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...