According to you 6.Bd3 c5 7.Be3 is inferior to 6.Bg5. As the latter leads to equality after Black's best play (imo 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Qd2 Nbd7 is critical, but we'll save that for another time), the first will lead to a Black advantage following your logic.
What's more, you admit that this line is an inferior version of the Alapin, which again is equal after Black's best play. This is another sign that 6.Bd3 c5 7.Be3 is better for Black.
Finally you gave as an example Abbasifar (2353) - Tehrani (2173) , Teheran 14th Fajr Open, 2006, 1-0/25. Black had a won position around move 15.

So your only defence of 6.Bd3 c5 7.Be3 is "plenty of Black players do not know anything about this theory." In other words, you recommend a line for White that can be refuted if Black finds the best 10 moves or so, but speculate that Black won't. That's called hope chess. The only way to escape this conclusion is to find a major improvement on the abovementioned game - for White. I would welcome that, as I find Studier's plan (for other readers: Bd3, Qh4, Bg5, Ne5 with mate to follow) very appealing.

That's up to you to tell us. Regarding that Abbasifar (2353) - Tehrani (2173) , Teheran 14th Fajr Open, 2006, 1-0/25, why don't you try to find some good moves for Black? Just one place to start is Black's 15...Ne5? I am sure that an attacking player like you can find a good move for Black here.

Gambit wrote on 03/03/09 at 03:11:54:

You nicely gave the answer in the French thread "Gambit on the 3rd move."  It does not mean according to you - and I agree - that this move order provides sufficient compensation. Thank you.

That's not an answer to my previous post. So I feel free to conclude that (BDG) 5...e6 6.Bd3 c5 7.Be3 leads to nothing, exactly because it transposes to an inferior form of the Alapin.

What is exactly the difference with  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3 dxe4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 c5 7.Bd3  ? That 7.Bd3 is an inferior move here? Then 6.Bd3 is inferior against the Euwe. I would have thought that a BDG-expert like you would have thought of this himself.

This game does not address my second point. It's in fact an Alapin Gambit (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3) which easily can be improved upon by Black.

There are two problems with 6.Bd3:
1) 6...c5.
2) I want to play this line via 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3.

To quote what drkodos once said about another of your threads: 

'This thread is like a herpes.

No telling when it will flare up again.'

I checked Internet Chess Club today for Birchbeer's games. All of the games were played at 2 14, 5 15, 10 0, or similar time controls. This means that the increment gave extra time for the computer to find a move.

Tim McGrew once told me that Birchbeer was actually a master that left once ICC started requiring computers (C) to be labelled so. According to Tim, Birchbeer used an early version of Fritz to help him.
The last of Birchbeer's games are from 1999.

He has not been heard of since.

Well, then I  suggest you talk to Tim McGrew yourself. His handle on ICC is Tim. Maybe  then you can come back and tell us what he told you.

Btw, Birchbeer has not been seen on ICC since 1999.

Yes, there is. I heard it from an administrator on the Internet Chess Club. Also, I talked to Tim McGrew about it. They both said the same thing.

TopNotch wrote on 09/26/07 at 21:21:15:


Well now Toppy, I am sixty seven years old and my over the board play which was never really strong is weakening. However my correspondence play is steadily improving. Make no mistake correspondence and over the board chess provide quite different challenges. 

First in Correspondence Chess the opening phase of the game is different and in many ways more interesting. Cecil Purdy made the point that openings suitable for correspondence lay are not suitable for over the board play and vice versa. 

I spend time before playing my first move looking through my opponents games looking at what lines they play, looking for suitable lines and variations or errors in their opening repertoire. Once the game starts a tremendous amount of work is required. Yesterday I looked at three recent books and several on-line databases before deciding not to play a line given on the dragon pages. Since the line was suggested it has been taking a bath in over the board play and I could not find improvements for black.   

Another point is that in correspondence chess you can vary your repertoire far more than in over the board chess. 

Next in the middle game you can play much deeper and more accurately than in over the board chess. Attacks are refuted much more often and defence tends to be much better.  When you see the comment "and white has compensation for the sacrificed material" you start looking for whether this is true. Of course you want to do this before you reach the crucial position. 

I am no end game specialist but I played through some games by the very top correspondence specialists and they displayed awesome end game technique.

It is quite common to find players who are very strong at correspondence but much weaker over the board. As Clint Eastwood said in the movie "A man has got to know his limitations". 

Best wishes.

kylemeister wrote on 09/26/07 at 18:44:10:


Ok perhaps my argument/solution is not perfect, but I believe there is some merit to it. If you want to  know how good or bad a chessplayer you really are, a good indicator is how you play against opponents you know nothing or little about beforehand.

Anybody can look/play like a GM at least for awhile if they know exactly what their opponent is going to play beforehand and book up before the game. This is what I mean about playing the man. The argument about elite players protecting their ratings by playing among themselves may or may not be partly true but one should note that all these elite players came through the ranks to where they currently are, and their status and chess strength is proven. 

Incidentally the lack of reliance on one's wits is a major reason that correspondence chess has never appealed to me, and hence I don't play it, at least not yet. Correspondence chess often gives a false sense of chess ability, for e.g on another forum their was thread by a Correspondence player who for some reason was forced into over the board play to represent his army team or some such, when he suddenly realised that he could not employ any of the chess openings he enjoyed in Correspondence play such as The Najdorf etc. simply because he would not be able to consult his extensive library/media etc. during the games. This is a common dilemma among non OTB players.

The small digression above was just to emphasise the point that a chessplayer's strength can only be measured accurately when his play is unassisted. Moving on, my understanding is you can only get a USCF rating by playing in the United States and on that basis I don't see how it can be compared in weight or qulaity to Fide's, which reflects an international standard encompassing almost all chess playing nations. 

This may sound a bit elitest but as far as I am concerned competitive players should be more concerned with acquiring a Fide rating as this is the one that counts most. National ratings and titles are very nice and in some instances neccessary, but ultimately they should be considered as secondary.

Toppy  

TopNotch wrote on 09/26/07 at 15:26:25:


I agree that one world rating system would be a good idea; I also agree that FIDE titles are more worthy than national titles.  I don't know what to make about your arguments about play inside just one country, though.  In a big country like this one, it's not so easy to attend tournaments outside your country.  With the exception of Canada, of course.

However, the United States being the enormous country that it is, there is certainly no presumption that U.S. ratings are based on interraction with a narrower range of players than FIDE ratings are.   

If you think of chess pairings as establishing a sort of world network, there would be scant interconnection across the Atlantic even if one system of ratings were used.  These same arguments are made here, in any case, about ratings in given regions of the U.S..  It probably applies mostly between the Pacific Coast and the East, but I'm sure there's a lot more connection there than there is across the Atlantic.   

It might be worth observing that using computers and the internet, most U.S. events are rated within a day or two of their completion.  I doubt that FIDE today could match that turnaround.   

I apologize for my ignorance, but my understanding is that the British, the Swedes and possible some others also have national rating systems.  Nicht war?

On the whole I think National ratings should be done away with, and only Fide ratings used. I think this as what Fide is moving towards.

A big issue with national ratings such as USCF and others, is that it is often not an accurate measure of chess strength since the opponents faced are usally from one's own country and thus very familiar. This intimate familiarity often allows one to prepare for the man rather than the board, while in international competition this luxury is less present, at least in my observation anyway.

Toppy

In the US, master has in recent times approximately corresponded (though not by definition) to the 99th percentile of tournament players.  I don't know comparable figures for other countries.

In my most active playing days, the minimum FIDE rating was (for some reason) 2205.  2005 for women, I think.  (Or was it 1805?)  But now they rate down to 1400, if I'm not mistaken.

Another bit that occurs to me is that US master is approximately equidistant between WIM (2100 FIDE, which I would think is marginally weaker than 2100 USCF) and WGM (2300 FIDE, which I would think is marginally stronger than 2300 USCF).

For the record, US master titles are based on a (minimum) rating of 2200.  Last I was aware of the statistics, the FIDE and USCF ratings curves coincided/crossed at that level.  That is, USCF 2200 = FIDE 2200, although on average (over the whole range of ratings) USCF was about 40 points higher than FIDE.

Yet you post one of my 5 minute games? Oh no you don't, Top-Notch. I'm going to post one of my games where I beat a titled player anyway.

Yeah, "lambchopsrulz" is pretty original. As for my game with Mr. Sarwat, I'll return to it later. I probably made a mistake there, somewhere. However, I can post plenty of blitz BDG games where I beat titled players. 

I will have to post these games another time, as I have a doctor's appointment in New York today.

Just thought I would add some balance.  

[Event ICC ]
[Site Internet Chess Club]
[Date 2007.04.16]
[White Zilbermints]
[Black W-Sarwat]
[WhiteElo 2245]
[BlackElo 2274]
[Opening Blackmar gambit]
[ECO D00]
[TimeControl 5Min]
[Result 0-1]
[ICCResult White resigns]

1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 c6
8. g4 e6 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd3 Bb4 11. O-O O-O 12. Ne4 Nd7 13. h4 e5 14. c3 Be7
15. Qh5 g6 16. Qh6 exd4 17. h5 dxc3 18. hxg6 fxg6 19. Nf6+ N7xf6 20. gxf6
Rxf6 21. Rxf6 Bxf6 22. Bc4 cxb2 23. Bxb2 Bxb2 24. Rf1 Qb6+ 25. Kh1 Qd4 26.
Rf4 Qd1+ 27. Kg2 Be5 28. Rf3 Qc2+ 29. Rf2 Qxc4 {White resigns} 0-1

Looks like the BDG isn't a forced win after all, not even in blitz. 

Toppy

Another thought: if White has to spend a tempo (8.a3) on protecting Bd3 anyway, it may be a good idea to force a concession from Black in return. There are two tries.
The first is 7.Bb5+
a) my first thought was just 7...Nc6 anyway, but 8.0-0 Bd7 9.d5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Qxd5 0-0 12.Rad1 Be6 13.Qe4 looks fine for White; despite Arkhein's remarks White still has a clear lead in development and once again h7 is vulnerable. But why not 8...0-0!? Fritz thinks White is OK after 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Ne5 Bb7, but I am not impressed.
b) 7...c6 8.Bd3 and White chuckles. That may turn into annoyance after 8...Nbd7 9.0-0 c5. Of course 9.Qd2 is possible, but then again: why not 7.Qd2 at once?
c) 7...Bd7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 Nb4 and White's compensation is questionable.

The second idea is 7.Bc4. This is not the optimal square for the bishop, sure, but it is not a bad square either. I have found two otb games with relatively strong players behind the black pieces; in both happened 7...0-0 8.0-0 and both were won by Black.
a) 8...a6 9.Qe2 b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Rad1 Nbd7 12.a3 c5 13.dxc5 Bxc5+ 14.Kh1 Qc7 15.Bxf6 Nxf6 16.Ng5 Be7 17.Rxf6 Bxf6 18.Nxh7 Rfd8 19.Rf1 Qe5 Stoessel-Karr, FRAchT 1999. There is no need to look at this game in detail, as 9.Qe1 is an obvious improvement:
a1) 9...b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Qh4 h6 12.Bxh6 1-0.
a2) 9...Nc6 10.Rd1 b5 11.d5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Bxg5 13.Nb6 Qxd1 14.Qxd1 Be3+ 15.Kh1 Bxb6 16.Bd3 and White is OK (ie a little more than Black is OK).
b) 8...Nc6 9.Qd2 (but once again - 7.Qd2) Na5 10.Bd3 b6 11.Qf4 g6 12.Qh4 Nc6 Herges-Grabarczyk, GER 2005, and White missed 13.Rae1 Nh5 (Bb7 14.Ne5) 14.Ne4 Bxg5 15.Nexg5 Bb7 16.g4 Nf6 17.c3 h5 (ugh) 18.Bxg6 fxg6 19.Nxe6 Qd7 20.Qg5 and White is close to winning. That is not the end of the story though - 8...Nc6 9.Qd2 a6 is much more challenging:
b1) 10.a4 (huh?) b6 11.Rad1 Bb7 12.Qf4 Nb4 13.Qh4 h6 and for once 14.Bxh6 is bad.
b2) 10.Qf4 Nh5 and White has nothing to show for his pawn.
b3) 10.Qf2 h6 (but not b5 11.Bd3 h6 12.Bxh6!) and again White is one tempo short for 11.Bxh6.

I guess you get my point. If White has to play x.Qd2 so often, it is best not to commit his bishop yet and play 7.Qd2 at once.

Quote:


Here we go with the "coward" nonsense again. 9...c6 is not "cowardly", it's a good chess move. This isn't a test of how big black's "cojones" are, it's about winning a game, or finding the truth about a line, whichever you prefer. For me, if I knew my opponent played this junk, I would whip out 9...c6 in a second - I don't care what most people play, I just need to know what I'd play, and how I'd deal with it. The fact remains, whatever the practical chances of the opening are, that it will not stand up to a rigorous scrutiny of this line.

8.a3 is an interesting idea, as I remember we had quite a debate on it before. I must say that I agree with MNb (not for the first time), in that 8.a3 just feels wrong - and both of us are quite experienced gambiteers, so it's not like it's a patzerish observation. Of course, talking in general about these things is just as bad as calling a move "cowardly" because you can't refute it, I will take a look when I arrive home from work. I personally play the BDG from time to time, so I have no reason to "bash" the gambit, I just want to ascertain the truth, which I personally feel to be =/+ or -/+; practical chances aside (I personally enjoyed the earlier reference to this being similar to going all in with a 2-7 in poker), I don't believe white has enough for a pawn against precise play. No doubt, if black is imprecise, then white's play can be deadly - the same can be said about openings like the Danish, Morra, to which I would compare this gambit; no better, no worse. All are probably not 100% sound against correct play.

Gambit wrote on 09/10/07 at 23:14:12:

I did and as always I did not find Black's defense convincing. Not that I know a good one. But I do not play hope chess, so I do not assume that my opponent will castle kingside and allow me to finish him off with a well known sacrifice. You see, my opponents very seldom fall for tricks like that.
I have also looked at

Bocanegro Moreno-Hofstetter, EM/CL/Q18-1 2002
and especially Baptista-Lima, Lisbon 2002.
This is an interesting one, as Black may castle kingside anyway: 8.a3 h6 9.Bf4 0-0 10.Qd2 Ne8!! 11.0-0-0 (as 11.Bxh6 does not work) a6 12.d5 exd5 13.Nxd5 and Black went on to win, though White may have enough compensation here. Black can try 11...Bd6 instead.

Bibs, Khalifman's remark on players harming themselves is only true for titled players, which is about 1% of the chesspopulation.  Your remark on BDG-players not becoming good is essentially a chicken/egg question.
I have paid attention to the Ruy Lopez the last 25 years and I am not a BDG-player, but still will not become good. Neither will you, depending on the standards you set (GM?). So could you next time provide something constructive like a convincing refutation of 8.a3 ? Gambit, Arkhein and I are old enough to decide for ourselves how to waste our chesslives. Thank you.

MNb wrote on 09/10/07 at 22:44:06:


Ideally, yes, that should be the case. However, this is no utopia, and to err is human. Plenty of games available in which Black castled kingside.

Leisebein - Schulz, correspondence, Germany 2004, 1-0/13
Lutz Faber - Peter Gross, corr., Germany 2004, 1-0/23 
Lank - Bilsel, correspondence, BDG thematic, 1998, 1-0/16
Sawyer - Voelker, corr., email, BDG thematic, 1998, 1-0/34
Antonio Costa - Gian De Lorenzo, ICCF corr., 1999, 1-0/37

There are more games, but you get the idea.

There are also games where Black Castles Queenside or keeps the king in the center.

Leisebein - Huber, corr. 2001,    1-0/26
Bosman - Hordjik, Utrecht 2001, 1-0/50

Go ahead and look at these games.

Wrong. The move 8 a3  prevents 8...Nb4, and keeps the Bd3 in place. It is a prophylactical move, which does contribute to the attack. Now, after 8...h6 White has three options: 9 Bf4, 9 Be3, 9 Bd2. The h6-pawn is a juicy target for a Bishop sacrifice on he should Black Castle there.

I disagree.  If you look at the databases, the move 9...c6 is not all that common. In my experience, the most common line is 9...Nxf3 10 Qxf3, the Exchange Sub-Variation. This line is known to be good for White due to strong pressure on the f-file and rapid development.

I am in the process of putting together a series of articles on the Zilbermints Gambit. In it I deal with the cowardly move  9...c6,  as well as other responses.

Keep in touch.

Two points to consider.

First, I'm not aware -- to paraphrase you -- of players who are going to be able to find this over-the-board, with a clock ticking away. In correspondence play, perhaps, but that is because there is more time allowed, as well as books, etc.

Second, I'm pretty sure improvements exist for White.

Last, shall I get a new horse, resuscitate the old one, or clone a new one?

Well, 7 Bd3 in the Euwe hardly merits a "?!" as you think, Craig.

You are right, I did not see 15...Nh5!! That said, White already has equality or better even without this speculative two-piece-sacrifice combination.  I was just looking for ways to give White the edge here. Apparently this combination is not the correct way to play.

So, any ideas? Material is even here after 13...Qd4! (iso 13...gxh6??) 14.Qg5 Qg4 15.Qxe5 Bd6  = 
 

A spectacular way of forcing the draw might  be 14 Rf4! ef4 15 Bxg7! Kxg7 16 Qg5+ Kh8 17 Qh6+ Kg8 18 Qg5+ with a draw by perpetual check.

Check out this BDG:ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN THE EUWE DEFENSE game!

1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3
Nc6
8. O-O Nxd4 9. Kh1 Nxf3 10. Qxf3 O-O 11. Qh3 e5 12. Qh4 h6 13. Bxh6
gxh6 14.
Qxh6 Re8 15. Rxf6 Bxf6 16. Bh7+ Kh8 17. Bg6+ Kg8 18. Qh7+ Kf8 19. Qxf7#
{Black checkmated}
1-0


Zilbermints - firehog, G/15 Internet 2007.

Dear Lev,

Before this goes any further please take note that I don't intend on entering a lengthy discussing based on futile bickering and name calling. I know you have been involved in many such feuds in the past and I want no part of it! 
 
As regards 1. ...h5?, here is what you had to say about it :

[quote author=Lev D. Zilbermints link=1119806620/30#44 date=1121582603][quote author=ArKheiN  link=1119806620/40#42 date=1121531660]

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.

  LDZ
[/quote]


In my opinion you were closer to the truth when you posted this.
An early ...h5 makes no sense combined with a kingside fianchetto, unless it's in response to an h4 flank attack.

As for the pawn blunder I was referring to, it occurs after a sequence of moves with which you may be familiar : 1. d4 Ktf6 ; 2. Ktc3 d5 ; 3. e4

                                                             Regards, 
                                                                 Hubert

[quote author=Bonsai link=1119806620/30#43 date=1121564957][quote author=ArKheiN  link=1119806620/40#42 date=1121531660].

And look at this great opening:
1.e4 h5 2.d4 c5 3.c3 [/quote]

After 3. d5, 3. dc or other moves, Black has a senseless version of the Benoni or Sicilian (what is the -h pawn doing on the 5th rank?).
I must agree with LDZ on this issue (!!). Black should play by analogy with the Caro-Kann.
2. ...c6 is the best move to keep the Black disadvantage within reasonable limits.
But of course the only consistant move is 2. ...h4 when 3. Ktf3 (3. Ktc3/3. Bc4/3. c4 are better, preventing ...d5, but I suppose Black could also reach this position through 1. Ktf3 h5 ; 2. e4 ; ok then 2. g3 is stronger) h3 ; 4. g3 (4. gh is also met by 4. ...d5 but ignoring Black's last move is probably best)
d5 ; 5. ed (after 5. e5 Black is just fine) Qxd5 ; 6. Ktc3 Qh5 ; 7. Be2 Bg4 leads to a position where Black might just be holding.
If you answer that the whole line is crap and not worth discussing, then of course you are right, but the point is that it is less crappy than White blundering a pawn on move 3!!

                                                                        Regards,
                                                                                UD

Quote:


I have not gone away. It is just that first, I have a lot of responsibilities as Executive Editor of the Rutgers-Newark Observer, my school's newspaper. Secondly, I was wondering myself about  why this forum was so quiet?

I am still playing the Zilbermints Gambit on the Internet Chess Club, with decent results. Recently won an easy game in the 9...Nxf3 10 Qxf3, the Exchange Sub-Variation.
There Black got mated on f7 before Castling!

These days I am also experimenting with unorthodox replies to the Sicilian Defense, 1 e4 c5. Had some good results with the Brick, 1 e4 c5 2 Nh3!? . Of course 1 e4 e5
2 f4 brings about the King's Gambit...

To respond, Leisebein plays the best moves in the Zilbermints Gambit. That is why he wins. So stop complaining  and start playing the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG!

I have yet to hear of an opening that is 100% correct.  If you find one, do let me know.  I'd rather like to have this chess game solved and be on with my life.

NeX iRae

Quote:

Have you not noticed that he has gone away?  Are you trying to prod him with a stick to see if he is alive?

- Lost Highway

this is a useless discussion, there are almost no gambits that are completly correct or sound. Zilberments only tries to prove his gambit with 5 min blitz games, whahahahaha, he should starting analysing in a way like Troksky figured out his famous 2 night vs pawn endgame and then come up with a conclusion. It just looks silly that he tries to prove that the gambit is correct. You can play it if you have like attacking positions, and ofcourse black has to play the correct move for a long time and mistakes are easyly made (explaning the good results from Leisebeim)
But still it is not correct. And up to 2400 you do not have to play correct openings, because nobody till that level plays without mistakes.
I play the Latvian gambit for myself with good results, But i am not gonna claim that the gambit is correct, I just like the positions and know how to play them.

so zilberments, GET A LIFE, and stop discussing this stupid gambit of yours

Quote:


Thank you for the nomination, but as Russian-born, I must decline. U.S. Senator would be better.  Senators are there far longer than presidents, you know? Just look at Democrat Robert Byrd. Eighty-seven years old, in his ninth term, has not lost an election since 1946! How does he do that?

Not losing a single election in almost 60 years! Jesus Christ... that's one for the Guinness Book of Records.

Gambit, et al:

First of all, I'd like to point out that I have been one of many who have been ganging up on you lately, and your responses have definitely improved!  If only our American president could admit to making mistakes and trying to correct them, the world would be a better place!    

It's very easy to read things in the worst possible light on the internet where we can't read body language, so "typos" become that much more critical.  It's good to see that you're working on that aspect of your messages and articles.

Lev, this was a part of your article : 

Quote:


But like in usual, you put illegal moves in your analysis : after 6..c5 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Bb5+ c6 is impossible, and cxb5 also  But because I have a good knowledge of the BDG theory, I know that the variation you gave works against 6..h6? 7.Bxf6! Qxf6 8.Bb5+ c6 9.0-0 cxb5 10.Ne5 and White get a winning attack.

The same idea against 6..c5 can be played, but that far from convincing. For example 6..c5 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.0-0 cxd4 10.Ne4 Qg6!? (there is a game from 1990, Leisebein-Papenbrock, 0-1 in 43 moves) and 10.Nxd4 Qe5!? are not that convincing for White. So, I don't think that 6..c5 is refuted.

It's not the first time you do that type of error Lev (impossible moves or wrong variation), and it was in a published article, you should reread what you write, it's a subject that you should know too good to make mistakes likes this and like in the other thread about BDG move order!

Your mistake is very understandable, as the Losbladige (a predecessor of ECO btw) was translated in German somewhere in the 50-ies. Alas I do not own a scanner, but I can assure you, that your source was pretty accurate. I just wanted to let you know, as you made quite an effort on the history of the BDG.
You could ask the help of Willempie though. There might be a chance, that his father can help you.
What's worse, I cannot find the original article of Euwe at the moment. But I clearly remember that Diemer-Locher game and Bogoljubov sim game. It was because of this defeat, that Bogo recommended 5...g6.
Keyword: Losbladige. Heck, maybe some searching on internet brings you further.

LDZ, in your article on the Zilbermints Double Gambit you have made a mistake. Euwe did not recommend 5...e6 in the German chess press, but in the Dutch publication Losbladige Schaakberichten. I own the original.

ATTENTION! ACHTUNG! 

This is the response to ArKheiN's post , #209 :

Do the following operation:

1.  Go to "Groups" on Yahoo search engine.

2. Click  on Unorthodox Chess Openings

3.  Go to "Files"

4. Download Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #10

5.  Do the same operation for UON #12

These contain the first two articles on the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG.

  

Quote:


A lot of theory has been posted here, Patrik. Plus, you can e-mail me directly to give you theoretical advice.
Then, read BDG World #69 and #70. Study Leisebein's games with the Zilbermints Gambit. Then, having had a feel for the ZG, you can play it.

Quote:


Thanks, friends! I´m very happy but still I have a space to improve because I have played every day till 3 or 4 in the morning on ICC, today I will go sleep earlier to be more fresh tommorow.

http://www.tenzor.cz/SKLokoBrno/ ; and click on Trade Chess Festival. Every day, there is a pairings for next round and table of result.
In the 4th round I have also a player over 2200. I´m a bit afraid but I will to play my best.

That's great news, Patrik! Congratulations on beating the Euwe Defense!
Could you tell us the name of the tournament,  your opponent's name, and where it was played?

Quote:


Very funny!  8)

Ha-ha-ha!  You got a sense of humor!!

Actually, my  material on the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG is so vast as to be enough for a book by itself.    I am also working on the 8 h3 line in the Bogoljubow Defense. 

   Here is a sample game as to how cowards who chicken out of accepting the BDG get punished:

   LANGEHEINECKE DEFENSE

Zilbermints - Ari Minkov (1943)
G/40 Quad
  Westfield, New Jersey
   28 August 2005

   1 d4 d5  2 e4 de4  3 Nc3 Nf6  4 f3 e3?!  The chicken line.
   5  Bxe3  Bf5  6 g4 Bg6  7 Nge2  h6  8 Nf4  Bh7  9 h4 e6
   10 g5 Nd7  11 g6 Bxg6  12 Nxg6  fg6  13 Qd3  Qf6  14 000 c6  15 Rg1  Qf5  16 Qd2 Qf3  17 Rxg6  Nf6  18 Be2  Qf5  19 Bd3  Qh5  20 Rfg1  Qxh4  21 Bg6+  Kd8  22 Rh1  Qg3  23 Rdg1  Qd6  24 Bf4  Qd7  25 Re1  Bb4  26 Bg5!  Kc8  27 Bf6  gf6  28 Rxh6  Rxh6  29 Qxh6  Kc7  30 Qf4+  Qd6  31 Qf6  Bxc3+ ?  32 bxc3  Qa3+  33 Kd2  Qxa2  34 Rxe6  Qd5  35 Be4  Qb5  36 Re7+  Kb6  37 Qf7+  Ka5  38 Re5, 1 - 0