. e4 e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. Bb5 f5 at speed or even, against a not-very-savvy opponent, at 6/30.  But the fact is, it's unsound!  If we're here to debate what's good to play at speed, then please, let's say so!  If we're debating what constitutes Chess Truth, then let's leave off with the time limit considerations.

P.S.  If the "Zilbermints Gambit" was first played by T. Costa, why isn't it called the "Costa Gambit?"  Sorry, I know I'm bad, but I just had to ask that.

Hello Lev, I respond here from your post in the Arkhein-Markovich match tread. 

Quote:


I always was here, but you didnt really respond to my lasts analysis.

Quote:


Of course If you read what I say again I dont say it is -+ but -/+, it's a difference, and I watched the game from Leisebein but this analysis and the -/+ assessement come from Leisebein himself after the game have been played, surely that he found an improvement for black somewhere in the game. 

I recently found an old game on the Internet Chess Club with the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwwe Defense.
Not exactly sure about the real names of the players, though. White is T. Costa. Black is FIDE-rated player, according to his notes; he is a from Holland.  Since "tcosta" 's account no longer exists, it is difficult to say who he was. All I know is he preferred Standard games over blitz.  Here is the game:

  tcosta - POELJEV
  Internet Chess Club
  15 min. 12 sec. increment  Standard
  18 December 1999

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3  5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6  8 00 Nxd4  9 Kh1 Nc6  10 Qe1 h6  11 Qh4 Rg8  12 Bd2 Nb4  13 Bb5+  Bd7  14 Bxd7+  Nxd7  15 Qh5 Nf6  16 Qb5+  Kf8  17 Qxb7 Nxc2  18 Rac1  Nb4
19 Ne5 Qc8  20 Qf3 Rb8  21 Ne4 Nbd5  22 Nxf6 Nxf6  23
Nc6 Rb6  24 Ba5  Rb7  25 Bc3  Bd6  26 Bxf6 gxf6  27 Qxf6 Rg7 28 Rc4 Kg8  29 Rh4 h5  30 Rxh5, 1-0.