CraigEvans wrote on 02/28/06 at 16:32:56:
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
My response:
If Craig is saying prepubescent, then I say, Craig, you are infantile! Internet Chess is not OTB chess? Who said that? You, Craig Evans, a player who considers himself always right... and shying away from a challenge?
Hello, there, Craig!! Analyses must be backed up by games! All your precious chess engine does is analyse, do the hard work for you! Consider this. I OFFER TO PLAY YOU, CRAIG EVANS UNDER REGULAR TIME CONTROLS. I GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TEST YOUR ANALYSES UNDER TOURNAMENT CONDITIONS. WHAT DO YOU DO? CRAIG EVANS, YOU CHICKEN OUT LIKE A YELLOW COWARD!! The risk is not acceptable that you may be proven wrong!
If Morozevich wins with the Albin, there has to be soundness to the opening. And Morozevich is better than you or me.
Analytical scrutiny may be one thing, but OTB practice is a different story altogether. Also, analysis may show that if other, better moves are made, the gambit is playable.
Finally, I do not believe that after 1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Qd5 White is better. The Queen is too much a target here. I would be happy to play either 4...f6 5 ef6 Nf6 6 Qb3 d5 7 Bg5 Bd7 or 4...b6, 4...g6, as recommended by Henry Grob.
From your comments, I gather that you just don't like taking risks in chess. You prefer solid openings, not "dubious", like Albin, Kadas, etc.
I got news for you: Playing chess involves risk-taking.
Let's see what you come with...
Regards,
Gambit