nexirae wrote on 02/02/06 at 20:30:44:



Really, Nex?  I have some improvements! This is preliminary analyses, as I am still looking at this line, but here goes.

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 Nc6 10 Qe1 Bd7 11 Rd1 h6 12 Bh4 (12 Bf4 will be analyzed another time) 00 13 Bb5 Qe8  and now:

14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Ne4 Qe7 16 Rxd7!! Qxd7 17 Nxf6+ gf6 18 Qg3+ Kg7  19 Qh4

Black's open Kingside gives White real chances for a win or a draw, as the following sample continuation shows:

19...Qe7  20 Bc6 bc6  21 Ne5!  Kg7  22 Qg4+  Kh8  23 Qh5  fe5  24 Qh6+  Kg8  25 Rf3  f6  26 Rg3+ Kf7 27 Qg6 mate.

I will post more detailed analyses later, but you get the idea.

I will say one thing for the BDG colony - their missing threads were the easiest to reclassify properly!

Playable is a munti-faceted word - I believe the latvian to be playable, whereas I'm happy to admit that it borders on refuted. In practical terms, against most opponents, I think most things are playable. This included.

I'm on about an analytical standpoint, however, and from this angle the ZGEBDG is refuted. In nearly a week you've been unable to give even one line which suggests otherwise.

Play it, by all means - I advocate playing unsound openings as much as anyone. But remember two things:

i) This opening, against correct play, is not sound.
ii) These forums aren't for childish challenges and claims of being better than one another. However - If you played this line up to 13...Qe8 against me, in tournament games, I would have a plus score against you, no matter what your strength is (or, you believe it to be). Simple.

I await any analysis with improvements for white with great interest, and I hope Tony Kosten is correct in thinking he'll be able to restore the past forum posts - in which case, I will look at the previous posts on this opening. However, if you believe that this line (up to 13...Qe8) is white's best, then the ZGEBDG is unsound.

Regards,
Craig

I am really mad about the forum's crash, we lost too many interesting post about the BDG, many analysis and my analysis which are lost forever. I have been able to prove that Zilbermint's analysis were not solid and my line for Black was not refuted.

In the old Zilbermints gambit in the Euwe defense thread, after somes serious works I said here that the Zilbermints gambit against the BEST play would probably give a -/+ and the BDG expert : Leisebein doesn't seem to disagree even if he still play it from times to times.

I am one of the few people who defend the BDG the best I can, I still play it but I would't recommand the Zilbermints gambit in a higher time control than a blitz. Like someone have said here, home preparation from Black against it and they will end up with an advantage.
So instead of 8.0-0 I still recommand 8.a3 which it's still not refuted.

I agree here with Lev when he say that the Euwe defense is clearly not the most played, and Nc6 is practically never seen, why, I don't know. When the BDG is accepted, the most famous defenses are the Teichmann and his little brother Gunderam defense, maybe because they don't like to block the bishop with e6 and prefer to play like a caro-kahn with a  pawn up, but whatever is the defense, I believe the game is about equal with the best play from both part.

all i have to say is: good luck getting a euwe defense.

Ha, LDZ is back again, entertaining as ever! Craig, I advise you to listen to Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov, especially the last act. I believe LDZ is the reincarnation of an important side character.  

Please note, that you are both right:
LDZ: the Zilbermints Gambit is good, because I win with it.
CE: the Zilbermints Gambit is bad, because it will not survive analytical scrutiny.
There is no real contradiction here.

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