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.
Pages: [1] 
BDG: Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense (Read 121247 times)
