Lev: This is the last time I am posting in this redundant thread. Not only do you not truly understand anyone's arguments--but you are protecting an opening that is by definition--flawed. 

Yet just to try and emphasize my points one last time--I shall address your post.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE THE UNMANLIEST FEMININE COWARD FOR CRITISIZING MY GAMBIT. USE YOURE HEAD NOT THE COMPUTER. I PLAY BEAUTIFUL GAMES WITH THIS OPENING AND NOTHING YOU SAY IS GOING TO PROVE TO ME THAT I AM WRONG!!!!!!!!

Just to clarify--I am not shouting, just "emphasizing a key point"

And that crack about you not having a girlfriend: I didn't say it wasn't possible I just said it wasn't probable with a guy like you 

Did you call Kasparov chicken? Or all the other GM's for that matter. They are GOOD chess players. They know that chess is not about 'MANLINESS'. Its about winning--something that you can only do with your opening through some cheap trick, or if you opponent has never played that opening before. Now, I am not saying the BDG is a cheap opening--but I AM saying that it relies on tactics and suprise--not like mainline openings.

I read MNB's post--and I agreed with him--that's why I said you. I don't care if he stated it first--you protect your opening like it's a religion. And no matter what he said--you agreed--because you posted it too.

Also, I didn't say you should play big K or Shirov--I said that I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT HAPPEN!!!!!!! (not shouting, just emphasizing a key point). And I am sure you would love to play them--like you said. You would look like a real man trying to play a cheap gambit against the worlds best--and getting beat while your at it!! 

One last thought--like you said Lost Highway--If Black's probability of winning increases--and white's probability of winning increases--but since the opening isn't that good for white (possibly OK but still not great)--doesn't that mean that black has better chances (especially if he deviates from theory?)

Hi Lev -

I analyze for both white and black.  It would be silly to do otherwise.  I didn't see any comment from you about 9...c5.  I looked for the best white moves I could find, and these were the ones I came up with.  Maybe I'm wrong.  You could tell me if you know.

I know you keep saying that in OTB games there are more chances for either player to make a mistake.  I agree with that.  I think almost everyone would agree also.  So, if black's probability of making a mistake increases, and white's probability similarly increases, then the better prepared player should have an advantage.  My guess is that BDG players are better prepared than their opponents to play a BDG and navigate through the tactics during a live game with a ticking clock.  But, does that advantage compensate for what is perhaps a defective opening to begin with?  Probably not, which is why there are so few BDG games.  The players of the world have voted.   

Quote:


Dude--it was a joke--get over it. Darth Krieger isn't even a Star Wars character. Good lord dude, pull yourself together.

Quote:


Not only was this a distasteful comment--but it was probably an insecure lie. How could a guy who gets upset over a chess opening and political correctness in Star Wars language have a 'girl' friend.

Quote:


Ok, then what did you mean by:

Quote:


Seems like you were yelling to me.


Quote:


And here you resorted to petty sarcasm just because I disagreed with you, as you have done many times on this forum to other people.

Quote:
 

Or, finally you resort to this emotional "deep in my heart crap" to try and desperately make a point.

If your opening is so great--how come no serious profesional player plays it OTB (and by serious player I mean in the top 50 FIDE). Maybe there is ONE follower--but I doubt it. I have never seen many games in the line from the best of the best. The truth is--a lot of things can happen in 2 or 3 hours OTB--and your opponent doesn't have to know that many lines to beat you. As much as you act like you can hide behind your tremendous preperation--you just can't. Your opponent WILL stray from the main lines--and he could find a move that is just as good or almost as good as the main line. Then--it's all about who is the better player and if he/she as black can keep the advantage. Your lines will mean nothing then. Even if there is a refutation--can you guarantee that you can find it OTB? I doubt it--and then your opponent will simply achieve a slight or decisive advantage. 

Maybe you have wins in this line against people your rating--but I would like to see you play it against somebody like--Kasparov or Shirov. They would most likely find a line that would cream your preparation. 

I end with one final plea--dont yell or act like a child anymore--you can argue and present lines and we are fine with that--but this emotional manly bull crap is going to have to leave--this is an opening site and it center's around theory and 'civilized' discussion--so please--argue away--but keep it on the subject and pull yourself together. You are getting way too excited about a mere opening. 

Quote:

What you mean to say is that you'll never stop telling people that it is "alive" despite having no credible analysis to bolster those claims. And, yes, I know one will always continue to be able to win blitz games with it.

Quote:

Well, isn't it quite obvious why that is? Your analysis was quite biased towards white, for some reason black always "had to" play moves that are no good. As a result it's not that difficult to find improvements for black. Maybe there are improvements for white, but it's much more difficult to justify white's risky play than to find sensible ways of keeping black's position together. (Nasty people might of course claim that the fact you complain about reflects on the quality of the gambit...)

Quote:

Well, 1.e4 b6 2.d4 f5 3.exf5 c5 4.dxc5 g5 also offers two pawns, so we can find improvements for black after that?! Sorry, but your arguments just ask for such comments.

Quote:



Bulls--t!! Deep in my heart I feel that the Zilbermints Gambit will survive, contrary to what you say, Mnb. I also feel that it is not fair that all these guys use the computers to find improvements for Black, not White.

And it is not the early 19th century, it is the mid-to-late 19th century. Around 1850 - 1880s, before Steinitz became famous. More to the point, chess used to be more fair back then. None of that computer analyses.

If improvements could be found in the Danish Gambit for White, why not in the Zilbermints Gambit? After all, both gambits offer two pawns.

And thank you for taking up the White side, Mnb. Let us see what you come up with.

LDZ

No analysis, just a comment.  I play 1…d5 in response to 1.d4.  I used to play 1…Nf6.  I have game scores going back 20 years.  Nobody has ever played the Blackmar-Deimer Gambit against me after 1.d4.  I didn’t count the number of games, but it looks like 150 or so.  No BDGs.  I did find one BDG played against me that started with 1.e4 back when I played 1…c6 for a few years.  It went like this: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 ef3 6.Nxf3 e6 7.O-O Bd6 8.Bg5 Nbd7 9.Ne4 Be7, and I won pretty easily in 27 moves.  I played the Caro-Kann about 25 times.  One BDG.  My rating during the past 20 years was about 2000.  I played in a lot of open tournaments.  Except for the one game above against an 1800 player, nobody, weak or strong, played the BDG against me in approximately 175 times that it could have been played, if white wanted to play it.  I really don’t have any need to study it.  I play against it online in 5-minute games and it shows up more frequently, perhaps one or two games out of every 50 opportunities.  I am not too good at 5-minute chess, my current playchess rating is 1752.  My score against the BDG online is somewhere around 90%

Maybe I’ve been unlucky that only one BDG has been played against me in 20 years of OTB events.  Maybe I don’t live in an area that is a home for BDG players. Whatever the reasons, I just don’t get it played against me, which suggests that it may not be suitable for OTB tournaments.  A lot of my games have been at big-money events, like the World Open, Foxwoods, etc.  My opponents have voted with their choice of openings, and they apparently believe that the BDG is too much of a risk to take when playing high stakes chess at longer time controls.

So, from my perspective, the enormous amount of discussion on this site about the BDG seems very strange.  There has been much more BDG discussion than for most of the other openings that I actually see being played in the tournaments I go to.  I’ve read magazine articles that talk about BDG players as if they are members of a cult or inhabitants of another world.  There could be something to those observations, I don’t know.  Based on my tournament experiences, there can’t be very many of them.  When they do show up on these chess discussion sites, they tend to be very prolific and sometimes emotional posters.  They really try to convert people to their side.  It just doesn’t seem to happen.  Nobody can prove it, but the implications are that the opening is just not as good as other openings.  If it worked, I’d see it more than once in 20 years.

"How come your computers keep criticizing 
the Zilbermints Gambit instead of finding White improvements?"
This is easy. These people use their computers to find improvements for Black, not for White. I have used mine to improve the gambiteers play in openings like the Danish Gambit.
So after all man is master of the computer, not the other way round. If you weren't biased, LDZ, and would abandon your pseudo-romantic rejection of modern technology, you could do the same as me - and as Patrik. But I am afraid, that deep in your heart you feel, that the Zilbermints Gambit will not survive objective analysis. That is the real reason, that you long back to the early 19th century.
Having said this, I will in the near future use my computer to see if I can find interesting ideas for White in the Zilbermints Gambit.