You are right, 6...b6 looks reasonable.

Feuerstein has an even score versus Bobby Fischer. They played from 1950s  to 1971.
 
NM Arthur Feuerstein (2200) - Zilbermints (2134) 
Ridgewood, New Jersey 
6  December 2010
Bergen County Open, Round 5
 
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6  Here Feuerstein hesitated. He had not much luck with the dubious 3 f4?!
in most of the games we played before. After 3...f6! 4 ef6 Nxf6 Black has open lines and piece development for the pawn. Hence, Arthur played... 
 
3 Nf3 Nge7 
 
4 b3 

I call this Larsen's Variation, on account of its similarity to 1 b3, Larsen's Opening. 

4...Ng6 5 Qd5?! 
 
Here 5...d6! is the best move. If White plays 6 ed6 Bd6, then he risks being subjected to a dangerous attack from Black's better-developed pieces.


5...Qe7 6 Bb2 Nb4 7 Qd2 Nc6 8 Qe3 
 
Now 8...d6?!  9 ed6 Qxe3 10 fxe3 Bxd6 11 Bxg7 Rg8 12 Bf6 leads to a game where Black is two pawns down. He might be able to get one pawn back, but White will consolidate and keep the second pawn.


8...b6 9 h4 h5 10 a3 Bb7 11 Nbd2 000 12 a4
 
This is equal after 12...Re8 or 12...Qe6.
 
12...Nb4 13 000 Re8 14 Kb1 Nc6 15 Nc4 Rh6 16 Qg5 Qe6 17 g3 Be7 18 Qc1 Nce5 19 Bh3 Ng4 20 Nd4 Qf6 21 Rhf1 

Instead, 21 f3! N4e5 22 Nb5! leads to a winning advantage for White.

21...Ng6-e5 22 f3 Nxc4 23 fxg4 Qg6 24 g4?? 

Here the immediate 24 gh5! wins a piece.

24...Nxb2 25 gh6? Last chance for advantage is 25 Qxb2 Rhh8 26 Nb5 Kb8 27 Bf5 Qc6 28 Bxd7 +-.

25...Nxd1! 26 Qxd1 Bd6 27 Nf5 gh6 28 Nxd6+ cxd6 29 Qd3 Be4 30 Qc4+ Kb8 31 Bxd7 Rd8 32 Qf7 Qg3! 33 Bb5 DRAW

The reason I endorsed 4...h6 is because someone in a tournament game  finally found the critical line. The game Juan Tica - Zilbermints, Ridgewood, 2010, went 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Nc3 Ng6 5 Bg5 Be7
6 Bxe7 Qxe7 7 Nd5 Qd8 8 Qd2 00 9 Qg5 Nce7! and although I managed to escape with a draw much later, clearly an improvement was needed! Then again, my opponent admitted he looked up the critical line on this website!

Conversely, if people do not know where to look, they will not find this line. This was the first game with this line in all the 17 years that I have been playing the Zilbermints Gambit.

Just saying...

Against the 'Gelb Hasenfuss' line, 4 Nc3, I prefer 4...h6! This prevents any Bg5 tricks by White that usually occur after 4...Ng6 5 Bg5 Be7 etc.

Bucker endorsed 4...h6! as a reasonable alternative.

TN wrote on 10/23/10 at 06:15:37:


Big deal. It is still a game. Material is equal and Black can probably equalize with precise play. This cannot be said about 7...Qa5?

kylemeister wrote on 10/22/10 at 20:13:04:


Don't make me laugh! I told Nick deFirmian that he was mistaken, years ago! The correct move is 7...Qc5! Now the 8 a3 trick will not work, because from the c5-square the Nc3 is attacked! Thus, 9 b4 will not work. It works on 7...Qa5? but not on 7...Qc5!

DeFirmian refused to correct the typo even after I pointed out the analytical error.

I wrote the book on Zilbermints Gambit theory, mister. I, of all people, should know how the Kopiecki Attack (6...Qb4!) is played. Of course, you can ask Edward Kopiecki himself. He lives in New York. However, Kopiecki will confirm what I said: that 7...Qc5 is the correct move!

That might be so, TN. However, it is what was played.
Now, to answer your inquiry, 6 Nc3 Nce5?! is flawed.

After 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 Ng6 5 Bg3 Qe7 6 Nc3 and now:

6...Nce5? 7 Nxe5 Nxe5 8 Nd5! Qd6 9 Qd4! f6 10 000! with advantage.

6...Qb4! the Kopiecki Attack, proposed by New York candidate master Edward Kopiecki. Analyses is extremely deep, complex and detailed. Black hits the b2-pawn while pinning the Nc3 with the Queen.

Sample lines:

(a) 7 Qd2 Qxb2 8 Rb1 Qa3 and now;

a1) 9 Nd5 Qxa2 10 Rd1 Qb2! 11 Nc7+ Kd8 

a11) 12 Nxa8?? Bb4! winning
a12) 12 Nd5      Nb4! 13 Ne3 Bc5! =+

a2)  9 Nb5 Qxa2 transposing to a1)

a3) 9 e4 Bb4! with compensation

b) 7 Rb1 Qa5 8 Qd5 Bb4! with compensation

b1) 7 Rb1 Qa5 8 a3 Bxa3! 9 Ra1 Bxb2! 10 Rxa5 Bc3+  11 Nd2 Bxa5  12 e4 Nxe5 13 Nxe5 Nxe5 with full compensation for the Queen. This is confirmed by BOOKUP 2000 computer analyses.

Brian McCarthy (2389 USCF) - Zilbermints (1937)
Novag Grand Prix
Westfield, New Jersey, USA
10 December 1994
 
ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT
 
1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 The Klein Defense, popularized by Senior Master Erez Klein.
 
4...Ng6 5 Bg3 Qe7 6 c3 Nce5 7 e3 d6 8 Be2 Be6 9 Nbd2 Bd5 10 Nb3 Bc6 11 Nd4 Nxf3+ 12 Bxf3 Bxf3 13 Qxf3 00 14 000 Kb8 15 Qd5 Qf6 16 Qb3 Ka8 17 Nb5
Kb8 18 Nd5 Ka8 19 Qc4 Qe7 20 Rd2 h5 21 h4 c6 22 Rhd1 d5 23 Qa4 Qc5 24 Nb3 Qb6 25 e4 Bc5 26 ed cd
27 Nxc5 Qxc5 28 Qd4 Qxd4 29 Rxd4 Ne7 30 Kb1 b5
31 a4 a6 32 ab ab 33 Rb4 Kb7 34 Rxb5+ Kc6 35 Ra5 Ra8 36 Rxa8 Rxa8 37 Be5 Nf5 38 g3 Re8 39 Bf4 Re4 40 b3? Nxh4! 41 Rh1 Ng2 42 Rxh5 Nxf4 43 gf4 Rxf4 
44 Rh2 Rf3 45 Kc2 g5 46 Rg2 f6 47 Kd2 Kd6 48 Kc2
Ke5 49 b4 Kd6 50 Kd2 Kc6 51 Kc2 Kb5 52 Kd2 Kb4
53 Rg4+ Kb5 54 Rg2 DRAWN.
 
This game is in MCO-14 and MCO-15.

Well played, Lev. I could only score 7.5/12 with conventional openings.

You bet 7 Qd2 is complicated! It took me three months to analyze and memorize all the variations, back in 1994. Yes, there have been a few improvements found over the years, mostly for Black. I will share some games later.

Stefan, you refer to "Englund Gambit" in your post. Kaissiber #5 however, talks about the Zilbermints Gambit.  This is  where the position above comes from. 

I remember the analyses quite well, even after 10 years! In fact, I still have copies of the original analyses which I mailed you.

Quite frankly, I think that your maneuver Nd8-Nb7-Nc5 looks interesting, but will take too long. If Black moves the Nc6, White will move the Nf3, playing ...f4! with advantage. Can you give us some lines with your Nd8-Nb7-Nc5 to counter this White plan?

It doesn't surprise me at all that no White blitz player has found this line (as far as 8.Qd2!) in the Zilbermints Gambit.  But objectively speaking I don't like the resulting positions for Black- Black is struggling to regain the pawn and White is the one who is attacking.  Yes, Black has good drawing chances, but isn't the idea of this kind of opening to generate unbalanced play?

When I looked at the line, I concluded that I preferred the positions Black got after 4...h6, with a sample continuation of 5.e4 Ng6 6.Qd5 Bb4 7.Bd2 0-0 8.0-0-0 Re8.   This position looks playable to me, Black regains the pawn, and White has an edge as the kingside attack should be faster than Black's queenside attack, but Black should have some chances.

One line which looks critical to me is 4.Bf4 Ng6 5.Bg3 (I think Black's practical chances are reasonable after 5.e3 d6 6.Bb5 Bd7) 5...Qe7 6.Nc3 Qb4 7.Rb1 Qa5 8.Qd5 Bb4 9.Qxa5 Bxa5.  White has succeeded in swapping queens and keeping the extra pawn- although the shattered pawn structure devalues the pawn plus.  Fritz assesses this position as over +1.0 of a pawn better for White, which seems excessive- it probably isn't applying enough weight to structural considerations. 

Of course 7.Qd2 and 7.a3 are also critical- but they also lead to tremendous complications.

The more analyses, the more it is clear that Black gets his pawn back.

1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Nc3 Ng6 5 Bg5 Be7 6 Bxe7 Qxe7 7 Nd5 Qd8 8 Qd2 00! 9 Qg5 Nce7 10 Nxe7 Qxe7 11 Qxe7 Nxe7 12 Nd4 Ng6 ( 12 000 Ng6 13 e3 Re8 14 Rd5 c6 15 Rd5 b6 and the pawn falls) 13 Nb5 c6 =

Now instead of 12 Nd4 or 12 000, it is suggested that 12 Rd1 be played. This is unsatisfactory, since after 12...Ng6 13 g3 Re8 14 Rd5 c6 15 Rd5 b6, the pawn falls again.

Let me now address the subvariation  8...00! 9 Qg5 Nce7 10 Nxe7 Qxe7 11 Qxe7 Nxe7 12 Nd4 Ng6 13 Nb5 c6 14 Nd6 which is claimed to be good for White. After 14...Nxe5! Black threatens ...Ng4, hitting the weak f2-pawn. Certainly White cannot play 15 00? Ng4! 16 Ne4 d5! which is good for Black. He must defer Castling, giving Black a critical tempo. 

Thus, one  sample line might go 14 Nd6 Nxe5 15 f3 f5 16 e3 Rf6 17 000 Kf8 18 Nxc8 Rxc8 19 f4 Ng4 20 Rxd7 Rf7 21 Rxf7 Kxf7 22 Bc4 Kf6
23 Kd2 Rd8+ 24 Bd3 c5 with good chances of regaining the pawn.

Another line might go 14 Nd6 Nxe5 15 h3 f5! 16 000 Rd8 17 e3 b5 with ...Nf7 coming up. 

I don't think anyone will go that far in a tournament game.

Definitely some interesting stuff here. I don't think 3...Nge7 is so bad

Andrew

Günter Amann wrote on 03/13/09 at 09:09:41:

Some facts:
(i) Kaissiber 5 (1998) covered 3...Nge7 on 5 pages, part of a longer article of 13 pages on 1.d4 e5. My book "Englund Gambit" had given 3...Nge7 4.Bf4 Ng6 5.Bg3 as a refutation of Nge7. I still believe that 4.Bf4 is plausible and maybe as good as 4.Nc3. You are right to say that White can do without analysis of 4.Bf4. But the text was also meant to give instructions for Black, and so the tactical mess 4.Bf4, which dominated Zilbermints' practice, could not be ignored. 

(ii) According to you, "this simple variation [4.Nc3 ... 7.Qd2 ...9.Qc3 +-] was not mentioned" in my article. However, my article did have the following: "4.Nc3 Ng6 (h6!?) 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nd5 (1-0, 56) Bruch - Gerstel, Ludwigshafen 1985 (thematic tournament)." Close enough, I believe. I didn't like 4...Ng6 and suggested 4...h6!? instead. 

(iii) My article mentioned that Lev Zilbermints preferred to play Nge7 in blitz, continuing: "3...Nge7 seems well suited at least for this kind of chess". 

(iv) The next issue, Kaissiber 6 (1998), reserved one page for two readers' reactions on 3...Nge7. Here Klaus Petri gave the tactical detail which you mention: 6...Qxe7 (on the same page 6...Ngxe7 was discussed) 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.Qd2 Ngxe5?? 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.Qc3 [+-]. Mr. Petri even analyzed my 4...h6!? to which he replied 5.a3 Ng6 6.Qd5 (now I'd say that 6...d6 gives Black a shade of compensation). 

(v) More letters on the topic were published and discussed in Kaissiber 10 (1999), p.24f. Two readers (Oganian, Babakhanov) tried to refute our earlier analyses. They recommended 8.Qd3. In my reply, I explained why 8.Qd2! was stronger: White has the additional threat of 9.Qg5, to exchange the queens - which gambit players fear more than hell. And I gave: 8.Qd2 h6 9.Qc3 0-0 10.0-0-0 Re8 11.h4 Ngxe5 12.Nxe5 Rxe5 13.f4 Re8 14.Rd3 Kh8 15.g4 +-, when h7-h6 becomes a fatal weakness! A modern computer likes 11.g4 even more.

(vi) Kaissiber 11 (1999) published a letter by Lev Zilbermints, questioning the strength of 4.Nc3 h6 5.h4 (Oganian/Babakhanov). 

(vii) In Kaissiber 12 (1999) Bent Larsen wrote that his first reaction on 3...Nge7 had been positive, thinking soething like: "probably relatively best". But he continued that his enthusiasm faded away when he found 8.Qd2!. On the "emergency solution" (Larsen) 4...h6 Larsen recommended 5.Qd3 (and agreed with LDZ that 5.h4 Ng6 6.Qd5 Qe7 7.Qe4 Qb4 wasn't dangerous). 

Kaissiber wasn't misleading its readers by neglecting 4.Nc3, as you apparently suggest. Nowhere else you'll find more on 4.Nc3. In issue 10 I wrote that 4.Nc3! was a refutation of 3...Nge7. Today I am not so sure. Take Larsen's 4.Nc3 h6 5.Qd3, for example: 5...Ng6 6.a3 Bc5 7.Nd5 0-0 8.Qc3 Be7 9.Be3 d6 10.exd6 cxd6, opening the c-file. Black's strategy is dubious, but not ridiculous.

Gambit wrote on 03/13/09 at 05:45:14:


Read once again...

FightingDragon wrote on 03/12/09 at 16:05:28:


Just a simple typo, "m" instead of "n".

He most probably would. Who cares if your opponent is a man or a woman? You just play chess!

Here you see my gambit being played by titled players:

WGM Elina Daemilian (White)
IM Gilbert Grape (Black)

Internet Chess Club
3 0 rated Blitz
9 December 2004

Zilbermints Gambit (by transposition)

1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 Ng6 5 e3 00 6 Nc3 Bc5 7 Bc4 Nxf4 8 exf4 d6 9 00 Bg4 10 h3 Bxf3 11 Qxf3 dxe5 12 Rad1 Qh4 13 Ne4 Bb6 14 f5 Nd4 15 Qg4 Qxg4 16 hxg4 Nxc2 17 Rd7 Rad8 18 Rfd1 Nd4 19 Rxd8 Rxd8 20 Kf1 Kf8 21 Ng5 f6 22 Nxh7 Ke7 23 f4 Rh8 24 fxe5 Rxh7 25 exf6+ Kxf6 0-1

Full disclosure: The game actually started out 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Bc5 4 Bf4 Nge7 5 e3 Ng6 6 Nc3 00 7 Bc4 Nxf4 8 exf4 d6