Arkhein,

Any response to my  post on the Hubsch?  You stated you wanted some discussion on this but you have not discussed it after he posted his line (s).

BladezII

ArKheiN wrote on 02/26/06 at 04:16:53:


OK, here are my responses.

First, you have not shown Black's response that  after  17 c3! f5 18 Nc5! (in response to MnB's suggestions) where White is better.

Secondly, what ends in the toilet is your stupid ass and its s---! The computer too, since that's what you depend on to give you most, if not all, the answers. Thus, flush the computer down the toilet as well. Ha-ha-ha-ha....

Thirdly, as I stated repeatedly, Leisebein is a correspondence, not an OTB player. In correspondence chess you get more time to think and analyze than in OTB chess. Thus, you really cannot compare correspondence chess with OTB chess in terms of time limits.

Fourth, if Leisebein is so smart, he would find a counter to his own refutation... but for some reason he does not want to.    


Fifth, sure, the ZGED must be played perfectly, but so what?  Many other gambits require  that kind of play, like the Ryder Gambit, for example. So stop whining.

Sixth, the old Euwe thread seems to have been wiped out by the Great Crash of 11/22/2005, so it's no longer there.
Seventh, I would love getting an Elo rating, but not too many FIDE tournaments are played in New Jersey, where I live.  So, until then...

Eighth, yes, I do challenge people to play, to put their  money where their mouth is, so to speak.  If they decline, then I know they would rather talk than play.  Oh, it's so easy to cite analyses, without a clock ticking away at your side in a tournament game.  Is it any wonder that people don't want to accept a challenge?
Bottom line: The ZGED lives, the computer  is busy trying to get out of the toilet, and those who refuse to accept a challenge to play a tournament game  are cowards!

Were this the 1850s, a refusal would be met by a duel with pistols.

CraigEvans wrote on 02/22/06 at 10:07:07:


Regarding ratings, I was told a few years ago (by someone I know who was on the USCF ratings committee) that, of the people who had both a USCF and a FIDE rating:

(a)  the average difference was about 40 points (with the USCF rating being higher);
(b)  for 25% of those players, their FIDE rating was higher than their USCF rating.

ArKheiN wrote on 02/26/06 at 01:18:48:


Why should they [my opponents?] ? After all, they have no idea who they will play against... nor what opening will be used!

Your 'refutation' is worse than toilet paper, because toilet paper does not come from computers!

Oh, how about shucking your computer and using your own head to find the answers? You elevate the machine above the man, you let the computers do all the thinking. I do not do that.

Once I have free time, I'll get around to trashing your so-called refutation down the toilet.



Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha....

Well, Craig, I am a bit slow to post analyses. Other things get in the way, such as school, family, etc.  However, I did print out your and MnB's  analyses recently and am going over it.

As far as county titles are concerned, they are not obscure. I suggest you try winning a county championship -- it's not exactly easy.
For example, it took me three attempts to win the 1997 Monmouth County Championship.

I offered to play you not a 3-minute game, but a 30-minute or 60-minute game on the Internet Chess Club... which you declined so far.

My name is synonymous with unorthodox openings, and gambits, not "junk", Mister Evans!  If you check that precious computer of yours, you will see that the Zilbermints Gambit, 1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7, is played the world over.

The same goes for some of my other openings as well.

Yes, this argument is similar to perpetual check... but that is the nature of discussion and analyses in chess.

In conclusion, a game:

ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT DELAYED

White: Zilbermints
Black: Stephen Priester
Marshall Chess Club
New York
February 24, 2006
Friday Rapids

1 d4 d5  2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6  4 f3 ef3  5 Nxf3 e6  6 Bg5 Be7  7 Bd3 00  8 00 Nc6  9 Qe1 Nxd4 The Zilbermints Gambit Delayed
10 Qh4 Nxf3?? Here 10...Nf5 looks better.

11 Rxf3 h6  12 Bxh6! gh6  13 Qh6 Qd4+  14 Kh1

Black could not save the game here.  The concluding moves were 14...Ne4 15 Bxe4 Qg7 16 Rg3  Qg6 17 Rg6 fg6  18 Qg6+ Kh8  19 Qh7 mate.  

Did Black play poorly? Without a doubt! The main point is that the Zilbermints Gambit Delayed, like its close kin, the Zilbermints Gambit with 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1, is very tactical.

Finally, I should mention here that there are alternatives to (6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4) 9 Kh1. For example, the German player Peter Leisebein sometimes plays  9 Ne4. That move has been first played in Capdevila - Brizzio, Argentina, 1960 (1-0, 25).


And to those of you who would complain, here is my response: I play the ZGED in blitz, over-the-board, and Internet Chess Club.  I play both under long time controls and short time controls. Of course, when we play, my opponents do not have the benefit of computers to help them out with analyses... like you guys do.      

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...

I feel this argument is as much use as banging my head against a brick wall... still, it's not in my nature to back down unfortunately.

Lev, for four months you have said you would post the analysis of lines later (when the lines are good for black), whereas with the H-Z Gambit in the bird you've had no problems posting pretty quickly. Let me speculate that the delay is solely because the ZGED is busted.

Secondly, the Evans Gambit has been played for 150 years, withstood analytical scrutiny, and gives clear tactical and positional compensation. It is borderline sound (although I don't know a huge amount about it, so I don't know the current opinion on it). The ZGED isn't, and if Kasparov played it against Anand, computer-prepared or not, he would not win with it.

Third, I will post the game score if I can dig it out. He followed a critical game in the Ryder for around 12 moves and then deviated with, what I felt, was an improvement. The Ryder is better than the ZGED, and it is still unsound.

Fourthly, dumbo? Jerk? I cannot begin to describe my laughter at these comments, that in lieu of anything constructive to say you have to resort to the insults of a child. And yes, 2035 USCF is mediocre! USCF has always been known for it's inflated/inaccurate grading system. From speaking to people from the USCF over the years, they've stated that they feel the comparison from USCF to FIDE to be -100 to -150. My WCU grade (a body regarded as being on the low side w.r.t. grading) is 1954, generally the FIDE comparison is +100. I regard myself to be a mediocre player, and I regard anything under 2100 to, in general, mean a mediocre player. I will echo Bonzai's comments regarding both the obscure county titles and the ICC blitz rating.

You can name whatever you want after yourself, no-one minds this. The point is, however, that the name LDZ has become synonymous with junk. Junk talk, junk openings. Simple. And I have no problems with you, or anyone else, analysing offbeat/junk openings - I get the impression that you see me as some sort of stickler for main-line openings, refusing to acknowledge anything off the beaten path... however, if you knew anything about me you'd know that my play is always unorthodox, many of the openings I play are, theoretically at least, unsound (1.e4 d5 Nf3, for example), and I have myself been known to defend openings, such as the Latvian, which are refuted. However, I don't deny the opening to be refuted, I don't argue with absolutely everyone to defend my beloved openings when they're shown to be trash.
Again, I will agree with Bonsai - I have won games, OTB, in blitz and in correspondence, with Kadas's Gambit after 1.h4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 d5 4.c4?!. Objectively, however, I can not defend the merits of the opening. Just because it works in blitz, or against unprepared opponents (or some who are psychologically incapable of dealing with such blatant jokes in the opening), doesn't make it good. I have "invented" other gambits, too - the difference is that I don't name them after myself and I don't feel obliged to take credit for them.

Before you ask, no I will not play a 3-minute game to prove superiority against you.

Lev, I have nothing against you here. This is not a personal attack. I have merely asked to look at the ZGED objectively, with analysis. The analysis has been done, and the conclusion is this: Yes, white gets a bit of play for his material. But in the best line for white, black is clearly better. Hence -/+. In practical terms, I'm sure you'll continue to score well with the ZGED. I will continue to score well with the Kadas Gambit. They're both analytically unsound - so be it. If you enjoy playing them and looking at them, that's all that matters.

MNb, that looks good to me - white has a hint of compensation but, for a pawn, I'd take black every time. And I'm a gambiteer...

Regards,
Craig

A debate LDZ vs the rest is very similar to a perpetual check ...
Time for some analysis again, something Craig Evans so desparately begs for.

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Qd2 Nc6 8.o-o-o Nd5 9.Bxe7 Ncxe7 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.Qxc3 o-o
11...Nd5 12.Qe1 gives White slightly more chances.

12.h4 Qd6
12...h6 is only self-weaking and has no point.

13.Kb1 Nd5 14.Qe1
14.Qd2 Qf4 and Fritz thinks White still has compensation after the exchange of queens; I don't.

14...Bd7
and Black has an improved version of Rajmund's main line; 15.c4 is answered with Nf4 16.Bc2 Bc6 or Nf6 16.h5 h6 17.Ne5 Ba4! 18.b3 Bc6 19.Rh4 a5.

I've only had a minor look at 15...Bxb2, since it's not in my nature to grab a third pawn when two are more than sufficient to win the endgame, but the more I look at it the more it looks like -+ rather than -/+. Three pawns already, and black can surely (if things get desperate) sacrifice a piece for a fourth pawn where white still won't have enough for the material.

I think it's fair to say that this thread can be chalked up to history, and we can move onto the more critical BDG lines. Good job people.

Regards,
Craig