ArKheiN wrote on 04/09/10 at 13:43:16:


4.c3 d5 5.e5 Nd7 6.Be3 looks a bit better for White since the d7-knight is misplaced, but 4...b6!? seems good enough for equality since 5.e5 Nd5 6.c4 Ne7 7.d5 Bb7 8.d6 Ng6 favours Black, and 5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Ne2 d6 7.0-0 Be7 is balanced. 

@Gambit

Humility is a virtue.

..Nd5 I think, and we have a form of Alekhine. ..Nh5 looks interesting, threatening Qh4+ to have the time to press the d4 pawn.

In fact avec 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 c5!? 3.d5 e6, 4.c4 may be better than 4.e4. This is soon a typical Benoni/King's Indian Saemisch hybrid with f3 which is about equal.

But 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 e6(!) with the same idea is clever because White has to commit himself with 3.e4 (3.c4 here would be a bad Nimzo for White) and now after 3.e4, 3..c5! (3..d5 is possible and often played but no, despite the apparence this is not an improved French, this is almost a normal one) 4.d5 and we see that White has been less flexible than against the immediate 2..c5. But ok White may play c4 on the next move and transposing unless Black play ..exd5 but if Black want to do that without allowing a white cxd5 but in exchange if he is ok to allow a white e4-e5 then 2..e6 is clearly the more accurate than 2..c5.

TonyRo wrote on 04/09/10 at 12:15:46:


No, it was obvious, but actually after thinking about it, I thought that 2...c5 probably isn't as good as 2...d5.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.

I hate this thread.  I just went back and deleted reams of off-topic and/or pointlessly argumentative posts, including some of my own.

Yeah I thought later about it, and I suppose 2...d5 is stronger than 2...c5.  But I'll stand by 3...c5 and 4...c5.

4...Be7, so passive.

I dunno how long this thread has been in this section, but I deleted the bit about "chickening out," both in the poll and the OP.  In future I will summarily delete anything that remotely touches upon cowardice in chess, and that includes "chickening out."  If anyone wants to talk about his allegedly excellent fighting qualities and the alleged lack thereof in his opponents, he should do it under General Chess.  Or best of all, not at all, since it's embarrassing to see anyone over the age of 14 puff his chest out over a chess move.

But Markovich! Then 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3! c5? 3. d5 e6 4. e4 exd5 5. e5! is a forced win for White! 

Yes, that is correct. In the March 28, 2010 Quad tournament in Westfield, New Jersey, just such a case occured. I was playing White against Joshua Colas, rated 2131. The game went as follows:

1 d4 Nf6 2 f3 d5 3 e4 e6 

Trying to avoid the BDG 

4 Be3 Be7

Avoiding the Rasa-Studier Gambit

5 e5! Nfd7 6 c3 c5 7 f4 f5 8 Nf3 Nc6 9 dc5 Nc5 10 Nd4 Nxd4 11 Bd4 Ne4 12 Bb5+ Be7 13 Bd7 Qd7 14 00 a6 15 Nd2 000 16 Bb6! Rde8 17 Ne4 fe 18 c4 Bd8
19 Be3 Kb8 20 Qd4 b6 21 Rad1 Bc7 22 cd5 ed5 23 Qd5 Qa4 24 Rd4 Qc2 25 Rc4 Qb2 26 Rfc1 Rc8 27 Qd7 Qe2 28 Qd2 Qd2 29 Bd2 Rhd8 30 Bb4 b5 31 Rc6 Rd7 32 e6! Rd4 33 e7 Rc4 34 R1c4 bc4 35 Bd6! c3 36 Rxc7, Black resigns

My favourite answer to the BDG is 1.d4 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Nc3, and just when the BDG player is happy to have sacrificed their pawn, I play 3...c6 or 3...e6. The look on the BDG player's face is priceless! 

The Fort Knox works well against BDG players, since often they get annoyed by Black's rock solid position and make errors in the strategic middlegame.

Okay, then type Unorthodox Openings Newsletter (UON) and search Internet. It worked for me. I can access it easily.

The link to the Unorthodox Chess Openings #25, which has my games and analyses on the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense, is as follows.

1) Go to http://games.groups.yahoo.com/Group/Chess-Unorthodox-UON/messages?o=1

2) Join the group.

3) Access the files section. It should be located UON 25

4) Print it out and read.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Well, school has ended and I am hard at work typing up articles on the Zilbermints Gambit. These will be published in a special edition of a chess newsletter. Once the newsletter, which I think will be 100 pages, comes out, you will hear about it.

Rest assured that I make my opinion on chess engine-assisted analyses quite plain. The posts that were posted here much earlier about my Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense have also been taken into account.

Also, I answer my critics in that newsletter, which you should pick up once it comes out.   

Keep in touch.

You send me your email address and I will send you a copy of the 1965 article that Stefan Buecker sent me in 1996. Better yet, why don't you ask Stefan here yourself if he actually sent it to me? That is first.

Second, a full two years before Stefan sent me the article (and I was ignorant of Stadelman at the time), I published my games and analyses in issues 61, 62, 63 of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World magazine. The editor-in-chief, Tom Purser, is still alive. He can confirm that I sent him the article for publication in late 1993 - early 1994.

NM Alan Watson of Illinois also published an analyses of the Zilbermints Gambit, 3...Nge7, in the November-December issue of Illinois Chess Bulletin. He was the editor-in-chief at the time.

All these publications predate the article that Stefan Buecker sent me by 1-3 years. I had no idea who Samuel Leigh Stadelman was until 1996. By that time, the name "Zilbermints Gambit" was well-established.

The origin of the Zilbermints Gambit lay in the simple fact that I considered the early deployment of the Queen (3...Qe7) risky. I therefore started looking for alternatives to 1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7. Thus was born the 3...Nge7 variation, in March 1993.

The first variations I analyzed were 4 Bg5 and 4 b3. It was not until the following year, 1994, that 4 Bf4 was analyzed more in-depth with Edward "Eddie" Kopiecki of New York.

To be fair, I tried locating more details about Samuel Leigh Stadelman, but had little success so far. I know where he lived, where he is buried (Ardmore, PA), but not his death date. Franklin Chess Club merged with Mercantile Chess Club in 1955 to form the present Franklin-Mercantile Chess Club. No one ever heard of Stadelman there, a sad indication that current members do not know the club's history.

More to the point, I cannot locate any games where Stadelman played 3...Nge7. The games that I can locate date to early 1900s, before World War One. In all these games, Stadelman does not play 1 d4 e5.
Thus, I can only surmise that  what Stadelman sent to the Philadelphia Chess Inquirer (where fellow club member Walter Penn Shipley was chess editor) was analyses.  

I hope this answers your questions as to the origin of the Zilbermints Gambit?

In honor of Stadelman, I named the following attack:

1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bg5 h6 5 Bh4 g5 6 Bg3 Nf5

The line 4 Bg5 is known as the Wigglesworth Defense, after the first player to play it. White tries to pin the Ne7, by which he hopes to hold the gambit pawn. Now, the move 6...Nf5 attacks the Bishop and removes one defender. White will get the Bishop pair and get the pawn back.

That said, let me point something out, HTH. I do not agree with Markovich on everything, okay? But this here is a democratic forum, and he is the moderator. As we say in USA, I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it. Freedom of speech!

You want to have everything your way, HTH? Fine. Then create your own blog, where you can make all the rules. But don't tell me I plagiarized something when I did not. For example, the Rasa-Studier Gambit was independently invented by two players, Rasa and Studier.

Also, show some respect to Markovich. He has a right to express his opinion, the same way as you do.

One more thing: I am quite sane.

Sincerely yours,

Gambit

I found a very important game, where both players are Correspondence Chess Senior Masters:

[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_SM__000002"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2006.09.01"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Schuster,Peter"]
[Black "de Vassal,Thibault"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "2488"]
[BlackElo "2425"]

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.Bf4 O-O 13.a3 Nd5 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.b4 Qc6 16.c4 dxc4 17.Rc1 e5 18.Bxc4 Be6 19.Bxe6 Qxe6 20.Bxe5 f6 21.Bf4 Qxe1 22.Rfxe1 Rf7 23.Rcd1 a5 24.Bd6 Bxd6 25.Rxd6 axb4 26.axb4 Re7 27.Red1 b5 28.h4 Re4 29.R1d4 Rxd4 30.Rxd4 Ra4 31.h5 Kf7 32.Kg1 g6 33.Rd7+ Ke6 34.Rxh7 gxh5 35.Rxh5 Rxb4 36.Kf2 f5 37.Rh8 Rb2+ 38.Kf3 b4 39.Rb8 Kd5 40.Rb5+ Kc4 41.Rxf5 1/2-1/2 

CraigEvans wrote on 04/30/09 at 10:30:02:


Yes, and by opening all these files he is wheting his knives. The key question is: where will Black's king be safe?

12.Bh4 Qh5

Black intends to castle short, when the queen on h5 is useful, because she protects a few squares. Craig's ideas to castle long seem riskier:

(a) 12...e5 13.Qg3 Be6 14.Bf5! Rd8 (14...0-0-0? 15.Qxg7 attacks f7) 15.Rae1 Rf8 16.Bxe6 fxe6 17.Qxg7 Rg8 18.Ne4, unclear. 

(b) 12...Bd7 13.a3 Qa5 14.Rd1 (14.Qg3 g5!) 14...h6 15.b4 Qxa3 16.Ne4 Qxb4 (16...Qb2 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.c3 f5 19.Rxf5) 17.Qxb4 Bxb4 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.Nxf6+ Ke7 20.Nxd7 Kxd7 21.Rxf7+ Kd6 22.Ba6+ Kc5 23.Rxb7 =+. 

13.Qg3 Qg4 14.Qe1 0-0

14...h6 (CraigEvans) 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Bxe7 f5 (another nice line is 16...Kxe7 17.Bxe4 threatening Qb4+, Bxc6+) 17.Bxe4 Qxe4 18.Qc3 Kf7 19.Rae1 Qd5 and now 20.b3! has a bit of Sam Lloyd: 20...Qd7 21.Ba3 followed by Bb2. 

15.h3 Qh5 16.Ne4 Nd5 17.Bxe7 Nxe7 18.Nd6

-/+ (SWJediknight) seems fair. However, because of White's activity in practical play Black's task isn't easy: 

(a) 18...Nf5 (CraigEvans) 19.Qe5 Qg5 20.Bxf5 (20.Nxf5 exf5 21.Bc4; 20.Ne4 Qd8 21.Bc4) 20...exf5 21.Rad1 Be6 22.Rd3 or 22.c4, White may survive.

(b) 18...e5 (CraigEvans) 19.Qg3 b6 20.Rae1 f6 21.Be2 Qg6 22.Qb3+ Nd5 23.Bd3 Qh5 24.c4 Ne7 25.c5+ Nd5 26.Bb5 Bd7 27.cxb6 axb6 28.Rc1 cxb5 29.Qxd5+ Kh8 30.Rc7 Rad8 31.Tfc1 =+.

SWJediknight wrote on 04/29/09 at 19:28:23:


My response is as follows.

A) 18 Nd6 Qd5! =+

B) 12 Qh4 h6 13 Bf6 Bf6 14 Ne4! f5! 15 Nf6+ 

                                   14 Rxf6! Bxf6 15 Qxf6 with White counterplay.
                                   14...Qe5  15 Raf1 Bd7 16 Ne4 000 17 Qf2 Bf6 18 Nxf6 Kb8 19 Re1 Qd6  =+

C) 10 Qe1 is indeed good, and apparently Peter Leisebein has played it with success. However, I will have to look into my collection of ZG games to locate these. In the line you give, I think that 10 Qe1 Nxf3 11 Rxf3 Nd5 12 Bd3 could be tried, but 12...Nb4! looks strong for Black. Therefore, after 12 Bxe7 Qxe7 13 Qg3 is an alternative. 

I think that 10 Qe1? allows too many pieces to be traded, and this must be avoided.  Therefore, I would stick with line B) as outlined above.

Gambit wrote on 04/29/09 at 16:36:47:


Your are entirely right, and it has been done.  I also deleted a post of mine on the same page, which expressed my exasperation too forcefully and could well have been seen in the same light.

Now let's get back to chess.

Then you should also delete Hand's post of today on page 5.

Hadron wrote on 04/29/09 at 04:46:36:


That's the first game ever played with 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1. However, for 25 years, no one really bothered analyzing the line in-depth. Thus, my analyses and constant playing of the line have earned, in Eric Schiller's words, the right to have it named after me.

I'm not sure that there's anything better than 9.Kh1 in that position- I think the whole 8.0-0 gambit is dubious- though I acknowledge that it can be a good weapon for blitz.

Gambit wrote on 04/28/09 at 07:05:28:


4...d6 is a good move, but I have analysed this line and believe that White emerges with at least a slight advantage, probably a clear advantage if he is prepared. It doesn't mean that it won't work in blitz, though. I recall a game with GM Levin as White where Black drew rather comfortably, but White had some major improvements over this game that calls the Fajarowicz into question.

NM James West suggests 4...d6 as a good move. What say you?

At last some lines, although the layout makes this a little confusing.

If I'm following your variation after 14.Rxf6!? gxf6 15.Qxf8 Rf8 16.Ne4 Qe7 17.Qe5 f6, 18.Nd6+ just loses since 18...Kd7 19.Rd1?? fxe5 is a slight blow for white - no computer needed for the assessment there. Therefore 18.Qh5+ instead, but simply 18...Kd8 19.Qxh6 (what else) Kc7 and white's attack is clearly insufficient with the reduced material. Therefore white cannot find any solace in this line.

Let's go back to variation a) then, 17.Qxh6. Then black can play the typical Euwe themed move, 17...f5! 18.Ng5 Bd7, preparing O-O-O. The only move which cuts across this plan is 19.Qg6+, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that after 19...Kd8 20.Re1! e5! 21.Bc4 Kc7, white again has insufficient material to really trouble black and again black should win. 

So these lines are all junk sadly. White, however, DOES have another move after 14.Rxf6!? gxf6, which is the immediate 15.Ne4, which poses some awkward problems. 

15...Qe7 appears to be forced for black, after white there is a parting of the ways: A) 16.Re1 and B) 16.Nxf6+

A) 16.Re1 looks very awkward after the forced 16...Ke7 17.Rf1, but after the black king bolts it with 17...Kd7 and A1) 18.Rxf6 Kc7 19.Rxf7+ Bd7, again I believe white can untangle. Instead, perhaps white can try A2) 18.Nxf6+ Kc7 19.Qg4 Rd8 20.Qg7 Qd4 21.Qxf7+ Kb8, when I will accept that white has compensation, but black still has an extra exchange and, after ...a6 and ...Ka7, will likely be able to untangle himself again. Black is definitely =/+ to -/+ here, but I accept white has drawing chances.

B) 16.Nxf6+ amounts to a transpositional move, since after 16...Kd8 black gains nothing from the variuos discovered checks, and therefore his best is to go for 17.Rf1 Kc7 18.Qg4 transposing to line A above.

However, it is not only white who is allowed to improve on his play here. If it turns out that white does have some chances after the exchange sac on f6, black can always investigate 11.Qe1 h6!, keeping the queen on d4 to prevent Qh4 and exchange sac ideas. It is not clear to me where white's best retreat square is - 12.Be3 blocks the e-file and further retreats seem illogical, so there look to be three options:

A) 12.Bxf6?! Bxf6 13.Rd1 Qe5 looks fine for black.

B) 12.Bh4 looks awkward to me, blocking h4 from the queen and removing Bxh6 ideas. However black has to take care of f6 sacs. Black might, however, be able to play the immediate 12...Qc5 and now all of white's ideas are thwarted - 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe4 f6! leads us via a transposition back into the original line white was trying to avoid! So, after 12...Qc5, white needs to find an improvement desperately on this - there doesn't appear to be an obvious one, though 13.Rb1!? is interesting with the idea of storming on the q-side

C) It might be that 12.Bf4 is the most sensible, keeping one eye on h6 and also intending Be5. 12...Bd6!? was my first idea, but it might be that 13.Nb5!? is worth a punt - 13...cxb5 14.Bxb5+ Bd7 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Rd1 Qxf4!? 17.Rxf4 Bxf4 18.Qe4! gives white dangerous chances, and 16...Bb4 17.c3 Bxc3 18.bc Qa4 19.Bd6 also provides sufficient compensation. Therefore the thematic 12...Qc5 again seems best, keeping one eye on b5 as well as on e7. Again white would like to play 13.Ne4 but again after Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Bf6 it's far from clear that white has enough for his material.

The main point though, ignoring all the analysis above but definitely worth mentioning, is that even in your "refutation" with 11.Qe1 Qc5 12.Qh4 h6 13.Bxf6, 13...gxf6! looks a clearly superior capture, where black has the two bishops as well as two pawns, and all white has to go at is a slightly weak f6 pawn. Black even has attacking chances of his own down the g-file. So, having humored your lines and agreed that one of them might give some hope of compensation, I have first of all removed that possibility by insterting 11...h6, and then blown it out of the water by suggesting black just recaptures with the g-pawn instead of the bishop. White has nothing, since the obvious looking 14.Ne4 fails miserably to 14...f5! and black is winning.

So nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid. The Zilbermints Variation in the Euwe Defence of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit is, not to put too fine a point on it, crocked.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 de 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 ef 5.Nxf3 e6!? 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.O-O Nxd4! 9.Kh1? c6! 10.Nxd4 Qxd4 11.Qe1 Qc5! (11...h6 -/+) 12.Qh4 h6 13.Bxf6 gxf6 -+ 

Man, I love this game.  

OT: I'm not particularly interested whether NM Jim West wins with "The Milky Way" as Moskalenko dubs it. I don't care that I win with it. After 4...b6 5.Nf3 Bb7 6.Nbd2 Nc5 7.b4 Ne6 8.Bb2 d6 Moskalenko claims compensation for black, citing Hartmann - W.Stein 2003. I see no compensation, and without wishing to give all my analysis away, feel that Hartmann made some obvious errors to concede the draw there.

Lev, if you think your gambit is good, show us the analysis.

I'll be very surprised if I don't find a rebuttal that at least leads to a nice =+ for Black.

I've noticed that the tripe about 9...c6 is still going on. Here's my line again: 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.

This line was analysed at http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1119806620/225 over 18 months ago. I'm still not aware of the line being busted. Where is white's comp? Any future responses on your so-called self-named gambit (which I will, in future, refer to as the Tripe Gambit), unless you produce some improvement, will be met with reposting of the exact same refutation.

Aye, but if I'd played 5.exd5 instead, my opponent might well have planned a continuation like 5...Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4, in which case you'd no doubt have called the same opponent a coward!

I would avoid Zilbermints's line simply because I don't think the Euwe Defence is one of Black's best counters (after 7.Qd2 I would rather be White).  On the other hand if I could be sure White would continue 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.0-0, then perhaps...

As far as cowardice goes, what would Zilbermints think of this continuation: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.c3 d5 5.Bd3 dxc3 6.exd5 cxb2 7.Bxb2 Qxd5.  At move 4 Black states the intention to "safely" avoid the double-pawn sacrifice that arises after 4...dxc3 5.Bc4!?, but after the unusual 5.Bd3, accepts both pawns anyway...

I decided to respond with a separate post. 

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

Leisebein-Baer, correspondence, Germany 2000:

10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Qe1 Qb4 12 a3 Qg4 13 Bh4 Qh5 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 Bxf6 35 Qd3 Rxf1 36 Rxf1, 1-0.

Leisebein-Matse Rohde, correspondence, Germany 2000:

10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Qe1 Qc5 12 Qh4 Qb6?? 13 Rxf6!! gf6 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Qxf6 Rf8 16 Bxh7, 1-0.

I will post 9...c5 games later.

This is a poll designed to see what defense the public here wants to play in the starting position after 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