I should point out that this "evidence" of yours, Craig, is one thing in analyses, but not so easy to remember in over-the-board matches. There is only so much the human memory can remember.

In my opinion, this forum, chesspublishing.com, is organized under U.S. laws. Thus, it comes under the protection of our Constitution.  Anyone, even a foreigner, using this forum, must  respect the laws of the land in which it is based, the United States of America.

I personally think President Bush is the stupidest president we ever had, but that's another story altogether. Reagan and Bill Clinton were better than Dubya.

The Zilbermints Gambit will survive all attempts to refute it. I will see to that.

Dear Craig,

Last I looked,  this country had freedom of speech.  Thus, for you to request that  administrators delete my postings or anyone else's for that matter, is highly unethical, illegal, and contrary to the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Your response merely confirms what I thought: You are avoiding my challenge. Sure, you may have  lines  against openings... however, when it comes to the ZGED, you are just too afraid to  face me over the board. 

Who's being childish? Not me, that's for sure.  The record shows that I made an honest effort  to arrange a match with you at a longer time control.  You avoided the match  time and time again.

Let the people make their own conclusions.  You remind me of Staunton who avoided playing Morphy 
under every excuse.

You are so confident  computers can help you out, Craig. But listen, when you sit down to play at a tournament, you never know what opening your opponent will play. For example, you prepare for a Scotch, and get a Sicilian Defense instead.  Plus, you can't use a computer  to help you against your opponent when you sit across each other. 

Also, has it occurred to you that memorizing a lot of analyses requires a photographic memory?  Humans are fallible and can forget the analyses. This has happened numerous times, even in master games.

Obviously, Craig, you don't want to put your $$ where your mouth is.  You  said blitz didn't mean anything, so OK, I proposed a longer time control. But now you avoid  even a longer time control. What does that show?

That you, Craig Evans, do not have the courage to test your so-called 'refutations' against the BDG , Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense  over-the-board?


That is what it sounds like, according to the facts. 

My 2 SRD thought: I have always found it hard to believe, that Bc8-g4xf3 is the refutation of the BDG. In addition to his lead in development White gets the pair of bishops in an almost open position, while f7 remains weak. These are additional positional concessions Craig was talking about.

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7 Qxf3 c6 8 g4 Qxd4 9 Be3 Qd6 10 g5 Nfd7 11 Nb5 Qb4+ 12 c3 Qxb2 13 Rd1 and now not cxb5, but Na6 looks fine for black.

Ne5 is in the air, and I don't see any "attack" for white.  I don't have Fritz or another strong comp, but I'm sure they would love the position for black.  -/+

8 g4 is ridiculous; I can't believe it for white.  8 Qf2 is probably better, but I don't think white has the play he needs for the pawn.  But even then, 8 Qf2 Nd5! 9 Bc4 e6 10 O-O Qf6!  or 9 Nxd5 Qxd5.   

What say you?
Nex, former BDG enthusiast.

Arkhein, I understand your points; however, to compare the BDG as white to the Exchange Ruy Lopez as black is farsical. Black's only weakness in the latter is doubled pawns on the c-file, with white having an extra central pawn. As you noted, he has the bishop pair and dynamic play to compensate, and usually the relinquishing of one of these is enough to either force the un-doubling of his pawns (for example, in the 5...Bd6 lines, white often plays Nd2-c4xd6 to get rid of the bishop pair, thus undoubling black's pawns, and in the other lines, when black clamps down on the centre with ...c5, white usually has to make positional concessions himself which allow black to free himself. Even then, if black can blockade the kingside in a king and pawn endgame to prevent white creating a passed pawn here, then even here the endgame is drawn. With bishops/rooks/knights/queens on the board, black's position is not losing despite the doubled pawns.

However, when you are material down, if the other side is not forced to give this material back (and, I don't believe in the BDG white can force the regain of his pawn), then ultimately I believe they are winning with correct play. I don't believe an attack is enough, on it's own, to justify a material defecit unless that attack, by force, can regain the material or force some positional concessions. 

That said, looking at one of the old threads, one of the critical lines for the gambit seems to arise in the 5...Bg4 line, where black willingly parts with the bishop pair in return for exchanging off a kingside piece. 

So, after 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6, the consensus seems to be that 8.g4 is the move. I agree with Scholar, here, that 8...Qxd4 must be critical - for two pawns, white should either have a knockout blow or a way to force the regaining of at least one pawn, since no endgame two pawns down should be tenable. Black, notably, still has no weaknesses in his position.

9.Be3 is assumably the follow-up to grabbing the pawn on d4, and now I don't have a board in front of me so it would be folly for me to try and analyse anything too deeply (as pointed out by people before, sometimes the analysis is sloppy, especially on these sorts of lines, and I don't want to be guilty of this crime). However, Scholar's suggestion of 9...Qd6 10.g5 Nd7 11.Bd2 Ne5!? is probably one line worth looking at. And 9...Qd8 shouldn't be bad, white can drum up some compensation but for two pawns, as Scholar obseved, he needs more.

So, 8.Be3, the old classical line, is where we need to direct our attention in the 5...Bg4 lines, are we agreed?

I'm not interested in this opening from either side, but I have to say that if I were, the disrespectful and often venomous tone in which debate on it frequently seems to be conducted would drive me away PDQ!