Round and round in circles .....
He LDZ, have you noticed that Black has other moves but 7...Nc6 ? You are so busy repeating your point of view, that you have not got time yet to answer my question about 7...Nbd7 and 8...c5.

After analysing, I came up with an interesting inprovement. Following 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 00 13 Bb5 Qe8 and now:

14 Qg3 Rc8 15 Rd7! Qd7  16 Ne5! with real compensation for White.

If one move does not succeed, another does. Long live the ZGED!!

I win with it, Lev, because in 5 minute chess or less, anything can happen. The same reason I win with Kadas' 1.h4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Nf3 d5 4.c4?!. The opening has no value, other than practical blitz value. I see no contradiction at all here. If you assess an opening's correctness by this then fine. However, I prefer to assess them by how they hold up to analytical scrutiny. The Englund, Kadas and ZGED are alike in that, under this scrutiny, they fall apart. (Incidentally, I've always considered 1.d4 e5 2.de Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Qd5! to be a more critical test (although there is no doubting white's advantage in your line, either), and I simply can't find enough play for the pawn after 4...f6 5.ef Nxf6 6.Qb3 d5 7.Bg5 - white is a pawn up for very, very little.

I have no doubt that 3...Nge7/3...d6 are the best way to play this gambit, but that doesn't change the fact that even if black does eventually win his pawn back, white will be clearly better. Still, at least it's only one pawn you're giving up here, and I'd be quite prepared to play the black side of this in blitz.

My mouth is nowhere Lev. I've given lines which I feel are good for black, and hence I feel refute the opening. THIS IS AN OPENING THEORY FORUM. JUST BECAUSE LINES GIVEN HERE SHOW YOUR OPENING TO BE UTTER TRIPE, IT DOES NOT GIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR ABUSE.
I say the ZGED is unsound because it is, not because I derive satisfaction from consigning one of your ideas to the scrap-heap (although I would be lying if, after now dealing with you on here, I didn't admit to feeling satisfied at doing so). It is not a personal attack, it's not about CE v LDZ. Therefore, your challenges are meaningless to me, I'm not here to prove myself as a player, and I shouldn't have to.

Again, you asked to discuss a line here. Several of us did, and came to the conclusion it doesn't hold up to analytical scrutiny. That's nothing personal; I've had several of my suggestions rubbished before, because they were junk. Many other people here have had their analysis dismissed in certain lines, because it was junk. The ZGED is junk. Your inability to accept this, and your inability to refrain from childish challenges or personal remarks when proven wrong, do nothing other than to speak volumes about your character. Your logic is similar to the following argument:

Person #1: I could jump out of my upstairs window and I wouldn't die.
Person #2: Jump, then.
Person #1: No. I have no need to do this since my point is based in fact, and it takes on unnecessary risk for no reason.
Person #2: You're a coward.

Now, any normal person could see that Person #2 has serious flaws in his/her argument. Alas, I very much doubt living to see the day when Person #2 accepts responsibility for his/her actions, apologises for his/her abuse or so on... c'est la vie.

One final point, which I'm tired of making, and I will do so this time in capitals to see if the message lodges with you: INTERNET CHESS IS NOT OVER-THE-BOARD CHESS. Unsound openings succeed OTB, and doubly so on the internet - that is the nature of practical chess. Morosevich, at his level, gets away with dubious openings such as the Albin, and as we work our way down the ladder, more and more becomes acceptable since the likelihood of blundering is far higher. The point of this forum is to scrutinze openings analytically. From that standpoint, the ZGED has as much value as the Jerome Gambit or Halloween Gambit. Both offer practical chances if black doesn't know what he's doing. Both are analytically unsound. Playing you in a blitz game, rapid game, on the internet or OTB, will not affect the underlying practicalities of chess. Nor will it affect the analytical truth of your opening's worth. QED.

You can call others cowards all you want Lev. I just hope one day you grow up and realise the folly of your actions and comments. They say sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind, and it appears you can't even stretch to that...

I will bow out of this topic until some analysis is presented to be verified or otherwise. The war of words is futile and I don't wish to sink to this prepubescent level any longer. Feel free to continue, however, Lev. And remember, four months ago I presented 15...Be7 as a way for black to maintain a two-pawn advantage, with white having very little compensation against accurate defence. 15...Bxb2 may well be good, but it's a lot more risky for very little gain, since a two-pawn advantage in the endgame is won for black, and white doesn't have tempo-gaining/threatening moves like 17.c3 in this instance.

Best wishes,
Craig

Albatross?

Talking dross is more like it.

After 15...Bxb2 white can probably drum up some compensation. To claim white is better after 15...Bb2 16 Qg3 Qc8 17 c3! f5 18 Nc5! is farsical (note I don't think either of the exclamation marks to be worthy.). He's three pawns down - as Karpov would say here, where's the mate? Further, you have provided no antidote to the safer 15...Be7. No computers needed to find this line Lev.

Arkhein has sadly been lured into the same nonsense that I was previously. I can categorically state that an argument with Lev is not worth the time. The calculator/computer comparison is an accurate one, to which there is no rebuttal. It is like those in the 15th century who wrote with quills shunning the modern pen and pencil.

One word can sum up this thread, and the ZGED. Finished. Let's direct our attention to a serious line of the BDG.

No Lev, I will not play you. Apart from OTB/correspondence chess, I don't take the game particularly seriously - if I was playing you online, even at 120 minutes a game, I would not take it seriously as it is not in my nature. Also, since I do not play either side of this line and never will, I see no point in playing the game to confirm that you get practical chances and to give you even the slightest chance of gloating. My interest in this opening is purely theoretical, and that interest has been appeased. I'm not a coward, since the challenge is child-like and would solve nothing. However, should the day ever arise where I know my opponent will play the ZGED, then I can assure you that I will whip out this analysis, and take home the point.

The main point - this is a forum; it IS a place designed for talking, not playing. If you don't want to be a part of that, don't post here. If you don't want your ideas rubbished, don't subject them to scrutiny by posting them here. If you bring them into a public forum to be discussed, and they're junk, people will tell you they're junk.

On a slight OT - 1.d4 e5 2.de Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 is also junk. It doesn't matter whether plenty of people play it - I play the englund proper (3...Qe7) all the time in blitz, scoring over 80% with it. It's unsound, I know this. As I said Lev, you associate your name with these openings, and you'll be synonymous with junk, not unorthodoxy.

Regards,
Craig

Quote:


Can't you understand my point? In my last response to you I gave the difference between ZGED on corr and OTB. I would myself play it OTB because of the reason you gaves, but the difference is that I would know that I face the risks to be refuted over the board, because a refutation exist, so you have to pray that your opponent will not play the next best moves.

Quote:


I have already responded to you in my last message, and you give another non-sense sentence. If Leisebein would have found a refutation of his refutation for Black, he would still play the ZGED and not the slower a3.

Quote:


It's your right to not like computers, but you can't play chess ignoring that they are able to refute you in somes lines, we have to accept the fact that they exists, even if we don't like it. For example chess with 6 pieces or less are totally resolved by computers, we can't ignore that, it's a fact. About your "It's man-to-man, no computers", I agree, but in this forum we not analysis Zilbermints with his gambit against X player, but "The best for White" with the BDG ZGED against "the best for Black". We are doing a research for the truth, and not about practical chance. Don't forget, if the ZGED survive to the best analysis, it does mean that any GM could play it without losing because of the opening. We are not playing a game here, but we are doing a theorical research, so we don't care about the man-to-man here. Now I think we should close that debate because it's still the same see you.

I will say this again: Leisebein is a correspondence player. And in correspondence chess you have access to information -- databases, books, other players -- that you normally would not have in over-the-board games.  What may not work in correspondence may work in OTB, precisely because the time limit is far less.

Now then, why should Leisebein try to find a counter to his own so-called refutation? He is not interested in that, is he? Thus, the point is made that there may well be a refutation to Leisebein's analyses... but he is not interested in sharing it with us.

Computers are garbage, they take all the fun out of chess. That is why I have no interest in debating anyone who uses a computer  to give him/her all the computer-generated answers.  It's like having a man with five heads  thinking at the same time.  Flush that down the toilet!!

It's man-to-man, no computers!!

In reaction to Rajmund's analysis:

While one might dispute the evaluation +- given to the sideline ending with 24.Qc1 (Nb4), it is clear, that g4-g5 may not be underestimated. Hence 17.Ne5 Ba4 18.b3 Bc6 19.Rf1 Qe7 20.g4 a5 (Nh7!?) 21.Qe7 Nh7.
The refutation of 15...Nf4 is very nice.

White can avoid further exchanges with 10.Ne4 and this looks better than 10.Bd3 to me.
So I think we should turn our attention to 7...h6, which obviously must be played before Black castles. Schiller and Benjamin give 8.Be3 Nc6 and 8.Bf4 Bb4. In the game Herbrechtsmeier-Lang, Zell 1977, Black won after 8.Bf4 c6 9.o-o-o but here 9.Bd3 is the logical move. So the main line must (?) be 8.Bf4 Bb4 9.Bc4 Ne4 (Nd5 10.Bxd5 exd5 11.o-o Be6 12.Rae1 and White has compensation, as Black cannot castle kingside and f7 remains weak) 10.Qd3 (10.Qe3  Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 12.Ne5 Qh4+ 13.Bg3 Qg5 =+) Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 12.Ne5 Nd7 13.Ng6 (13.Bxe6 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bxe6 15.exd6 cxd6 16.Bxd6 Qh4+ with about equal play) Bxf4 (fxg6 14.Qxg6+ Kf8 15.Bxe6 Qh4+ 16.g3 Qe7 looks risky to me after 17.o-o Nf6 18.Be5) 14.Nxf4 o-o 15.o-o Nb6 16.Bb3 Nd5 17.Nxd5 exd5 18.c4 Holwell-Klaus,1992 and how to evaluate this?

The idea to play c5 at some point intrigues me. Faulty is 7.Qd2 Nbd7 8.o-o-o c5? 9.d5 so what about 8...o-o idea 9.Bd3 c5 ? This also avoids Rajmund's 7.Qd2 o-o 8.o-o-o c5 9.Qe1!? doesn't it?

To the BDG brothers LDZ and ArKhein I ask to spend their energy on 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.o-o c5 9.dxc5 Nxc5 =+ instead of butchering each other. Can't you guys, instead of putting certain parts of your bodies in the toilet, take the paper and clean up the diarrhoea of words you both produce? And yes, this is meant as an insult