Teyko wrote on 02/11/06 at 15:26:18:
Hey guys,
I know that I have been missing for a while, but I have always kept up with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. I would just like to say something for a moment if you would let me. First off, there are some lines in which white is struggling. But this is few and far between. In most cases white is fine, if and only if you are comfortable playing a pawn down in the fight for initiative.
With that said, I think it is ridiculous "Lev" for you to constantly comment on the BDG as if every move you make is an exclaim.
Secondly, I am delighted that the Blackmar Diemer threads have come so far. I was ridiculed by both GM Prie in correspondence, and other I.M's that I have played with in Chicago when I argued that this opening could be played in high level chess. When I first proposed this thread here, back in 2003 I had the same experiences. No one wanted to converse on the opening critically so I am happy to see it in common conversation, but I believe, at least for me, that this comes with a responsiblity ladies and gentlemen. I did not endure the ridicule of the BDG just to have the others that now see it as interesting forget the long held idea that this opening is garbage.
As BDG players, we know that gambitbooks and everyman chess will never put out an opening book for us on this gambit, so that means that both our dedication to the opening and the analysis of the lines must be critical and responsible.
Lev, this means you. If you can't check your analysis against an Fritz, or Junior Engine as these are the analysis engines that are checking traditional openings--YOU CAN'T SAY THE LINE IS SOUND!!! I am tired of hearing you argue that you can win it over the board, when you "winning" is contingent on the failure of your opponent to know the line and/or understand the position. In other words, don't base your winning with the BDG on your opponents mistakes.
What then do we do if we are commited to the BDG? I would like to see 5 threads. 1) The Euwe 2) The Bogo 3)The Zielgler 4)The Tiechmann 5) The Hubsch
Now what we can do is start these threads simultaneously and come to solid conclusions on each of the defenses and their status. If we work together in a very structured and patterned way on this we can create streams of analysis that can be placed in an ebook for Eric and include all of our contributions, so that we can have "at least on chesspublishing" a "credible" source of BDG theory and practice.
Tommy J. Curry A.K.A Teyko
"Don't base your winning with the BDG on your opponent's mistakes"
Ooh, that's rich, Teyko! Really funny! Last I looked, a lot of chess games were won because either Black or White made a mistake... and not just in the BDG!
Jesus Christ, to err is human goes the old adage! You teyko, would have both opponents play perfectly, with computers in a tournament? I don't think so.
This is my #1 beef with people like you over here: You claim to analyze ad infinitum with whatever chess engine comes out of the woodwork -- Fritz, Junior -- and say, oh, this is not good!
Such an approach may be good for correspondence chess -- but not for over-the-board chess!
Even with correspondence, Peter Leisebein has consistently shown that the Zilbermints Gambit is perfectly playable if you know the theory.
You, teyko, are tired of hearing me say I win with it over-the-board? Hah! Get used to hearing it! I do not play correspondence, so all my games with the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense are played over-the-board.
Computers are machines, they cannot be psyched, except in closed positions. But human beings can be outwitted in unfamiliar positions. Especially in gambits!
There are many double-gambits, such as the Evans, the Danish, the Ryder Gambit... All of these involve the sacrifice of two pawns. So, what matters is your skill and good memory, not a bunch of computer circuits. If you play in a 50 moves/2 hours, SD/60 tournament, will you be allowed to consult a computer? No, of course not! The point is, no matter what your precious computer may say, you have to memorize all that -- and then be prepared. You never know who the opponent might be, nor when he/she might pull the ZGED/BDG. All these are factors that must be considered.
I have the world's largest collection of Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense games. Right now, I am working on a series of articles to be published. I promise you, there will be a book or e-book published about this gambit... by me!
How many games? Oh, around 300 games, about the same number Diemer had in his 1957 book.
You can analyze ad infinitum, but when you and I sit down to play each other in a tournament, your computer will not help you.
It did not help Anand, who got crushed by Kasparov with the Evans Gambit in 1995.
Case in point.
Pages: 
BDG: Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense (Read 121250 times)
