Lev, be honest - would you publish a game showing your line if it was a crushing 30 move win for black? Or do you edit and censor the games shown, in order to make it seem more palatable?

I've never read a book which had as it's rear-cover review "Y'know, this is actually terrible. Factually incorrect and a bit dull..." All authors spruce their work up a little, make things sound better than they are. People would not disrespect you for that.

What people disrespect you for is that, given a refutation five years ago, you still plead ignorance/stupidity/sheer-dumbfoundedness and refuse to acknowledge it. 9...Nc6 was not found using a computer. It was found using common sense and a joining-together of people who sought the truth. The truth, Lev, is that this opening is complete pigswill. You've even given up the immature challenging of others because you know this to be true. Playing this particular line against a prepared opponent is the equivalent of gambiting 200 Elo points. 9...Nc6 shows the gambit to be crocked, though the irony of this entire thread is that almost every schoolchild these days knows 5...e6 to be an inferior defence.  So far, your best line with 12.Bf4 transposes to a line refuted several years ago with 12.Bh4. If this is an improvement (or favorable, as you call it), then I am truly worried for your line and your personal sanity! I am glad that someone of Scheerer's quality and honesty has written on the BDG so we get an objective view of a line, instead of biased nonsense espousing the virtues of a line which was refuted by duffers and part-timers.

People still win with 2...f6 in the open games. It means their opponents know less, or make mistakes; not that the opening is good. For complete irrelevance's sake (and because you asked many years back), some wins I've scored in the highly-rated ICC T4545 league include:

http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=14726

http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=16338

http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=13190

http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=16114

http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=16355

http://team4545league.org/pgnplayer/pgnplayer.php?ID=20093

All of those games contain mistakes, counter-mistakes, and openings which are not fully creditable. I hold no real pride in any of them (other than the game in the Belgrade Gambit, which I am proud of). You might also want to check out the game Campbell - Evans, 4NCL 2009 where I won a beautiful game, even by my standards, with a dodgy transposition to the Fajarowicz Budapest after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.c4 e5 4.de Ne4?!

Just because someone does not play something, it does not remove from the world the truth of objectivity. That is a fool's argument. If you argue your opening is good because people do not play the refutation, you become a fool. For sure, if I ever had the good fortune to play you in a tournament, I would play right into this line with 9...Nc6. And for sure, to use one of your quotes from yesteryear, Lev, I would beat you. As inactive and incompetent as I am, if you give me two pawns in the opening for hopes and dreams, I will beat you. You attack me for picking holes in your line. You attack MNb for picking holes in your logic. If only you spent some time attacking yourself for shabby analysis and clinging onto desperate lines, you might actually be "master strength".

Perhaps you should play a series of correspondence games in your line after 9...Nc6, and see whether theory and praxis tallies. I assure you, if you played anyone of merit, it would.

Gambit wrote on 03/12/11 at 18:55:45:

As far as I know nobody has played the lines suggested for Black in this thread. You should ask the players who lost those games why they did not try them. Am I supposed to read their minds?
Just like it has been known since long that the Earth is round you have known the lines referred to by Craig Evans since long. Show up with something substantial against them or you are like a Flat Earther, as you refuse to admit that your gambit is bad.
If you happen to neglect these lines in your articles, like you usually do, I will call you a lousy chess author again, in this particular case on the verge of deceiving your readers.
What's really ironical is that you are solving a non-existing problem. Against the Euwe Defence 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Qd2 is fully adequate, as David Flude has shown us.

MNb wrote on 03/12/11 at 16:01:07:


I never heard of these three guys. And the world has been known to be round since the days of Atlantis.
As far as analytical evidence is concerned, whatever happened to practice in tournaments? I can sit here and analyze ad infinitum with a computer, saying the Sicilian Defense is refuted or what have you. However, in practice, the results often defy the analysis.

How you explain that ZGED wins games in correspondence and OTB tournament play?
Ah, I thought so! You can't admit that it works, that few people play the line you suggest. And even against 9...Nc6, White manages to win! I posted some games here and in Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #25. The second part, issue #27, is coming out soon.

Just like Samuel Rowbotham, Samuel Shenton and Charles K Johnson never admitted that the Earth is round. These three shared your attitude towards analytical evidence.

Gambit wrote on 03/11/11 at 14:10:19:


Yes, you could.. or you could recognise 13...Bd7 as a substandard move. 13...O-O and there is no threat of discovered attack. 14.Bb5 Qe8 merely transposes to the lines with 12.Bh4 and 14.Bxf6 which were completely unsatisfactory for white. I see no satisfactory move for white. He is two pawns down.

The ZGED is unsound. But a fantastic blitz punt or a very good try against people who dont prepare for their games.

Can we give up on this thread now? Your opening has been refuted for five years. After four years you finally admit that the original line you played was unplayable theoretically, and therefore adapt a new move order which leads to the same position... it's just getting embarrassing.

MNb wrote on 03/11/11 at 03:24:02:


Therein lies the problem with this argument.  Rybka, Fritz et al. cannot find a refutation to 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3, which is the soundest version of the Danish/Goring Gambit complex and probably leads to equality with best play.  In most positions the computers see sufficient compensatiion for the pawn (which illustrates the improvements that computers have made in handling positional and material imbalances, though of course they still have some way to go before their assessments can be fully trusted).   In the Queen's Gambit they assess the resulting positions as marginally better for White.  In contrast, they can find several routes to advantage for Black against the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defence.  White often ends up two pawns down for one pawn's worth of compensation.

Guess what, the litterbox is full of so-called refutations already. You need a new litterbox to put so-called refutations in. Maybe the behind of an stuffed elephant will make a good litter box?

Haven't you noticed how many games with the Zilbermints Gambit are played by correspondence? All these correspondence games are in my book. Moreover, I even posted some here, in case you failed to notice. You don't need binoculars to see what I posted, it's right here!

Next, 12 Bf4 is an improvement over the text move in Drueke-Sawyer, and Sawyer - Just, correspondence 1996. I have not heard anything from you on that.

So-called refutations belong in the elephant's dung-heap.

ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT DELAYED
Zilbermints - JasonMa (1809 ICC)
Internet Chess Club 3 0 r blitz
9 April 2010

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 a6 9 a3! Nxd4 10 Kh1 Nxf3 11 Qxf3 Qd6 12 Ne4 13 Qf7+ Kd8 14 Bxe4 Bxg5 15 Rad1 Bd7 16 Rxd6 cxd6 17 Qxg7 Re8 18 Qxg5+ Kc7 19 Bxh7 Rh8 20 Be4 Rag8 21 Qe3 d5 22 Bf3 Bb5 23 Re1 Bd7 24 h3 Rg3 25 Qf4+ Kc6 26 Qxg3 Be8 27 Rxe6+ Kb5 28 Bxd5 29 Bd7 29 Qb3+ Ka5 30 Qb4 mate.

S. Lange - U. Suemann, correspondence 2006:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 00 9 Qe1 Nxd4 10 Rad1!? New move! Previously, 10 Qh4 was always played here. 10...Nxf3+ 11 Rxf3 Qe8? 12 Bxf6 Bxf6 13 Rxf6! gf6 14 Bxh7+! Kh8 15 Qh4 Rg8 16 Rd8!! Rxg2+ 17 Kxg2 Qxd8 and Black resigned without waiting for 18 Bg6+ Kg8 19 Qh7+ Kf8 20 Qxf7 mate. A beautiful game, full of tactics!

T. Wurm - P. Hendershot, corr. 2005:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 00 9 Qe1 Nxd4 10 Rad1!? Nxf3 11 Rxf3 Qd4+!  The improvement! 12 Qe3?? The stupidest possible move. Why trade Queens when you are 2 pawns down? 12...Qxe3 13 Bxe3 e5 and 0-1/36 moves.

W. Parwicz - P. Hendershot, correspondence 2005:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 00 9 Qe1 Nxd4 10 Qh4 h6?? 11 Bxh6! Re8 12 Bg5 Nf5 13 Bxf5 exf5 14 Bxe7 Nf6 15 Bxd8 Rxd8,    1-0/30 moves.

C. Hunt - T. Johansen, corr. 2003

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 00 9 Qe1 Nxd4 10 Qh4 Nf5 11 Bxf5 exf5 12 Rad1 Qe8 13 Nd4? Here 13 Rfe1 is better. h6 14 Bxh6?? Ne4! 15 Qh5 gxh6 0-1.


ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT ACCEPTED

Blackeye - Zilbermints
ICC, 3 0 rated blitz
26 December 2009

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 c6 10 Ne5 h6 11 Be3 Bf5 12 Bf2 Qc7 13 Qe1 Bd6 14 Nc4 Bxh2 15 Bxf5 00 16 Bd3 b5 17 Nd2 Bd6 Position is equal here. Black has 3 pawns for the piece. 18 Nce4 Nxe4 19 Qxe4 f5 20 Qh4 Be7 21 Qh5 Bg5 22 Nf3 Bf6 23 Rae1 Bd7 24 Bh4?? This just loses a piece. Retreating the Queen was better. 24...Be8! 25 Bg3 Qxg3 26 Qh2 Qxh2 27 Kh2 Bf7  28 Ne5 Bxe5+ 29 Rxe5 Rae8 30 Rfe1 a6 0-1/53 moves

Peter Schuster (2488) -  Thibault de Vassal (2425)
FICGS Chess
Class Senior Master
9.01.2006

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 c6  10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Qe1 Qc5 12 Bf4 00 13 a3 Nd5 14 Nd5 cxd5 15 b4 Qc6 16 c4 dxc4 17 Rc1 e5 18 Bc4 Be6 19 Be6 Qxe6 20 Bxe5 f6 21 Bf4 Qe1 22 Rfe1 Rf7 23 Rcd1 a5 24 Bd6  25 Rd6 axb4 26 ab4 Re7 27 Red1 b5 28 h4 Re4 29 R1d4 Rd4 30 Rd4 Ra4 31 h5 Kf7
32 Kg1 Kf7 33 Rd7 e6 34 Rxh7 gxh5 35 Rxh5 Rxb4 36 Kf2 f5 37 Rh8 Rb2+ 38 Kf3 b4 39 Rb8 Kd5 40 Rb5+ Kc4 41 Rxf5, DRAWN.

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 c6  10 Nxd4 Qxd4 11 Qe1 h6 12 Bf4 Bd7 13 Be3 Qb4 14 Qg3 g6? 15 Bxg6?! Here 15 Qe5! wins. Rg8 16 Bxf7+ Kxf7 17 Qc7 Qd6?? 18 Rxf6!! Kxf6 19 Ne4+ 1-0, Zilbermints - chapablanca2000, 3 0 rated Internet Chess Club blitz, 12/15/2009.

Ronald Fischer - Gerhart Mertes, correspondence 2001:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 h6 10 Bf4 Nxf3 11 Qxf3 c6 12 Rad1 Qb6 13 Qg3 Nh5 14 Qg4 g6?? 15 Bxg6! Nf6 16 Bxf7+! Kxf7 17 Be5 Rg8 18 Qh5+ Rg6 19 Ne4 Kg7 20 Nf6 Bf6 21 Rf6 Rf6 22 Qh4, 1-0. A fine, brilliant combination!

Zilbermints - Thatman (2250 ICC)
Internet Chess Club rated 3 0 blitz
3/18/2009

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 h6 10 Bf4 h6  11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Ne4 Bd7 13 Rad1 Bc6 14 Bb5 Qxd1 15 Bxc6+ Qd7 16 Nxf6+ gxf6 17 Bxd7 Kxd7  18 Qxb7, 1-0.

Zilbermints - Thatman (2250 ICC)
Internet Chess Club rated 3 0 blitz
3/18/2009

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1
Nxf3 10 Qxf3 Bd7 11 Rad1 00 12 Qh3 g6 13 Qh4 Nd5 14 Bxe7 Qxe7 15 Qxe7 Nxe7 16 Be4 Bc6 17 Bxc6 Nxc6 18 Rd7 Rad8 19 Rxc7 Rd2 20 Rxb7 Rxc2 21 Ne4 Ne5 22 Ng5 a5 23 Rb5 Ng4 24 h3 Ne3 25 Rf3 Nxg2 26 Rb7 Nh4 27 Rfxf7 Rxf7 28 Nxf7 Nf3 29 Nh6+ Kh8 30 Rb8+ Kg7 31 Ng4 h5 32 Rb7+ Kf8 33 Rb8+ Kg7 34 Rb7+ Kd8 35 Rf7 hxg4, 0-1.

Zilbermints - MaryDawson
3 0 rated ICC blitz
Internet Chess Club
4/16/2010

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1  Nxf3 10 Qxf3 00 11 Qh3! e5!  12 Qh4 e4? 13 Nxe4 Nd5 14 Nf6+! Nxf6 15 Bxf6 g6 16 Bxe7, 1-0.

Wollfelschneider - Behrendorf
Correspondence, Germany, 2003

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 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 Be3 Bd6 12 Rd1 00 13 a3 Ng4 14 Bg1 a6 15 Ne4 f5 16 Nxd6 cxd6 17 Qg3 Qe7 18 c4 e5 19 Nd2 Be6 20 b3 Rad8  21 Bb6 f4  22 Qe1 Rd7  23 h3 Nf6  24 Bg6 d5 25 b4 dc4 26 Bc5, 1-0.