(UTC)
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › d-Pawn Specials › BDG › BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
(Moderators: Bibs, CraigEvans)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 20
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE (Read 170216 times)
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #52 - 07/17/05 at 18:06:28
Post Tools
Quote:
Moves like 1.Na3, 1.Nh3 or 1.h4 are bad. White should be fighting for opening advantage, she/he should take advantage of her/his first move. To have at least +/= after opening, even if black is playing well. 1.Na3 and 1.Nh3 are nonsensical moves, with no point. It leads immediately to "black has equalised". 1.h4 is a bit better because against weak black player, white can win quickly if she/he is going to castle kingside, even you can beat engines sometimes with such a move. I have prepared against this move in my opening book for advanced chess 1..e5! is the best reply, but black has to wait with 0-0 or rather to plan 0-0-0. 1.Na3 or 1.Nh3 doesn´t need to be prepared because these moves are weak and against basic chess principles. There is not even surprise factor as the moves are really very bad itself, and it is only very pleasurable surprise for your opponent to see such a trash-can opening. I´m strongly opposed against these moves. It completely nihilates white´s opening advantage, an advantage of first move. 
  As for Zilbermint Euwe, I luck any viable line against 9..c6, when black is playing correctly and accurately this, giving to white more than just a poor equality. No white but black has to fight for equality. 
 


Patrik, does this mean you believe White is better in the 9...c6 lines in the Zilbermints Gambit in Euwe Defense to the BDG? Could yopu share some of your analyses and/or games?

Thanks!
 
Lev
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Sevenviolets
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 176
Location: Brno
Joined: 05/19/05
Gender: Male
Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #51 - 07/17/05 at 17:53:00
Post Tools
Moves like 1.Na3, 1.Nh3 or 1.h4 are bad. White should be fighting for opening advantage, she/he should take advantage of her/his first move. To have at least +/= after opening, even if black is playing well. 1.Na3 and 1.Nh3 are nonsensical moves, with no point. It leads immediately to "black has equalised". 1.h4 is a bit better because against weak black player, white can win quickly if she/he is going to castle kingside, even you can beat engines sometimes with such a move. I have prepared against this move in my opening book for advanced chess 1..e5! is the best reply, but black has to wait with 0-0 or rather to plan 0-0-0. 1.Na3 or 1.Nh3 doesn´t need to be prepared because these moves are weak and against basic chess principles. There is not even surprise factor as the moves are really very bad itself, and it is only very pleasurable surprise for your opponent to see such a trash-can opening. I´m strongly opposed against these moves. It completely nihilates white´s opening advantage, an advantage of first move. 
   As for Zilbermint Euwe, I luck any viable line against 9..c6, when black is playing correctly and accurately this, giving to white more than just a poor equality. No white but black has to fight for equality. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #50 - 07/17/05 at 13:08:25
Post Tools
Quote:
Even the big GM Kramnik used a computer analyse for a whole game in a championship match against Leko some month ago!! It was in a line of the very complicate Marshall gambit from the Ruy Lopez and Kramnik lost because the analyse from the computer missed a move that Leko found. And even Kasparov and Anand uses computers to analyses somes positions. But theses player and myself don't use computer without thinking ouselves. Iam thinking as much as computer but I know that the computer will find somes tacticals points that I won't and GM's agrees that computers generally beat human on tactics but human is still better in a strategic position. It's for that the best strategy against a computer is to outbook him with a rare move but not a bad one.

Lev, you seems to defend every unorthodox moves. Somes are interesting, but some like 1.Na3 or 1.a4 or 1.h4 can't be good. Not that theses moves are refuted, but just that they are useless at the moment and lose a tempo for the important fight for the control of the centre. It's just a general principe. And if computer is better than human in a blitz, the more you give time to human to analyse, the most there is a chance for human to beat the computer where the human need mores times to find the accurates tactics.

If you don't uses computers to prove that your gambit in the Euwe defense is not refuted, you should analyses for hours and hours like if you were preparating for a CC games, because your "blitz analysis" just dont resist, it's just logical.



Finally, you understand some of my points, ArKheiN. Yes, computers are better at tactics, but not at positional play. I said as much in my earlier posts.
Now, unorthodox moves are very good. There is nothing wrong with 1 Na3, 1 Nh3, or 1 h4, because it does not lead to a forced win by Black. After 1 h4, 2 g3, 3 Bg2, White is OK here. I already covered 1 Na3 and 1 Nh3 earler in those posts.

I stated that it is okay to use computers to prepare for an over-the-board tournament. The reason is, you have to remember all the variations. You cannot depend on a computer to help you out over-the-board. And you never know -- like I said earlier -- who you will be paired against, nor what opening the opponent will use.

  As for hours and hours of analyses in ZG/Euwe Defense, I do that. The "blitz analyses" is also helpful, since it tells me where I need to find improvements.

Just earlier this morning, I found a new move in the Zilbermints Gambit Delayed. This came about as a result of an unrated blitz match on ICC with Life Master Lawrence "Larry" Tamarkin of New York, USA. I won, 6-5.

But I say again: YOU CANNOT DEPEND ON THE COMPUTER ALL THE TIME!!!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #49 - 07/17/05 at 11:41:31
Post Tools
Even the big GM Kramnik used a computer analyse for a whole game in a championship match against Leko some month ago!! It was in a line of the very complicate Marshall gambit from the Ruy Lopez and Kramnik lost because the analyse from the computer missed a move that Leko found. And even Kasparov and Anand uses computers to analyses somes positions. But theses player and myself don't use computer without thinking ouselves. Iam thinking as much as computer but I know that the computer will find somes tacticals points that I won't and GM's agrees that computers generally beat human on tactics but human is still better in a strategic position. It's for that the best strategy against a computer is to outbook him with a rare move but not a bad one.

Lev, you seems to defend every unorthodox moves. Somes are interesting, but some like 1.Na3 or 1.a4 or 1.h4 can't be good. Not that theses moves are refuted, but just that they are useless at the moment and lose a tempo for the important fight for the control of the centre. It's just a general principe. And if computer is better than human in a blitz, the more you give time to human to analyse, the most there is a chance for human to beat the computer where the human need mores times to find the accurates tactics.

If you don't uses computers to prove that your gambit in the Euwe defense is not refuted, you should analyses for hours and hours like if you were preparating for a CC games, because your "blitz analysis" just dont resist, it's just logical.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #48 - 07/17/05 at 10:27:11
Post Tools
To Hgman: Women can be brave too. No one said in this thread women do not have courage! Just look at GM Kosteniuk and GM Stefanova. They play wild, interesting chess. Kasparov played the Evans Gambit -- and won!!
That takes courage.

To ArKheiN: I should point out that computers are great at open positions and tactics, but *suck* at closed positions. Asking the computer to help analyze is like asking your professor to give you the answers on the final examination. 

Asking a computer to help you analyze is unfair.  The machines give you all the answers  without you even trying. All you do is enter the moves and voila! -- here are the answers! THAT IS WRONG. NO, YOU USE YOUR OWN HEAD, NOT A COMPUTER, TO FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!
DON'T BE LAZY, USE YOUR HEAD!!

To the reader: The difference between over-the-board chess and correspondence chess is that in OTB chess you cannot use the damn machine!! Sure, you can use it to prepare for a major tournament. But you never know who you will be paired against. More to the point, you will have to rely on your own memory -- and memory may not be perfect!! -- to remember all that computer analyses. Plus, on OTB chess, there is a restricted time limit of HOURS, NOT DAYS!!

The only thing I used the computer for was to find games with particular variations. I then played it out and analyzed it myself.

  BY USING THE COMPUTER FOR ANALYSES, YOU ARE ELEVATING THE MACHINE ABOVE THE HUMAN.  YOU ARE BECOMING DEPENDENT ON IT  TO DO EVERYTHING.
ALL THE HUMAN HAS TO DO IS PUT IN THE CHESS MOVES AND THE COMPUTER WILL ANALYZE THE GAME FOR HIM.
   
Note: I am not shouting. I just used capital letters to emphasize a critical point.

I, a human, can improve my analyses in the Zilbermints Gambit. But it is better to have an element of sport, of 
emotion -- which is where both players make bad moves -- in chess than a logical machine that does not know what it is like to be human.

You want *perfect* chess games?? Go ahead and try. Depend on your computer to make it perfect.
But in order to win, you must take risks. The only *perfect* man on God's green earth was Jesus Christ, way back in A.D. 33 .  No one is perfect, not even world chess champions.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HgMan
God Member
*****
Offline


Demand me nothing: What
you know, you know

Posts: 2330
Location: Up on Cripple Creek
Joined: 11/09/04
Gender: Male
Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #47 - 07/17/05 at 09:31:29
Post Tools
Quote:
A man is supposed to be a man, not a coward.


This is non-sensical, sexist rubbish.  I don't think masculinity needs to be a pre-requisite for chess--at least nobody told the Polgar sisters.  Given the great strides we've recently witnessed in women's chess, this archaic suggestion is not only no longer valid, but actually rather counter-intuitive.  And a quick look around any average tournament hall would suggest that chess discourages masculinity, not the opposite...
  
"Luck favours the prepared mind."  --Louis Pasteur
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #46 - 07/17/05 at 08:40:52
Post Tools
Lev : I read again every of yours responses and nowhere you respond to my refutation. 

Quote:
And thirdly, I do not use computers to help me out. 


This is the explanation why your analysis are full of errors and easy refutable with a computer. To the reader : they can find my refuation of his variations in this thread, that I posted in page 1 and/or 2 and you can compare with Lev's response.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #45 - 07/17/05 at 06:53:17
Post Tools
Quote:

Hey, but it wouldn't take any manhood and bravery to play the gambit if it wasn't such a big gamble.

And look at this great opening:
1.e4 h5 2.d4 c5 3.c3 g6 4.Nf3 d5 5.e5 Bg4 6.h3 Bf5 7.Be2 Nh6 8.0-0 Nd7 9.Bg5 Qb6 10.b3 0-0-0 11.c4 Be4 12.cxd5 Bxd5 13.Bc4 Bxc4 14.bxc4 f6 15.Be3 cxd4 16.Bxd4 Nc5 17.Bxc5 Qxc5 18.Qe2 Nf5 19.exf6 exf6 20.Qe6+ Kb8 21.Nc3 Bg7 22.Rab1 Rhe8 23.Qf7 Re7 24.Qxg6 Bh6 25.Nd5 Rg7 26.Qxf6 Rxd5 27.cxd5 Qxd5 28.Qf8+ Kc7 29.Rfc1+ Kd7 30.Rd1 Rxg2+ 31.Kxg2 Bxf8 32.Rxd5+ Nd6 33.Rxh5 Kc6 34.Rc1+ Kb6 35.Nd4 Ne4 36.Rb5+ Ka6 37.Rc4 b6 38.Ra4+ Kb7 39.Ne6 Bd6 40.Rxe4 a6 41.Rb3 Kc6 42.Rc4+ Kd5 43.Rd4+ Kxe6 44.Re3+ Be5 45.Rde4 Kd6 46.Rxe5 a5 47.h4 Kc6 48.h5 Kb7 49.h6 Ka6 50.h7 a4 51.h8Q Kb7 52.Qh6 a3 53.Rd3 Ka7 54.Rd7+ Ka6 55.Qc6 ½-½
This 2min+1s per move game just proves what a great defence 1.e4?! h5!!!!!! is. I soooo easily drew the very strong player (1500ish on Playchess) who was playing white.


Bonsai, in chess you have to take risks sometimes. You can't just sit there and "play safe".  A man is supposed to be a man, not a coward.  I once knew a guy who liked to play safe. Well, once the position was wide open, in gambits, he did not know what to do. He actually lost to a 1500-rated player (his own rating was 1900 at the time ) in the USA Team East. This was in 1990.  So have courage.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #44 - 07/17/05 at 06:43:23
Post Tools
Quote:


It make me laught because 11.Qe1 is maybe the most solid move but not sufficient to have equality, and I have refuted your analysis in this thread before.

And you still say "KNOW THE ANALYSIS" and other funny lessons. And 9..isnt chicken, it's just a very good move.

For the moment you havent proved that my analysis are bad, and for the moment I have proved that my analysis beat your analysis. A real improvement of the Zilbermints gambit in the Euwe defence is needed Cheesy


  As far as I am concerned, ArKheiN, my "KNOW THE ANALYSES" is pretty good in making a point. The games I posted here last night demonstrated that 11 Qe1 is not a good move. That was the idea behind the post in the first place.

Secondly, re-read the thread. I did post analyses to refure your analyses. And thirdly, I do not use computers to help me out.

Lastly, 1 e4 h5 may not be such a bad move. I have seen players play ...h5 in the Caro-Kann Defense with success, so it is not necessarily a bad idea.

  I will post more White wins when I have more time.

LDZ
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bonsai
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 622
Joined: 03/13/04
Gender: Male
Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #43 - 07/17/05 at 01:49:17
Post Tools
Quote:
For the moment you havent proved that my analysis are bad, and for the moment I have proved that my analysis beat your analysis. A real improvement of the Zilbermints gambit in the Euwe defence is needed Cheesy

Hey, but it wouldn't take any manhood and bravery to play the gambit if it wasn't such a big gamble.

And look at this great opening:
1.e4 h5 2.d4 c5 3.c3 g6 4.Nf3 d5 5.e5 Bg4 6.h3 Bf5 7.Be2 Nh6 8.0-0 Nd7 9.Bg5 Qb6 10.b3 0-0-0 11.c4 Be4 12.cxd5 Bxd5 13.Bc4 Bxc4 14.bxc4 f6 15.Be3 cxd4 16.Bxd4 Nc5 17.Bxc5 Qxc5 18.Qe2 Nf5 19.exf6 exf6 20.Qe6+ Kb8 21.Nc3 Bg7 22.Rab1 Rhe8 23.Qf7 Re7 24.Qxg6 Bh6 25.Nd5 Rg7 26.Qxf6 Rxd5 27.cxd5 Qxd5 28.Qf8+ Kc7 29.Rfc1+ Kd7 30.Rd1 Rxg2+ 31.Kxg2 Bxf8 32.Rxd5+ Nd6 33.Rxh5 Kc6 34.Rc1+ Kb6 35.Nd4 Ne4 36.Rb5+ Ka6 37.Rc4 b6 38.Ra4+ Kb7 39.Ne6 Bd6 40.Rxe4 a6 41.Rb3 Kc6 42.Rc4+ Kd5 43.Rd4+ Kxe6 44.Re3+ Be5 45.Rde4 Kd6 46.Rxe5 a5 47.h4 Kc6 48.h5 Kb7 49.h6 Ka6 50.h7 a4 51.h8Q Kb7 52.Qh6 a3 53.Rd3 Ka7 54.Rd7+ Ka6 55.Qc6 ½-½
This 2min+1s per move game just proves what a great defence 1.e4?! h5!!!!!! is. I soooo easily drew the very strong player (1500ish on Playchess) who was playing white.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #42 - 07/16/05 at 16:34:20
Post Tools
Quote:
Moves 1-9 as in previous game) 9...c6 the chicken line. 
 
10 Nxd4  Qxd4  11 Qe1??  Vandenbroucke makes a mistake. Correct is 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Ne4. Now White loses very quickly. 11...Qc5  12 Qh4 h6  13 Ne4 Ne4   
14 Be7 Qe7  15 Qxe4 f6  16 Rad1  e5  17 Rfe1 Be6, 0-1. 
 
Moral: KNOW THE ANALYSES!! 


It make me laught because 11.Qe1 is maybe the most solid move but not sufficient to have equality, and I have refuted your analysis in this thread before.

And you still say "KNOW THE ANALYSIS" and other funny lessons. And 9..isnt chicken, it's just a very good move.

For the moment you havent proved that my analysis are bad, and for the moment I have proved that my analysis beat your analysis. A real improvement of the Zilbermints gambit in the Euwe defence is needed Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #41 - 07/16/05 at 15:21:26
Post Tools
Quote:
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 c6

This move is a chicken line  that Black plays, hoping to wait it out.  It  can be an annoyance if played accurately; however, not too many people know what to play here. Black may think he is playing  a Caro-Kann Defense -- which is not the case at all!

 The inaugural game, Zilbermints-Kopiecki, First Blitz-Discussion-Match (BDM I),  Marshall CC, New York, 04.24.1993, continued:

 10 Bf6  Bf6  11 Ne4  Be7  12 Ne5  Nf5  13 g4  Qd5  14 Nf7  Kf7  15 gf5 ef  16 Qf3  Rf8  17 b3 Kg8?  18 Bc4! fe
19 Bxd5  cd5  20 Qe3  Bg4  21 c4  Rac8  22 h3  Bc5  23 Qg3 Bf3  24 Kh2 Rcd8  25 Qg5  d4?? 26 Qc5 d3  27 Qe3 d2  28 Rad1  Bxd1  29 Rxd1, BLACK OVERSTEPPED, 1-0.

 Zilbermints - T. Vialet, off-hand blitz, Marshall Chess Club,  New York, 8/23/1998:

 10 Nd4 Qd4 11 Bf6  Bf6  12 Ne4 Ke7?  13 Qf3 Bd7 14 Rad1 Qe5 15 Rde1 Qd4 16 c3 Qe5  17 Nxf6  Qxf6  18 Qh5  g6  19 Qc5+, 1-0.

  10 Nd4  Qd4  11 Bf6  Bf6  12 Nde4 Ke7?  13 Qf3  Rf8
14 c3 Qe5  15 Rae1 Qd5  16 Qf4 Qxd3 17 Nxf6+  gf6
18  Qxf6  Ke8  19 Rd1  Qxd1  20 Rxd1  Bd7  21 Qg7, 1-0,
Zilbermints - T. Vialet, offhand blitz, Marshall CC, New York, 08.23.1998

  Zilbermints- T. Vialet
  Marshall CC Friday Rapids
  7 May 1999

 10 Nxd4  Qxd4  11 Bxf6  Bxf6  12 Ne4 Bd7  13 Qf3 000 14 Rad1 Qe5  15 Rde1  Qd5  16 Rd1  Qe5  17 c3  Kb8
18 Rfe1  Qc7  19 Nxf6 gf6  20 Qxf6 Bc8  21 Rf1 Rhf8
22 Bxh7  e5  23 Rxd8  Rxd8  24 Re1  Rd7  25 Qh8  Re7
26 Qh8  Re7  26 Bf5  a5  27 Rd1  e4  28 Rd8  e3  29 Rxc8+, Black resigns, 1-0.


   A game by Peter Leisebein:

10 Nd4  Qd4  11 Qe1 Qb4  12 a3 Qg4  13 Bh4  Qg5  14 
Qg3  Rf8  15 Rad1  Qg4  16 Qf2 g5  17 Bg3 Qh5  18 Qd4
Nd5  19 Nxd5  ed5  20 Qe5 f6  21 Qc7  Qg4  22 Bh7  Qd7
23 Bg6+  Rf7  24 Qa5  Kf8  25 Bf7 Kf7  26 c4 b6  27 Qd2 Kg7  28 Bf2 Ba6  29 Bd4 Kg6  30 Qc2+  f5  31 g4 Rf8
32 gf5+  Rxf5  33 Rde1  Bf6  34 Bxf6  Kxf6  35 Qd3  Rxf1  36 Rxf1 1-0, Leisebein - Baer, Germany, correspondence 2000.

 10 Nxd4  Qxd4  11 Qe1 Qc5  12 Qh4  Qb6?  13 Rxf6!!  A great tactical shot that wins in all lines.  Of course, in correspondence chess, with lots of time for analyses, you can do anything you want.  13...gf6  14 Bxf6  Bxf6
15 Qxf6 Rf8  16 Bxh7, Black resigns, 1-0.  P. Leisebein - Matse Rohde, BDG 04-09  DVC, e-mail correspondence tournament, Germany 2000.

 NEXT: HOW POOR KNOWLEDGE OF ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT THEORY CAN COST YOU THE GAME


Okay... Some time back I promised to put up an article titled "HOW POOR KNOWLEDGE OF ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT THEORY CAN COST YOU THE GAME". Here it is!

  1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6  6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 h6

Richard Kuni - Matse Rohde
Diemer Memorial Club Tournament (DVM)
Email Corresp. Tournament
Germany 2001

  10 Bf4 This is an experimental line, first tried in Lannaoli - Schipman, corresp. 1998. Better moves include 10 Bxf6, 10 Be3, 10 Bd2 and 10 Nxd4.  I am not sure if the text move is good, but I'll let time and practice decide.  10...Nc6  11 Qd2? The mistake of the game. White should avoid trading ;pieces. If you want to play the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG, you BETTER know the analyses! 11...Nb4! 
12 Ne5 Too late!  The concluding moves were:

12...Nxd3  13 Nxd3 00  14 Rad1  Nd5  15 Ne5  Nxf4  16
Qxf4  Qe8  17 Qg4 Bd6 18 Nc4  Qc6  19 Nxd6  cxd6  20 Rf6 Kh7 21 Ne4 Qxc2 22 Rf2 e5  23 Qf3  Qc6  24 Rxd6  Qc4 25 b3  Qb4  26 Rfd2  Be6  27 Qd3 Kg8  28 Nf6+ gxf6 29 Rxf6 Rad8, 0-1.

  Vandenbroucke - Osthus
  Diemer Memorial Club Tournament
  Email Correspondence
  Germany 2003

(Moves 1-9 as in previous game) 9...c6 the chicken line.

10 Nxd4  Qxd4  11 Qe1??  Vandenbroucke makes a mistake. Correct is 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Ne4. Now White loses very quickly. 11...Qc5  12 Qh4 h6  13 Ne4 Ne4 
14 Be7 Qe7  15 Qxe4 f6  16 Rad1  e5  17 Rfe1 Be6, 0-1.

Moral: KNOW THE ANALYSES!!

Richard Kuni - Hans-Juergen Schulz
Diemer Memorial Tournament
E-mail correspondence
Germany, 2002

(Moves 1-9 as in Vandenbroucke-Osthus) 9...c6           10 a4?  Can someone explain to me the idea behind this move? In my opinion, it is totally unnecessary.
White should play 10 Nxd4 Qxd4  11 Bf6 Bf6 12 Ne4
or the untested 10 a3!? . 10... h6 11 Bf4  I think 11 Be3 is better. Then after 11...Nxf3 12 Qxf3 00 13 Rad1
White had good development and good attacking chances for two pawns. Richard Kuni totally messes it up!!

13 Ne4?? Nxe4 14 Qxe4 f5  15 Qe2 Bg5 16 Be5 Bf6  17 Bc4  Bxe5  18 Qxe5  Qf6  19 Rae1  Qxe5  20 Rxe5  g6  21 Bxe6+ Bxe6  22 Rxe6  Kf7  0-1.

R. Kuni - J. Kessler
Diemer Memorial Club
E-mail corresp. tournament
Germany 2001

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6  6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 c6  10 Bf6 Bxf6 11 Ne4?
What is wrong? I always wrote that 11 Nxd4 is best. Analyze! 11...Nf5  12 Nxf6+ Qxf6 13 Qe2 00  14 c3 Qh6
15 Bxf5  ef5  16 Qe7 Qe6  17 Rfe1  Qxe7  18 Rxe7 Rb8
19 Rae1 Be6  20 Nd4 Bxa2  21 Nxf5 Rfd8  22 Nd6  h5
23 Nxb7 Rd2  24 b4 Bd5  25 h4  Bxg2+  26 Kg1 Bd5 27 Nc5 Rg2+ 28 Kf1 Rh2 29 Rxa7 Rxh4 30 Nd7 Rd8 31 Re3 Be6 32 Ne5 Rd2 33 Kg1 Rhh2 34 c4 Rdg2+ 35 Kf1 h4,    0-1.

All this demonstrates an important point for the White player: KNOW THE ANALYSES!! DON'T MIX UP THE VARIATIONS!!

  NEXT: MORE WHITE WINS WITH THE ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN THE EUWE DEFENSE TO THE BDG.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #40 - 07/16/05 at 08:57:14
Post Tools
You miss the point. Manhood and bravery are important in chess. I personally believe the romantic school is pretty much alive.

  White's sacrifice is not as dubious as you'd think. Check the thread to see a bunch of White wins.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Losetowin
Full Member
***
Offline


The caveman

Posts: 104
Location: oslo
Joined: 12/13/03
Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #39 - 07/16/05 at 04:21:14
Post Tools
Zilbermints wrote:

Quote:
Nc6 8 00 Nxd4  9 Kh1 c6 (playing chicken)   


Why is playing c6 being chicken? White has made dubious pawn sacrifice, so whats wrong with chosing the line black thinks  is best? The romantic school of 1900th century where it was all about manhood and bravery are now considered antiquated. Nowadays its about  winning.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lev D. Zilbermints
Guest


Re: BDG: ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN EUWE DEFENSE
Reply #38 - 07/15/05 at 12:18:26
Post Tools
Quote:
Why be afraid to enter into your opponent's home "preparation" if you know it is utter rubbish?  Grin 

Certainly, in a standard 2 hour time control, i cannot imagine people being too unhappy to face LDZ's monkeys (or at least the ones he has shown us so far). There is a difference between dangerous novelties/rare but still practically dangerous continuations *in main openings*, and absurd, unsound or anti-positional moves simply to get your opponent out of book.


I am no more "whining" about computers than you are about early 19th century farmers  and their cows.  The latter, as I said, is neither here nor there. I am just more traditional than you guys... and I don't believe in letting the computer do all the work for you -- in chess.

Now about those "monkeys" you mentioned, Inn2. They are no more monkeys than yours are ice cream Grin
which means not at all. As far as sound, unsound, anti-positional moves are concerned... well, that depends
on the individual position and evaluation.  Let me remind you the Em. Lasker was great at this stuff. He used such moves to get his opponent off-balance and win games. It's called chess psychology.   

Tell me, why should I play something my opponent knows when I can get him out of the book? Then I can play the game on MY terms.

1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4! the ZILBERMINTS BENONI
is hardly unsound. I won some nice games with it in regular tournaments over the past ten years. And in blitz chess it's deadly. In fact, there was a correspondence chess tournament with the ZB in 2002. 
A lot of games transposed into the Smith-Morra Gambit, but some remained in independent lines.

This just goes to show that my novelties have value. Yours, I think, is a different definition from mine. You have a different approach to the game. But hey, so do millions of chessplayers.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 20
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge