The gods did indeed make the middlegame before the endgame, but I'm fairly sure the gods would wet themselves over some of the ideas for "sacrifices" that you come up with.
As for a 5/10 minute game on ICC - grow up. No matter what the result was it would prove nothing - if I won you'd continue to tout the playability of this garbage, if you won I'm damn sure it would be down to the time control and the fact that you've doubtless played this sort of lost position countless times in blitz, and being able to find your way through a winning position in 5 minutes is vastly different to having an hour to do so.
That's another example of child-like behaviour, needing to challenge someone to games when you can't prove your point otherwise. I'll echo my comment - grow up. If you want some suggestions on your lines that's fine - I play some unsound stuff too and I'm always happy to discuss my ideas. But to feel the need to attack people who disagree with your ideas, who show up certain lines to be junk, and to feel the need to challenge them to games to prove your superiority - when I have kids I'd expect them to be more mature! You are possibly a stronger player (and you've no doubt been playing a lot longer), and in a blitz game you would have a very good chance of beating me no matter what - anyone can beat anyone in blitz. It doesn't detract from the fact that certain openings are junk and, in tournament play, you would get eaten alive by someone who's done their homework.
Just to help you out here, a few sample lines for you to get your teeth into - by no means do I claim they're best play, and to shut you up they're not computer-checked so they could be tactically flawed, but at least they might serve to get this thread back on topic and away from the time taken with petty arguing which, quite frankly, I don't consider you worth.
14.Ne4 looks illogical, and seems weak after 14...Nxe4 15.Qxe4 f5! 16.Qe1 Bxh4 17.Nxh4 (17.Qxh4 e5 looks pretty good to me) e5 and black seems to be two pawns up with a solid position - 18.Rd5 f4 19.Bd3 Rf6 20.Qe4 g6 and black should have no problem untangling (21.Nxg6 Bf5! 22.Qc4 Be6 looks good to me, and 21.c3 Be6 22.Rb5 Qf7! where black willingly gives a pawn back for taking over the advantage).
14.Bxf6 looks a better try for white, but giving up the two bishops and exchanging when two pawns worries me - black should be able to return one of the pawns and be comfortable. 14...Bxf6 15.Ne4 Be7 (15...Bxb2? looks too greedy, and white has good play after 16.Nc5) and black again looks solid, ready to uncoil with ...f5
14.Bd3 is an admission that 13.Bb5 was a mistake, so I won't bother looking at this other than to say that ...Nb4 looks like the right move.
14.Qg3 may well be best, at least trying to go after the c7 pawn, but 14...Rc8 is probably the move. 14...Bd6 15.Rxd6!? Nh5 16.Qg4 f5 17.Qxh5! Qxh5 18.Rxd7 looks like white has enough for the queen, since black's queenside will fall apart in most lines. After 14.Qg3 Rc8, 15.Ng1 Nh5 seems insufficient for white, and I see no other continuation to cause black due concern.
So, enough of the name-calling (incidentally I'm amused by being called arrogant, I'm not the person who needs to say "I will beat you..." on every thread, and you shouldn't be so cocky about your abilities, after all you're not exactly a strong player) and the challenges - I'm sure in practical play the "Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defence" scores well for you, but in reality the position is just better for black. Way better for black. And until I see analysis to the contrary which I'm unable to disprove, I will continue to comment that this, I'm afraid Lev, is junk.
Regards, Craig
|