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.