Gambit, YOU ALWAYS REPEAT THE SAME THINGS! I fully agree with HgMan, practice and theory is not the same thing but here WE ANALYSE THEORY in this forum. So don't come again to say again and again the same sentence please... Grow up!

It seems as though everyone is talking past each other here.

Lev: no one is disputing the fact that computers aren't available to players over the board, and I don't think that anyone would suggest that your gambit doesn't have "practical chances" over the board.  Short of a major coronary at the board, anyone playing any opening has practical chances.  I play 1 f4, not because it is superior to White's alternatives, but because it invariably takes my opponents away from their prepared repertoires and gives me a moral and psychological advantage: practical chances.

This forum, however, is devoted to examining various openings' theoretical chances.    I'll defend the theoretical merits of the Bird on this forum, not because it guarantees a White advantage (it doesn't), but because it is under-valued and under-examined.

Assessing an opening's theoretical value is a very different exercise than suggesting an opening's practical chances, and one in which computers can be a useful tool.  We're less interested in what practical chances an opening has in a blitz game and how many times you've thumped your chest in victory against plausibly decent competition in games that rarely matter to either player outside of bragging rights.  What we are interested in is whether these lines hold up to careful and in-depth scrutiny.  In our better moments--those devoid of name-calling and getting the last word in--we've actually engaged in some stimulating debate on this thread as to whether these lines do hold up.  Computers aren't perfect and can be unreliable in these kinds of positions--another argument for the practical chances of this kind of variation--but I have yet to find a human who can consistently calculate as quickly as decent chess software.

The discussion your detractors are trying to incite, Lev, is not that your gambit has no practical chances--play it often and in good health--but rather from a theoretical perspective it appear dubious.  Get back to the analysis.  Deep analysis.  And you might even find some good secrets in your pet line that you could unleash the next time you play it in blitz or at some more reasonable time setting.

Could we all, please, get back to chess?  It's a chess forum, after all...

"Wow, a FIDE Master refusing to practice what he preaches"
Actually Schiller also preaches 4...c6 as a remedy.

I will shortly post some games here. It's 3:27 a.m. here in New Jersey,  and  I need some sleep.
But, to respond to  Craig, I must point out that the Internet Chess Club  is a place where grandmasters play!  You can have tournament-type games, with regular time controls, played. All you have to do is set up the tournament. Tom Klem, "The Wiz", runs  the Standard (Game/30 and longer) Tournaments on ICC.

It is inaccurate for Craig Evans to say  that  Internet Chess Club is not  tournament chess, because it is. How about the yearly Dos Hermanas tournament,  which is played on Internet Chess Club? Grandmasters play in that one!  And that is but one example!

On the Internet, the difference is that  the players  play by computer connection instead of face to face.  Chess history is replete of players playing by telegraph, radio, telephone, e-mail, (and in Korchnoi's case, by mediums. He was playing Geza Maroczy).  In all these instances, the players did not play face to face. So tell me,  how can a player not be interrupted in a tournament game?
A cell phone can go off, a table may fall down (the latter happened at one of the New York Opens),
and so forth.  When I play on ICC, my phone frequently rings.  I do get interrupted.

So please, Craig, don't tell me that chess-players who play face-to-face do not get interrupted, because they do.  I have just refuted your argument there.

As for the much-vaunted Eric Schiller, well... he is notorious for sloppy analyses and typos.  I challenged him to play me  the Euwe Defense, 7...Nc6  at the 1995 New York Open.  Do you think he played the Euwe Defense? No, he did not!  He bowed out with 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6
Wow, a FIDE Master refusing to practice what he preaches (the 7...Nc6 line in the Euwe) !  These days he seems to think -- check Gambit  Chess Openings -- that my gambit refutes his 7...Nc6 line!

Oh, by the way, there are ways of  saying "chicken" without actually using the word! Ha-ha-ha...

What a surprise - I smash open Lev's shambolically weak analysis (even Schiller would do a better job to support a claim for a line!), and he attacks me instead of trying to repair his line.

I give up on arguing with Lev, since I don't wish to sink to his level, and a discussion on adult terms, no matter how many times I bring up the terms that I'm working to, gets nowhere. I'm not interested in the practicalities of chess, Lev. I'm interested in the analytical truth of this line. That has been found, -+.

As for games on chesslive.de, I cannot help that not many Welsh tournaments find their way into international databases - I imagine that has more to do with the strength of Welsh Chess as a whole. However, The game I imagine you're referring to is Evans - Batey, Gwent v West Wales, WCU Zonal match in something like 2001. What you neglect to notice is that, at the time this game was played, my opponent outgraded me by over 400 points (and had been playing chess for 20+ years at a strong level, whereas I had been playing for 3). Further, white came out of the opening with an advantage, and it was in severe time pressure that I fell apart, dropping some material as I recall.
Further, there is another game of mine in the database, from the year before, when I won with 1.e4 Nc6 in very short time, while still being outgraded. However, I believe my name is entered incorrectly for this one (a search on Evans,C should find it, however). Given that I have played near to 300 OTB games (with 100 in the past two years when I have been playing at a much higher standard), and over 100 correspondence games (including several in lines like the Elephant, Wilkes-Barre, Belgrade and Kadas, with good results), your point is again invalid.

An internet game is NOT a tournament game. In a tournament, no-one would disturb you surely? On the internet, no-one is sitting across from you surely?
No, chess games are a way of testing the practicalities of chess. If chess was a case of as soon as you've got a tangible advantage you win, no-one would play it. The ZGED offers ample opportunities for someone who has never seen it to go wrong. No-one is debating this. However, I can't believe that "it takes a real expert or specialist in the ZGED to know it's complexities" - I'm pretty sure I have a feel for the complexities (viz. Rxd7 thematic sac, plan of Bxf6 followed by Ne4) without "specialising" in the opening. Further, I'm not interested in practical chances - any opening gives them. What I'm looking at is, with best play, how would white fare? The answer seems to be, quite disasterously.

Feel free to reply Lev, but I will not respond to any more "chicken/coward" taunts. I will not listen to any "the ZGED is good because I beat people in blitz/tournaments" talk. I will, of course, respond to any variations provided to rehabilitate the line, but that is it.

My suggestion would be that 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Ne4 Bxb2 16.Nc5 may be best, with some compensation for the three pawns, though hardly enough. There is no mate, there's no forcing way of winning any material back, and black's position is structurally sound. White has a few tricks, and if they are sidestepped then black will take home the full point. If you wish to challenge me to another game Lev, please direct the challenge towards a brick wall instead.

Nex, thanks for the support - it's nice to know I'm not going crazy thinking that these challenges are childish!

Regards,
Craig 

Craig doesn't accept a match because it's childish to challenge someone when you disagree, Lev.  And I'd have to agree wholly with him.  That's not "chickening out,"  it's being an adult. 


Speaking of games on chesslive.de, I found three in this 9 ... Nc6 line.  Black scores a flat 100%. 

Practical? 

Nex

Hmm, at least some lines to sink my teeth into.

Firstly, 15...Bxb2 16.Qg3 and now not Qc8?! 17.c3 which does provide compensation. Instead simply 16...Qe7! intending to meet 17.Qxc7 with 17...Be8!, where white can either exchange queens with 18.Qxe7 Nxe7 where black is winning, or can retreat his queen with 18.Qg3 and now 18...Qb4 looks sharp, while 18...f5 19.Nd6 Rd8 20.Nxe8 Rfxe8 doesn't give white anywhere near enough compensation that I can see. For two pawns, I'll again use Karpov's famous "Where's the mate?".

So, if white can't capture on move 17 with 17.Qxc7, white's other option seems to be 17.c3, which threatens the thematic Rxd7 sac. However, 17...f5 (now the rook protects f6, preventing this) 18.Nc5!? Qxc5 19.Rxd7 Bxc3 and in return for a slightly messy pawn structure, black is three pawns up (two if he captures on c7) and white is running out of pieces to attack with. Where's the mate?

So, 15...Bxb2 still looks fine to me, unless there's another convincing move instead of 16.Qg3 or 17.c3 which I can't see. White has some compensation after 16.Nc5 perhaps, but he's down three pawns - where's the mate?

Nex has kindly saved me the trouble of refuting 14.Qg3 Rc8 15.Rxd7??; however, perhaps 14.Qg3 is best, considering that after 14...Rc8 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Ne4, 16...Bxb2 is no longer possible. However, again I can't agree with your analysis - after 16...Be7 (transposing to your line) 17.Rxd7!? Qxd7 18.Ne5, why in the world would black play 18...Qd4, giving up the c6 pawn for no reason, with tempo no less??

Instead, 18...Qd5! attacks the Bb5 and Ne4, the Be7 covers any Nf6+ tricks, and white is an exchange AND two pawns down. This time I'll ask in capitals, WHERE THE HECK IS THE FORCED MATE?

I think I will spend the next hour writing a little funeral march on my piano - R.I.P., ZGED. See, it even rhymes.  

Regards,
Craig

EDIT: Lev, with regards to not taking risks, I've played the BDG, Englund, Albin and Kadas both OTB and in correspondence chess, against players of all levels. My repertoire for white includes the Bryntse Gambits (1.e4 c5/c6 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 de 4.Ng5 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bg4 6.Qxg4!?), the Tennison (1.e4 d5 2.Nf3), and with black I play the Wilkes-Barre. I have even played the Halloween Gambit in a tournament (scoring a quick win). I have done for most of my chess-playing career. If you don't consider these openings as taking risks, then I don't know what is. The point, here, is that I'm willing to concede the openings are unsound, even if I do win with them in tournaments. Nothing to do with being unwilling to play them. QED.

Quote:


But I did And how would you continue as Black against my recommandation?