SWJediknight wrote on 03/19/11 at 01:58:38:


I thought 9...c6 was looked at earlier. A number of both correspondence and tournament games went that way. White managed to win most of them. With regard to 9...c5, White won the majority of games I saw, provided he followed my analyses. Bonsai played against 9...c5 and lost because he played the wrong 10th move. As far as 9...h6 is concerned, it is mostly a transposition into other lines.  UON #27 covers that, under Chapter 7. There is 6 pages of analyses and games.

I am hearing, in effect, a lot of complaining that UON #27 is not out yet. The answers to a lot of your questions are in there. However, I can only tell you that UON #27 will come out once Gary Gifford, the editor-in-chief, gets to it. I will send him an email, asking when it will be ready.

Meanwhile, to answer your question about 9...h6:

10 Bd2 Nxf3 11 Qxf3 e5 12 Qh4 Nd5 14 Qh5 Nf6 drawn, Zilbermints - Kopiecki, telephone game, 11/24/2001. I played this game blindfold!

Ronald Fischer - Gerhart Mertes, correspondence 2001:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 h6 10 Bf4 Nxf3 11 Qxf3 c6 12 Rad1 Qb6 13 Qg3 Nh5 14 Qg4 g6?? 15 Bxg6! Nf6 16 Bxf7+! Kxf7 17 Be5 Rg8 18 Qh5+ Rg6 19 Ne4 Kg7 20 Nf6 Bf6 21 Rf6 Rf6 22 Qh4, 1-0. A fine, brilliant combination!

Wrong on all points! Let me refute the baloney inaccuracies that has been posted in the last three posts.

First, White wins! You say in SD/5 you would know the right moves, right? Ah, but you yourself admit to reading this site. However, millions of other chess players do not. Besides, I usually play in over-the-board-tournaments, where you cannot use this site, but only your own head! 

I would probably beat you on time in SD/5 minutes blitz, since I move quickly. 

Second, you can shout "Theory!" till you are blue in the face and the cows come home. I don't much care for theory to begin with, more for wild and unorthodox positions. Oh sure, I can sit here, drinking tea, thinking of making love to my girlfriend, while theoretically solving the intricacies of the Danish Gambit Accepted.    So what? When you play in OTB tournaments, you never know who you will play.
After all, there are many people out there. It is not a given that you will know precisely which one of them will play the Zilbermints Gambit.

So, my point is that theoretical arguments, minus an actual chessgame, solve nothing. You admitted as much. Isn't it a contradiction to say that I have practical chances in play while in theory the gambit is allegedly refuted? Yes, it is. But that is what you guys are saying.

Third, I posted some stuff about the so-called refutations. You can look the games up here. If you have patience, you can wait until UON #27 comes out. The second part of the article is in there. However, the publication date is entirely the affair of Gary Gifford, the editor-in-chief. I am just the contributor.

Finally, let me point out to you that I base the analyses and practice on the games in my files. Since I spent years gathering these games from various sources, I think that I am more of an expert on this opening than you are. I know from looking into the 300+ games --- postal, blitz, over-the-board -- what lines have been played and what have not.

This is not to say that your contributions have gone unnoticed. On the contrary, they have been noticed and argued about back and forth. However, it must be pointed out that even by your admission, the lines suggested are never played! Why? As MNb once wrote here, he has no idea. Maybe you should read the losing players' minds?

So we have the paradox where analysts say certain lines are good for Black, but practice shows something else altogether. Either these lines are practically never played or instead, other lines are played. Go figure.

White has practical chances in all variations, especially in OTB tournament play and blitz, where a computer is not of much help. So sorry, but computers are banned from the tournament room. As we all know, anyone using a computer to help play an OTB, not an Internet Chess Club,  game is a cheat.

Theoretical merit? I don't much care for theory, more for practice. That is my position and it will not change.
Action, not words, is the important thing.

Oh, and something else. How many players will analyse 17-20 moves deep in an unfamiliar position in the Zilbermints Gambit, with a clock ticking at their side? Plenty of chances to go wrong, as you guys admitted.

As co-moderator, I agree entirely with this stance. I have posted suitable refutations for five years, and no responses have come forward. I think the theoretical debate is entirely solved. Lev, your contributions are appreciated, even if its solely so I know there are free points waiting for me somewhere in the world! But since you want to argue a different argument to everyone else on this theory forum, it seems pointless continuing. Good luck with your articles in the future - since you are unwilling to objectively look at any positions, they hold no interest to me, but I have no doubt that in practice you will continue to score points with this line.

9...Nc6 -/+: the final word.   

Sure. But there is one important point that many of you have missed. It is that the gambit offers good practical chances in over-the-board tournaments, where you do not have enough time to analyze all the intricacies. Here you do not have a clock ticking at your side, an opponent sitting across you, spectators watching... In the quiet of your cabinet, you can analyze ad infinitum and make loud pronouncements.
But out there on the field of battle, in tournament play, it is a whole different kettle of fish.

I just came from New York. My mom had her birthday on Saint Patrick's Day, so the entire family was celebrating. We went to a restaurant and the opera.

Having said that, let me respond. I never said I "depended" on MNb to answer the question. All that happened was that MNb answered it before I had the opportunity to do so. Didn't Ruth play the Trompowsky Attack decades before Julian Hodgson did? So there.

It is close to 1 a.m. here in New Jersey, so I will have to delay my response for now. Rest assured that your analyses will be looked at and answered in due time. Since my printer is not working, I will have to print out your analyses in school, and then go over it at home.

If 9...h6 10.Bf4 Nxf3+ 11.Qxf3 0-0, after 12.Rad1 I doubt that Black's advantage is as large as it is after 9...Nc6 or 9...c5.  For instance 12...Bd6 (else White threatens nasty discoveries on the black queen) 13.Bg3 and Black is a bit tied up.

The analysis of the 9...Nc6 10.Qe1 h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Ne4 Be7 13.Rd1 0-0 14.Bb5 Qe8 looks convincing, and in addition I think after 15.Ne5, 15...f5 and 15...a6 are also significantly better for Black.

In Linksspringer's line 11.Qh4 Nd7 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qg3 0-0, 14.Nb5 may improve slightly on the immediate 14.Qxc7 (at least enabling White to regain one pawn without exchanging queens), e.g. 14...Nc5 15.Nxc7 Rb8 16.Nb5 Nxd3 or 14...a6 15.Nxc7 Ra7 (this may be better as it leaves the future of the Nc7 uncertain).  The resulting positions still look a lot closer to -/+ than =+ though.

Quote:


If you play 15...Kg7, white has nothing there. (in the 12...Qxd4 line)

SWJediknight wrote on 03/17/11 at 18:15:33:


You really were not paying attention. Check what I say about 11...00 in post #166 on a previous page.
Thanks!

You are completely misreading what I wrote here, SWJediKnight. I said that after 9...c5 10 Bxf6 Bxf6 White gets counterplay. Your analyses is based on old stuff from your pgn, which has been superseded by my newer analyses. Actually, I have had that analyses for years, but kept it secret.

Here's a summary of how the critical lines seem to be looking after 9...Nc6 and 9...c5 (based on others' analysis and updates to the analysis contained in my PGN file).

A) 9...Nc6 10.Qe1

A1) 10...Bd7 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Bc4 (13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.Qxe5 Ng4 -/+ Luppi-Svacek, corr. 2000, 13.Ne4!?) 13.Bc4 Ng4 14.Bg3 =+.

A2) 10...h6! 11.Qh4 (11.Be3 Bd6 -/+, 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Ne4 Be7 13.Rd1 0-0 -/+, 11.Bf4 Bd6 12. Bg3 O-O 13. Rd1 Bxg3 14. Qxg3 Qe7 15.Ne4 Nd5 -/+) 11...Nd7! 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qg3 0-0 14.Qxc7 Nc5 -/+ (Linksspringer), as I can't see a way for White to avoid the queen swap without passing the initative over to Black.  (White has a few hacking tries like 12.Qh5 as Craig Evans mentions, but they look clearly insufficient too).

I have yet to check the line 10...h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Ne4 Be7 13.Rd1 0-0 14.Bb5, but I have doubts about it- may have a look later when I have time.

B) 9...c5

B1) 10.Bxf6 Bxf6

B11) 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh6 Bd7 14.Rae1 (14.Nb5 Bc6 15.Rae1 transposes) Bc6 15.Nb5 a6 -/+

B12) 11.Ne4 0-0! (rather than 11...Be7)

B121) 12.Nxc5 Nxf3 13.Qxf3 Qd4 14.Ne4 (14.Qh3 Qh4, 14.Nxb7 Bxb7 15.Qxb7 Rab8 16.Qf3 Rxb2) 14...Be7 -/+

B122) 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 13.c3 Be5 -/+ (some hacking chances for White, but as Markovich indicated, Black has many pleasant options against 14.Qc2, 14.Qe2, 14.Qf3 or 14.Qh5)

B123) 12.c3 Nxf3 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Rxf3 Qe7 15. Rh3 f5 16. Qh5 h6 -/+, as Black repels the attack.

B2) 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Bxf6 gxf6! (11...Bxf6 12. Ne4 Be7 13. Qh5 g6 14. Qh6 f5 15. Qg7 Rf8 16. Qxh7 and White has good compensation) 12.Ne4 f5 and now:

B21) 13.Bb5+ Kf8 14.Qh5 h6 (-/+ at least, maybe close to winning for Black as White has no way to maintain the pressure),

B22) 13.Qh5 Rf8 14.Ng3 Bd7 15.Rae1 Qb6 -/+ with Black looking set to take over the initiative on the kingside.

In my earlier analysis I did hold out some hope for White to be able to revise the assessment of the line to "=+", which isn't so bad, but after others' suggested improvements it seems rather less likely again.

Sorry Lev, you are still not off the hook. I repeat:
[1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 0-0 Nxd4 9 Kh1 Nc6 10 Qe1 h6]

11.Be3 Bd6 -/+ (Wollfelschneider - Behrendorf, corr 2003)
11.Bf4 Bd6 -/+ (see PGN by SWJediknight)
11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Ne4 Be7 13 Rd1 O-O! -/+ ( CraigEvans)
11.Qh4 Nd7 (other moves were suggested, but this looks most clear to me) 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Qg3 O-O 14.Qxc7 Nc5 -/+

Furthermore, if 10.Qe1 Bd7 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Ne4 CraigEvans suggested 13...Nh5 followed by ...f5 when White still has to prove full compensation. Although at the moment I find 10...h6 easier to play for Black.

I haven't kept track of all provided analysis, so I apoligize if my question has been addressed since the times of Methusalem or so.

What about 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1 Nc6 10.Qe1 Bd7 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Ne4 ? The natural Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Bd6 seems to lead to a draw after 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.Rxd6 cxd6 17.Qg3+ Kh8 18.Qf4.
This something I would call a major achievement for White, but still doesn't convince me that this as good as 7.Qd2.

I communicated with Tim Sawyer years ago and got his agreement to name the line after him. Meanwhile, here are a couple of other games that escaped noticing. They lay among my other folders.

Zilbermints - Anders Olsen
3 0 rated blitz
Internet Chess Club
15 July 2008

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Bb4 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 Bxc3 10 bxc3 Nxf3 11 Qxf3 Qd5 12 Qe3 Ng4 13 Qf4 Ne5 14 Be4 Qa5 15 Rad1 Bd7 16 Bd5 f6 17 Bxf6 gxf6 18 Qxf6 Ng6 19 Bxe6 Bxe6 20 Qxe6+ Ne7 21 Rf7 Qc5 22 Rd7 1-0

Zilbermints - IM Petar Popov
Internet Chess Club
5 0 rated blitz
July 2008

5...e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 00 8 00 Nc6 9 Qe1 Nb4 10 Bc4 e6 11 Qh4 Nbd5 12 Nxd5 cxd5 13 Bd3 g6 14 Ne5 1-0

Oh, and naming "hundreds of openings after myself" is a gross exaggeration. Any decent search on the Internet will show that is not the case.

But all your posts are on 9...c5 Lev. So you are not discussing it at present, and haven't been for five years!

Who named it that? Him? You? Is two games really enough to name an opening after yourself? Surely your database shows plenty of your lines which had been played before you discovered them? Wasn't it your analytical work and effort to bring them to widespread attention the reason you got to name hundreds of openings after yourself? I've played 1.e4 c6 2.d4 f5?! at least 20 times in blitz, so does that mean I get to name that after myself? I'm really unsure on the rules... there are lots of openings I've played twice, so I should by rights have a lot more things named after me...

Digression aside, I'm willing to go with 10...h6 rather than 10...Bd7 at the moment but I genuinely think both are just good for black. So please, Lev, let's discuss your improvements.

Finally, some discussion about chess, now that other people have become involved.

Firstly, my simple reason for staying away from 9...c5 - White does have open lines and a slight development edge, so I don't want to open the position. Not that I think white then gets enough, but why give him any play at all? 9...Nc6 just puts the knight back where it was originally and says "Okay, you've given me two pawns for an investment of my time - show me the mate."

I don't really know what to make of the lines after 9...c5 yet, other than to say that I still think black is better, but I think white is risking having some fun. I have no doubt that objectively 9...c5 may be strong, but it seems less simple to me.

With regards to the lines after 9...Nc6, which I am personally more interested and more invested in:

Firstly, I still propose 10...Bd7 to be a possibly correct move order, since after 11.Rd1 h6 we found 12.Qh4 to be incorrect and 12.Bh4 to also be insufficient, and therefore 12.Bf4 seemed the only try. As far as we could see there, white gets a pawn's worth of compensation, in rough terms, for two pawns' investment.

As for the line 10...h6 11.Qh4, I think black should try the move 11...Nh7!? - giving up castling is really not an issue for me when I can console myself with two pawns. Another set of pieces come off the board.

So, after 10...h6 11.Qh4 Nh7 (which gives a pawn back), white only has two tries that I can see:

a) 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Bxh7 Qxh4 14.Nxh4 Rxh7 15.Nb5 Rb8 16.Nxc7+ Ke7 and black is a pawn up. White's a bit more active. But black is a pawn up, with a bishop vs knight, in a near-endgame. If this is the best white can do, he is busted.

b) Instead white can try to muddy the waters with 12.Qh5!? Bxg5 13.Bxh7! Bf6! 14.Ne4!? Qe7! (Though 14...Rxh7 15.Nfg5!? hg 16.Qxh7 Ke7 may also be good for black, it again overly complicates things, and my gut feeling is that white is fine after 17.Nxf6 gf 18.Qg7 with chances) where white has nothing better than 15.Nxf6+ gf 16.Be4 Bd7 intending to castle long. Black is two pawns up, with two pairs of pieces off the board, a fully developed position and even a semi-open g-file. White is busted.

So I maintain that after 9...Nc6 white has no line whatsoever which demonstrates adequate compensation for the material. After 9...c5 I reckon white could cling to =/+, whereas 9...Nc6 really seems between -/+ and -+. For two pawns white really needs clear compensation and a guaranteed lasting initiative into the endgame with good chanes of regaining his material. He doesn't appear to have either in the 9...Nc6 variation.

Incidentally, should 9...Nc6 catch on, since I have been analysing it for several years I would like the naming rights. Though I will not tell you right now what I would call it. 

Gambit wrote on 03/16/11 at 15:28:59:


Lev, this line does offer some practical chances.  Very few gambit lines don't.  I don't know who was here saying that this doesn't offer practical chances.  I wasn't and I didn't see anyone else saying that either.

The debate is about the soundness of the gambit, not whether or not it offers practical chances.  The main idea is really a trap: 9...Nxf3? gives White a good game.  If you want to stake your chances as White on an unsound gambit, be my guest.

If Black plays 9...c5, I don't think that White's chances are anywhere near enough to make up for the lost pawn.  And 9...Nc6 also looks promising for Black.

Gambit wrote on 03/16/11 at 15:28:59:


People came here and as a favor to you analyzed your gambit.  The conclusion that stands so far is that it's unsound.  You didn't analyze all the moves.

Gambit wrote on 03/16/11 at 15:28:59:


I should delete that but I will let it stand just because everyone has grown so used to your juvenile histrionics.  I am left with the feeling that I've been much too lenient with you in this thread.  Watch your step.  Nobody wants to hear about your dislike of MNb or your alleged triumphs over your college deans or your high school gym teacher.

Gambit wrote on 03/16/11 at 15:28:59:


"Room for Black to go wrong" bears on practical chances, not on soundness.  Do you understand the distinction?  The ball is in your court on soundness.  To demonstrate soundness you'll have to find sufficient comp for White after 9...c5 and 9...Nc6.

@SWJediknight:  You think it's only =+ after 9...c5 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nxd4 Bxd4?  That surprises me.  I probably agree, however, that 11.Nxd4 looks better than Lev's 11.Ne4.  11...Bxd4 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh6 Bd7 and Black at least is inconvenienced by his inability to castle kingside.

I also agree that with 11...Nd7!, 9...Nc6 works out well too.

All of a sudden, you guys start saying the Zilbermints Gambit offers practical chances. Wasn't it a couple of days ago that you were claiming refutation this, refutation that? LOL!    And now, after I post all that analyses, you say, "Oops! We were wrong!"

I told you before, I analysed all the variations. But you did not want to listen, throwing out different moves.
When I posted games, MNb started writing bull, and I responded accordingly. I do not take s--- from anyone. In my college days, I put both the Graduate Dean and the President of the University Senate in their proper place. They were mad at me for that, but I did not care.

So yeah, an interesting re-evaluation of the Zilbermints Gambit. Now it offers practical chances, is a nasty trap, etc. I don't think it is unsound, as there is plenty of room for Black to go wrong. And you guys finally admitted as much.

linksspringer wrote on 03/16/11 at 10:31:47:


Me too.

@Lev:  Thanks for all that analysis!  But I think you're way overestimating White's chances after 9...c5 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Ne4 O-O 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 13.c3 Be5 14.Qc2.  White is two pawns down; two sets of minor pieces have been exchanged; Black has the two bishops; Black's position is completely solid; White's castled position is precarious.  Against this White has a slight surplus of development, but given the arrangement of the pieces, I'm not sure that he's much more active than Black is. 

Black has a wide and very pleasant choice of moves: 14...f5; 14...Bc7; 14...Qh4; 14...g6; 14...b6.  He even has 14...c4 which appears to compel 15.Be2 since 15.Bxc4 Qh4 18.h3 b6 looks way better for Black.  Provisionally I like 14...b6.  I'm just going to get my last minor piece out, so come and get me.

I like your 14.Qf3 better but even then I would much rather be Black.  There is also 14.Qe2 when I would probably play 14...b6.  14.Qh5 forces 14...f5 but after that it doesn't look very hopeful for White either.  If necessary, Black can part with his e6 pawn and still be winning.

For the time being I'll maintain my view that the Zilbermints Gambit offers interesting practical chances (and could be seen as a nasty trap, tempting Black to play 9...Nxf3) but with best play, is unsound.

SWJediknight wrote on 03/15/11 at 23:54:08:


Looks like you guys will have to wait for UON #27 to officially come out. The editor-in-chief sent me the advance version, since it is dedicated to the Zilbermints Gambit. I sent him a lot of revisions, and since then I have not heard much from him.

Point is, 9...c5 is extensively analyzed in there.

Thanks for that.  Yeah, 11...gxf6 as I mentioned before.  An interesting line is 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Ne2 Qb6 13.Nxd4 Bd7 14.Qg4 O-O-O and Black appears to be significantly better.

I hadn't thought of 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Ne4, but had only considered 11.Nxd4 Bxd4 =+.  Your 11...O-O does indeed look best, when I would much rather be Black.

Lev, what do you have against 11...O-O?

Actually I suspect that Black is also good after 9...Nc6 10.Qe1 h6 11.Qh4 Kf8 intending Kg8, but why take chances?

Dear Bonsai,

Thank you for having the courage to try the Zilbermints Gambit. I should point out that your opponent played the 9...c5 line, the Counter-Strike Variation. At a glance, the mistake that you made is with the 10th move. Instead of 10 Qd2, 10 Ne5, 10 Qe1, which are all inferior moves, correct is 10 Bxf6 or 10 Nxd4. This was covered exhaustively in Unorthodox Chess Openings #25, October 2009.
More coverage was in BDG World magazine.

With regard to your first game, I have not had the chance to look at it in detail yet. I am in a rush to catch the local bus, so will have to respond later. In fact, I am analyzing this blindfold! Thank God I memorized the analyses against 9...c5 line!

Keep up the good work. Who was your opponent? When were these games played? Take my advice, Bonsai, and go over my articles. You will be able to beat the 9...c5 line quite easily. I know I did.

Lev D. Zilbermints

Trouble is, after 10...h6 11 Qh4 Black might be tied up in knots. This is all the more true when Black does not have computer assistance.

The game below validates Markovich's assessment of the Knight exchange being bad.

Peter Schuster - J. Skeels
Correspondence, 2006

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 Nc6 10 Qe1 h6 11 Qh4 Nd4 12 Nxd5 cxd5 13 Rae1 Be6 14 Qh5 Kd7 15 Bxe7 Qxe7 16 Bb5 Kc8 17 Bxc6 bxc6 18 Qe5 Rg8 19 Qc3 c5 20 Ne5 a5 21 Qa3 Re8 22 Nxf7 c4 23 Qe3 Ra6 24 b3 Rf8 25 Ne5 Rf7+ 26 Rxf1 Qa3 27 h3 Rb6 28 Nf3 cxb3 29 cxb3 Qd6 30 Qc3 g5 31 Qxa5 Ra6 32 Qd2 c5 33 Qe2 d4 34 Ne5 Bd5 35 Rf5 Kb7, DRAWN

Gambit wrote on 03/15/11 at 17:44:42:


My point is that you are not addressing the chess.  You are posting a lot of histrionic prose (I admit that some of your opponents in this argument are sometimes posting in a not-very-friendly vein as well) but you're not addressing the 64 squares.  The analytical ball is in your court, and you're not doing anything to challenge the analyses put forward here that purport to refute your gambit.  Posting games won't do that, unless you say something like, "White's play in this game shows that such-and-such an attempted refutation doesn't actually refute the gambit; White has comp after move n because of X, Y and Z".  You have to talk about the position on the board and say what it is about that position that makes it theoretically OK for White; what continuations give White full comp; and so forth.

Or you don't have to do anything, and I will just close this thread, which has degenerated into antagonism without managing to shed any further light on this gambit than that already shed by the purported refutation. 

I'm not insisting that you go off and produce work product; that's way outside my ambit.  I'm just saying, either say something substantive to deal with the purported refutation or I'll close this thread.  This board is not a place for histrionics.  Do the chess world a favor and defend your gambit, or don't and that will be the end of this discussion because there will be no point in continuing.

P.S. If anybody besides Lev would care to come forward and show that the refutation put forward here isn't actually a refutation, that would be just fine as well.  But for heaven's sake let's make some progress.

P.P.S. I salute your creativity and your skill, Lev.  If your gambit proves to be unsound, your work still shows your talent and your interest in the game.

CraigEvans wrote on 03/14/11 at 20:34:00:


I didn't say that Black's practical chances here were about as much as those of a tossed coin landing on its edge.  I only said that when I have a good position I would never gamble on a move known to be unsound. 

From something Lev said, I thought that he was conceding that the line being debated is unsound but that the critical move was unlikely to come up.  Now however he appears to say that it's not unsound, but he won't say why. 

I don't think that continuing this thread will serve any useful purpose so long as it continues to consist of some people pointing to alleged flaws in Lev's idea and Lev refusing to address the chess of the matter while continuing to proclaim the correctness of his idea.   The critical move appears to be 9...Nc6; there may be others; I myself haven't attended closely to the discussion.   Lev, do you want a chance to respond to the chess of the alleged refutations before I shut down this thread?  If you don't come back with some chess ideas pretty soon, that's what I will do. You last post above looks to me like a big load of blather and an attempt to evade the chess of the question.

I already did mention 9...Nc6 in my article. The material went out to the editor-in-chief, Gary Gifford.
He is still putting UON #27 together, even though I submitted everything available, plus some extra revisions.

To say that I did not mention is lying, pure and simple. I do not like liars, given that I used to be executive editor of a student newspaper at Rutgers University-Newark. You, MNb, think my analysis is sloppy? I gave every known game extant in the line you and Craig suggest.

Regarding the other folks playing the Zilbermints Gambit, I have the following observations to make. First, BDGers are a well-connected community. They have read such books as Blackmar-Diemer Gambit II (1999); The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2011); and BDG World Magazine (1983-1998) all of which mentions my gambit and contains analyses on it. Furthermore, the German chess databases contain games with my gambit. Thus, my dear chap, BDGers have plenty of resources to draw on when researching the Zilbermints Gambit. How about Peter Leisebein's correspondence games? Peter Schuster? Frank Fritsche? And there are other games played by other players in correspondence and over-the-board-tournament play.

You say Zilbermints stands for crappy openings? Wrong! It stands for unorthodox openings, little-known lines. What is wrong with 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 ? Nothing! Even Schiller admits that of the entire Englund Gambit complex, this is the best line.
Well, I think that the Soller Gambit, 3...f6!?, offers good chances too. But that's my opinion.

What about 1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4! the Zilbermints Benoni? Nothing wrong with that, either. I have beaten strong players with it in over-the-board and blitz chess.

These are just a few examples of lines that can be used to win games. Well, maybe not at the World Championship level, since super-GMs are too conservative. However at club level and international tournament level, these openings can be used. I have seen games by Charles Diebert, who beat GMs, IMs and FMs in the 1980s and 1990s with the BDG.

Let me now turn to your silly criticism of blitz games. The point is, these are practice games. They are good for fleshing out the theory and potential moves in an opening. Do you know how many Grandmasters and other titled players do just that every day on the Internet Chess Club? Plenty! The prestigious magazine New In Chess regularly publishes important theoretical articles on various openings. Amid the practice games given are blitz games! So right there, that defeats your criticism. If GMs do the same thing I am doing, what is the problem?

I challenged people here on chesspublishing.com to play me on the Internet Chess Club without computer assistance. Only Pablo Schmidt and Patrick Schoupal had the courage and decency to accept the challenge.
Everyone else just got cold feet and shied away. Far too easy to hide behind an all-knowing computer than take the risk of being outprepared and forgetting critical lines! That's my opinion.

Why blitz? Well, blitz are thematic games. If you can find the best move in little time, imagine how you will perform in regular time control. That is why in my articles I give games from correspondence; regular over-the-board tournaments; and blitz. The combined games show the state of theory as it is available.

Wasn't it that long ago, in the 1970s, that the Budapest Gambit was considered unsound? Yet now it is a respectable opening, one that has Grandmasters as its practitioners. And did not Eric Schiller, back in 1987, consider 7...Nc6 as the 'refutation' of the BDG? Yet in his huge tome, Gambit Chess Openings, he cites the Zilbermints Gambit as an excellent was of developing pieces and attacking. Quite an interesting re-evaluation of opinion, don't you think?

You don't seem to read what I wrote, or you don't care. I said loud and clear, that I posted every extant game known to me with the Zilbermints Gambit (including 9...Nc6) and its derivatives (Clark Gambit, Leisebein-Zilbermints Gambit, etc). Were you reading, or do you need to go back to school to learn how to read?

Don't accuse me of deceit, you who are a deceiver yourself! I'm pretty upfront when I post every single game, won lost or drawn, according to variations. Having a problem finding lines? Look in the Index, which took me  several days to prepare! It's in there, arranged by chapter and variation, with the players' names.

You accuse me of abuse, but you hurl abuse yourself. Plenty of finger-pointing to go around, I'm sure. If anything, I respond to your comments and that of Craig Evans. You seem to think that there is an antidote to the ZGED, but there is not one. How is it that White wins the vast majority of the tournament and correspondence games with the Zilbermints Gambit (setting blitz aside for the moment)? Because the White player knows what he is doing, while his opponent does not.

Bottom line is that the Zilbermints Gambit is perfectly playable. Period.

Your game has 9...c6. My refutations all come after 9...Nc6. You have been unable to find anything to change the assessment. So 9...Nc6 0-1, unless black blunders.

Further, I agree with Markovich - there is a difference between "rolling the dice" and tossing a coin hoping for it to land on its edge. Playing this line after 9...Nc6 is akin to the latter.

These lines were posted five years ago. Unless your article mentions them, it is a poorly researched and written article which as MNb states, borders on deceit. The lines were given directly to you, for crying out loud. You have failed to find anything which makes this playable, not a single improvement. You keep on mentioning "improvements" and then 'cleverly' (or not so cleverly) discussing a completely different line.

If so many people over this vast cosmos played your line, then there would be thousands of games in it, Lev. Not 300, half of which (at least) are meaningless blitz games. And do you want to know a dirty little secret, as to why there are only 300 games? It's because nobody gives a 'plugged nickel' about a completely unsound obscure sideline in a relatively inferior defence to an unfavoured gambit as white. I would bet that most people who play "your" line don't have a clue who you are, and either deliberately or accidentally, discovered or stumbled into it themselves. And that is why the refutation has never been played - people care so little about "your" line that they dont even know it exists, or they think its so terrible that they can't be bothered to learn a refutation.

Sadly, what I genuinely believe is that most people of the few hundred who will ever read your article will see it as just another way of getting to mention your own name again and again. Another Zilbermints opening. Another claim to a mention in the history books. Another meaningless trappy blitz gambit with no theoretical value whatsoever, and an author who fails in five years to find a single way of repairing his line, and then writes an article about the opening where he neglects to mention the bust. The words "intellectual dishonesty" come to mind.

Any author worth his salt would have at least mentioned something along the lines of "The line 9...Nc6 10....... was proposed by x. A possible continuation is ... However there are no games available, and white needs to find some improvements to enhance his chances." At least you'd then mentioned it, and most of the flak coming your way would be avoided. With complete ignorance of a problem, your authorship is actually technically worse than that of Schiller et al - they were lazy and analytically sloppy, whilst you are deliberately misleading people to hide the true value of your line.

I think it is pointless me commenting on any post by you in future. You are abusive, do not listen to reason, and appear to be after nothing more than getting chess-fame by naming openings, usually after yourself. It is a shame that some of the excellent ideas and analysis you do come up with is completely overpowered by the nonsense and the abrasiveness of many of your posts, and the attacks you repeatedly launch at far more prolific and respected posters in this community.

However, should I get enough time, I would be amused to start a website which has as it's sole topic refutations to all of your lines. I would work so that when anyone typed Zilbermints into a search engine, my website was the first to appear, and before people got caught up in a world of dubious gambits and sloppy analyses they would get a simple, no-nonsense view on each and every line you name after yourself with a simple recipe against each one. Maybe I'd even recommend an early ...c6 to everyone! Why, anyone ever preparing for a tournament against you would have a one-stop shop for all their refutation needs! Maybe then you would start playing some decent openings and stop deceiving the chess-playing public? 

Gambit wrote on 03/14/11 at 12:48:50:


So this line does refute the Zilbermints Gambit (or whatever gambit is the subject, pardon me for not being exactly certain which one), but it isn't likely to come up?  Is that your point?

Play that way if you wish, but I personally, having a position not worse, would rather not play an unsound move.  With a significantly worse game I might do that, but never with White in the first several moves of the game.  White is White, for crying out loud, why should I throw that away on the chance my opponent won't play a good move?

Dear LDZ,

repeating all the old tired arguments ad nauseam doesn't save them from being invalid.

Gambit wrote on 03/13/11 at 21:42:57:

If you don't know the difference between present tense and present perfect tense you should go back to school. There you'll learn the difference in meaning between "nobody plays" and "nobody has played".

Gambit wrote on 03/13/11 at 21:42:57:

Then don't forget to analyse Craig Evans' (not mine; another silly little lie) line and to include it in your article. Or I'll call it deceit.

Dear MNb,

You did not say outright, but you implied by your earlier writings. This is what you wrote:

As far as I know nobody has played the lines suggested for Black in this thread. You should ask the players who lost those games why they did not try them. Am I supposed to read their minds?

So stop making inaccurate statements, MNb. As you can see, I deliberately underlined the key passages in your own statements. And perhaps it is you, MNb, not I, who should ask the losing players why they did not try the lines you and Craig Evans suggest.

My educated guess is that these players never checked this website. Also, many players do not know how to defend against the Zilbermints Gambit.
That is my opinion, based on over 300 extant games with the Zilbermints Gambit.

I have a list of many dozens of correspondence games played with the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG. Some of then were won by White, some by Black, and some were drawn. All these games are given in my articles. That includes games which are less than 30 moves long, where White lost. How about Sawyer - Just, corr. 1996, and Drueke-Sawyer, corr. 1996?

Contrary to what Craig Evans says here, I do not censor or edit anything. I give those games that are found in practice. This format is seen in Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook I (1992); BDG Keybook II (1999): Modern Chess Openings -15; and many other books and magazines.

You think you are so smart, MNb, try playing the Zilbermints Gambit yourself as White in correspondence. At least Peter Leisebein and other German players gave it an honest try in 2000 - 2007.
Leisebein even invented the Leisebein - Zilbermints Gambit, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 00 8 Qe2 Nc6 9 00 Nxd4 10 Kh1 . You, MNb, on the other hand, have not found anything... except nitpicking about this and that.
Then, when I counter that players do not play your recommended line, you whine about reading their minds.

I take the effort and time to analyze, find sources, and type up an article about this gambit. You, however, can do nothing but snipe, nitpick and criticize. Were the New York Times to give you advertising space, it is possible you would take the opportunity to trumpet  your so-called refutation
to the entire planet Earth.

Want to know something? No one really gives a plugged nickel about your so-called refutation. If you check all the sources combines or even read my articles, you will find that more people play my gambit than are aware of your proposed line. The Internet is a vast place. Your line is less than an amoeba in the infinity of the cyber-cosmos!

I posted every single known game with 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 here. You can easily look it up in the databases. While giving credit where it is due, there are no games with the line you suggest!! N-o-n-e. As we say in my native Russia, where none exist, do I have to suck them out of my finger?

The readers will make their own conclusions, thank you very much. Most likely, they will conclude that while not 100% perfect, the article is an honest and dedicated effort about the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG. And, in the absence of more detailed analyses in BDG books, probably, the best reference available.

CraigEvans wrote on 03/13/11 at 01:02:02:


Craig, I censored and edited nothing. The record is just that, based on the games played with 9...Nc6 in the Zilbermints Gambit. Not too many people play 9...Nc6 against the Zilbermints Gambit to begin with.
I can look up the games that do go that way.

Zilbermints - Kopiecki, 1st Blitz-Discussion-Match, 1993, Marshall Chess Club, NY.

Games 11 - 30: +18, -1, =1  Published in UON #25, October 2009.

Volker Drueke - Timothy Sawyer, corr. 1996 : 0-1
Sawyer - Just, corr. 1996: 0-1
Zilbermints - TimDC, ICC blitz, 2003: 1-0/12
Zilbermints - Kopiecki, Friday Rapids 2/23/01: 1-0/27.
Zilbermints - guest, ICC, 7/4/03: 1-0/19
Zilbermints - Kopiecki, 2 BDM, 2001/02, games 1, 3-11:  +9, -1, =0.

Zilbermints - WilsonBond, USCL, 2002: 0-1/50
Zilbermints - Colle, ICC blitz, 2002: 1-0/52
Zilbermints - Schoupal, BDG Match, ICC, 2005:        0-1/40

Zilbermints - Schoupal, BDG Match, ICC, 2005:        1-0/17

Zilbermints - Schoupal, BDG Match ICC, 2005: 1-0/51

Schuster - Skeels, corr. 2006: drawn

Luppi - Svacek, corres. 2000: 0-1, 25.

All these games are included in my articles.

Also, I repeatedly challenged people here to play me on Internet Chess Club, but most chickened out. Only Pablo Schmidt and Patrick Schoupal had the courage to accept the challenge. I won against both.

My challenge to play on ICC still stands. I wait for anyone to accept it. OTB play, no computer assistance.

I have written more articles than you, MNb.  I put in all the games that have been played with the ZGED. When players play the lines you suggest, then I will include these games. You said yourself, no one plays the lines you proposed.

Regarding Craig's line, I agreed with Arkhein that 12 Bf4 is better than 12 Bh4. Haven't you read that post?

The readers are given data of games and analyses from actual tournaments, both over-the-board and correspondence. No one is being deceived here. You are apt to criticize, but have done nothing to write an article of this magnitude. You think it is easy finding sources, analysing, writing, think again. No, MNb, you
are the one that is deceiving the readers. Instead, why don't you find a counter to the very line that you propose? Why don't you try playing my gambit in correspondence as White and see what results you get?

In his book, IM Christopher Scheerer thinks 9...c6 is a good answer. However, I show this opinion to be inaccurate based on numerous tournament and correspondence games. He also admits that White has a plus score in the games in his computer database.

So, MNb, that is my response. And yes, the Qd2 line is good too. But the Zilbermints Gambit is more fun and adventure!

Gambit wrote on 03/12/11 at 14:32:51:


No, that is the move order 10...Bd7 11.Rd1 h6 12.Bf4. But after 10...h6 11.Bf4 Black just plays 11...Bd6. And we saw above that 11.Be3 Bd6 was good for Black in Wollfelschneider - Behrendorf. And that 11.Bxf6 doesn't work either.

Gambit wrote on 03/12/11 at 14:32:51:


Well I am sure that the chess world will be deeply impressed by that.

But "trashy" is a juvenile insult, Lev.  A claim of refutation is correct; incorrect; or perhaps uncertain; that is all.  Moderate your speech or expect to see your posts deleted.

I never admitted jack, Craig. Don't put words into my mouth that I did not say. And yes, against an unprepared opponent, ZGED can be very effective. But the same is true of any opening, from the Anderssen, 1 a3, to the Queen's Gambit and beyond.
That is basically what you are saying.

I also analysed Arkhein's 12 Bf4 as being a bit better, since you have sacrificial possibilities on h6. The Second Zilbermints - Kopiecki Blitz-Discussion-Match of 2001/2002 never saw the move 12 Bf4, but rather 12 Bh4. Hence, I posted such games from practice as were played.

There is nothing wrong in using transpositions to get a favorable position, which what I did. Strong players do it all the time. And I, sir, am a Candidate Master with the United States Chess Federation. In blitz play, I am probably master-strength.

Now, to your criticisms.

The only embarrassing thing is that quite a few players still use ZGED in correspondence... and win with it! I posted some of these wins. And in correspondence, you get more time to analyze. Maybe even use a computer. If that is so, how come players like Leisebein, Fritsche and many others still win with the ZGED?

People still win with ZGED in OTB play as well. Or haven't you noticed that?

You can post your trashy so-called refutation all you like. It does not change the fact that people will still play the Zilbermints Gambit and win with it. And I, the gambit's inventor, will never admit that the gambit is refuted or unsound. Never.

You can try 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Ne4 Be7 13 Rd1 Bd7 as in Zilbermints - Colle, Internet Chess Club 3 0 rated blitz, 1-0/52, 2002.

Gambit wrote on 03/10/11 at 22:34:03:


Why 1-0? In the final position Black is actually winning.
Lev, what is White supposed to do after 10...h6 (instead of 10...Bd7 11.Rd1 h6)? If 11.Bf4 then 11...Bd6 and in the game 11.Be3 Bd6 also worked out very nicely for Black.

Gambit wrote on 03/10/11 at 22:23:52:

And hardly ever look for improvements for the defence.

Gambit wrote on 03/10/11 at 22:23:52:

We will wait for them then. But for how long? Another five years?

Gambit wrote on 03/10/11 at 22:23:52:

Exactly that has been tried by many authors, including the strongest GM's! What's more, it has helped them to find new attacking ideas as well. In fact it is a sort of hobby of mine to show, with silicon aid, that White has enough compensation after 1.e4 e5/c5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3. For this I am only interested in Black's best defences, not in bibblebabble about opponents who don't have a computer at hand.
I'd rather take over their false pretentions than your eternal "no matter if it's crap, in a game the opponent will not find the refutation anyway because he cannot use a computer" argument. Craig Evans should be flattered.

Gambit wrote on 03/10/11 at 22:23:52:

You are the author. You have to prove that those so-called refutations belong in that book indeed. In which respect you usually fail.

Your games prove zilch, Lev, except that you are a strong gambit player in blitz time control, something nobody disputes. Look for Black's best defence and show that White is doing OK even there. Then we are talking.
As long as you refuse to do that your articles and books are the ones that belong in that litter box.

CraigEvans wrote on 03/10/11 at 18:54:43:


Schiller? Ewww... He can't write worth crap. His books are full of factual errors, typos, mispellings, wrong dates, missing information, wrong analyses, etc. Good gracious! Schiller originally recommended (Unorthodox Openings, 1987) 7...Nc6 as the refutation of the BDG. Then, in 1993, I came up with the Zilbermints Gambit. Two years later, at the sidelines of the 1995 New York Open, I challenged him to a match. He accepted, but he never played the Euwe Defense! Instead, I had to drag him into the BDG by a transposition from the Caro-Kann. Our BDG games were tied, with 2 wins for each player. The last game was a French Defense, which he won. Schiller then claimed that the BDG was refuted. However, the fact is that the last game was not a BDG! The score was tied, 2-2, as far as BDG was concerned.

In my games, I give possible moves for the White player. Everything is based on extant games with the Zilbermints Gambit. These come from Internet Chess Club; correspondence; tournament practice; blitz matches, casual games... As of this writing, there are 317 extant games with the ZGED.

With increasing popularity, I shall publish a new edition of my book. Let me point out to my detractors that Lev D. Zilbermints is not Eric Schiller. I check my historical data; find games to back up my arguments; play games; and make sure there are no typos. Schiller cannot boast of that.

I agree with Arkhein's 12 Bf4 as the best move. In fact, I am using that move in a slightly different variation. So, I'll post lines later here. All we have seen here is that 12 Bh4? is a mistake.

Your opinions have been noted and will be addressed. I should point out however, that it is easy for you to sit at a computer, without a clock ticking, and throw out variations that supposedly refute this or that. But in a serious OTB tournament game, bereft of your precious Rybka, you would not stand a chance. All the more if you were to play me after you had played a couple of other games in 2-3 prior rounds.

Sheesh, I can turn this around by buying Rybka and saying supposed variation XYZ refutes the Danish Gambit, the Smith-Morra or Queen's Gambit! Which, my dear chap, is what you are doing. I'm just illustrating the false pretense of your argument.

I can, and will, post some games with ZGED here later on, just to illustrate the gambit is pretty much alive and kicking. So-called  refutations on the other hand, are so much trash in a stray cat's litter box. 

Gambit wrote on 03/10/11 at 16:50:49:


Lev may have written the book, but he seems to have written it in the style of Schiller, missing out the most important chapter. 

Rewrite it Lev - find some improvements which save white in this line (9...Nc6). You've had five years now. You're still two pawns down for hopes and traps.

SWJediknight wrote on 03/10/11 at 10:00:33:


I wrote the book on 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 line, my dear chap. Everyone else just contributed their own ideas.
And yes, 9...c6 does not solve Black's problems. I call it the "Waiting Out" approach, the most cowardliest one. As for the Gunderam Defense, 5...Bf5, I have played many times against it, and won.

Right now I am playing a couple of test correspondence games with the Zilbermints Gambit on a chess website. When they are done, I will post them here. Keep in mind that both me and my opponent are rated under 1400 in correspondence on that site. Naturally this affects the play. While I play my full 2100+ OTB strength, my opponent seems to be much weaker.

Will keep you posted.

I don't care much for Rybka or any of the chess engines, preferring to use my own genius. Just to show how ignorant computers can be, 11...h6 is a weakening move. After 12 Bf4 Black has a perennial weakness on h6, with sacrificial possibilities of Bxh6 always hanging in the air. Having said that, I should point out that Peter Leisebein used both the Zilbermints and Leisebein-Zilbermints Gambits to good effect in correspondence chess, where you have more time to think.

With regard to blitz, yes, these gambits can be a deadly weapon. But really, I use blitz only as a testing ground. In regular chess, I am lucky to get 1 or 2 games a year with the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe!