(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › d-Pawn Specials › Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
(Moderators: CraigEvans, Bibs)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe (Read 27082 times)
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #28 - 07/12/09 at 21:49:28
Post Tools
Here's another one:
Franzoso-Parisi (Cr. C.I. 769)
1. d4 e5 2.dxe Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.e6 d6 13.exf6 a6 14.Rb3 Qxa2 15.Nc3 Qa5 16.e4 Qc5 17.Rxb7 Nb4 18.Nd5 Nxc2+ 19.Kd1 Ng4 20.Rb3 Nxf2+ 21.Ke2 Nxh1 22.Rc3 Qf2+ 23.Kd1 Nd4 24.Qd3 Bg4+ 25.Nf3 Rb8 26.Rxc7 Rb1+ 27.Rc1 Nxf3 28.Rxb1 Ne5+ 29.Be2 Nxd3 30.Bxg4 Qe1+ 31.Kc2 Qxb1+ 32.Kxb1 Ne5 0-1

This can be found at http://web.mclink.it/MC5757/teoria/unorthodox_4.htm

But both sides play sub-optimally (12.Ne4, 12...fxe6 for instance).  I think 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 a6 is an improvement over the old 11...h6, but the position is still pretty difficult for Black with the king in the centre.   One correspondence game (which looks like both players used Fritz rather heavily) continued with 12.Rb3 Qxa2 13.Be2 Qa1+ 14.Bd1 Qa5 15.Qxa5 Nxa5 16.Ng5 Nh6 17.Rh3 Rf8 18.Nxh7 Rg8 19.g4 and White was better, though both sides may have improvements.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1396
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #27 - 07/12/09 at 16:54:10
Post Tools
CraigEvans wrote on 07/12/09 at 12:18:52:
Tony, don't waste your breath. The lack of response means that we are right, and he will deflect attention onto other lines hoping people forget the refutations provided.

8.Nd5 is well-publicised now and is a clear way to a large advantage against the Englund. I wish this wasn't so, as I would like to play this myself as black, but either 8...Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 or 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Qxa2 10.Rd1 Kd8 11.e4 or 11.e4 are disgusting for black.

In the main line Englund Gambit, 10.Rc3 gives white a very small edge. It's a durable edge, and it's an edge, but with solid play black can probably hold. Of course, it's a game of chess, and both sides have their chances - just a few more to white... but I wouldn't be terrified of black's position, if this were the best white could do (looking at 10...Qd5 11.Bf4!? Qxd1+ 12.Kxd1 Nge7 13.e4 b6, I find it hard to believe white has any advantage due to his weak pawn structure, and in an endgame black is in no danger) then the Englund Gambit would be a lot stronger than it is.

11.e4!? is interesting, but after 11...Qxe4+ 12.Re3 Qd5, white has compensation but again I would find it hard to claim an advantage - I think black can return the pawn at some point to reach equality. Of course, without specific continuations it is hard to really assess, but I see nothing too terrifying.

10.Bxc3! has been played more times, has a very good score for white and, for what it's worth, is the computer's choice. Black has to defend against e6 thrusts, the bishop is on it's natural diagonal, the Rb3 exerts pressure on the b-file as well as, in some lines, threatening to swing over to the k-side. White's lead in development is threatening. When I've played this in games as black, it is this which has worried me a lot more than 10.Rxc3. Of course, this is all a moot point, since it is 8.Nd5 which completely refutes black's play, and therefore the choice of two captures down a less-advantageous route is completely irrelevant.  Wink


Maybe not. After 8 Nd5 we have the following games:

[Event "FRA corr"]
[Site "France"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Aymard,Michel"]
[Black "Bordino,Jean Christophe"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5 Ba5  9.e4 Nge7 10.Bc4 0-0 11.0-0 Ng6 12.Nf6+ gxf6 13.Bxa5 Nxa5 14.exf6 Nxc4 15.Ng5 Rd8 16.Qh5 Kf8  17.Qxh7 Nce5 18.f4 Qc5+ 19.Kh1 Ke8 20.fxe5 Qf8 21.Rf5 b6 22.Rd1 Ba6 23.Rd4 c5 24.Rd2 Bc4  25.a4 Be6 26.Rf1 Nxe5 27.Qh5 Nc4 28.Nxe6 dxe6 29.Rxd8+ Rxd8 30.Qe2 Nd2 31.Rd1 Qh6 32.Qb5+ Kf8  33.Qe2 Qxf6 34.e5 Ne4 35.Re1 Qxe5 36.Qf3 Rd2 37.Rf1 Qf5 38.Qxf5 exf5 39.Rc1 Nc3 40.h3 Ne2  41.Ra1 Rxc2 0-1

[Event "GER-ch U25"]
[Site "Willingen"]
[Date "2007.05.26"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Tiemann,Tobias"]
[Black "Sieker,Roland"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Bxa5 Qxa5+ 10.c3 a6 11.e4 Nge7 12.Qb3 0-0 13.Nxe7+ Nxe7 14.Bc4 h6 15.0-0 Ng6 16.Rbd1 c6  17.Rfe1 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Qxe5 19.Re3 b5 20.Be2 d6 21.Qa3 c5 22.Bxb5 axb5 23.Qxa8 Bg4 24.Qd5 Bxd1  25.Qxd1 Ra8 26.Qd2 Qe6 27.Re2 Qc4 28.Qb2 Ra4 29.f3 Qd3 30.Qd2 Qc4 31.Qb2 b4 32.cxb4 Rxb4  33.Qd2 Rb6 34.Kf2 Qb5 35.Qc3 Qb4 36.Qxb4 Rxb4 37.Rc2 Ra4 38.Ke3 Kf8 39.Ke2 Ke7 40.Kd3 Ke6  41.Ke2 f5 42.exf5+ Kxf5 43.Rd2 Ke5 44.g3 d5 45.h4 d4 46.Rc2 Kd5 47.Kd1 d3 0-1

[White "Schrenk,Robert"]
[Black "Bildt,Thomas"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Bf4 Qe7 4.Nf3 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5 Bxd2+  9.Qxd2 Qxa2 10.Rc1 Kd8 11.Qg5+ Nge7 12.Nxe7 Nxe7 13.Qxg7 Ng6 14.Ng5 Ke7 15.Nxh7 Qa5+ 16.c3 Qxe5 
17.Qxe5+ Nxe5 18.Ng5 d5 19.e3 f6 20.f4 fxg5 21.fxe5 Ke6 22.c4 c6 23.cxd5+ Kxd5 24.g3 Be6  25.Bg2+ Kxe5 26.e4 Rad8 27.0-0 Kd6 28.Rf6 Rdf8 29.Rcf1 Rxf6 30.Rxf6 Ke5 31.Rg6 Rg8 32.Rh6 a5 
33.Rh7 b5 34.Re7 Rg6 35.Kf2 a4 36.h4 gxh4 37.gxh4 a3 38.h5 Rh6 39.Bh3 Kd6 40.Bf5 Kxe7 41.Bg6 a2 0-1

Regarding 10 Bxc3! the chesslive.de database gives the following statistics:

White won 22
Black won 12
Drawn      13

____________

Total 47 games, 1966-2005


  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 640
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #26 - 07/12/09 at 15:40:06
Post Tools
Wow, this junk is still being discussed here ?! Some things never change. Good to see the old names still at it. Kudos.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #25 - 07/12/09 at 12:18:52
Post Tools
Tony, don't waste your breath. The lack of response means that we are right, and he will deflect attention onto other lines hoping people forget the refutations provided.

8.Nd5 is well-publicised now and is a clear way to a large advantage against the Englund. I wish this wasn't so, as I would like to play this myself as black, but either 8...Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 or 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 Qxa2 10.Rd1 Kd8 11.e4 or 11.e4 are disgusting for black.

In the main line Englund Gambit, 10.Rc3 gives white a very small edge. It's a durable edge, and it's an edge, but with solid play black can probably hold. Of course, it's a game of chess, and both sides have their chances - just a few more to white... but I wouldn't be terrified of black's position, if this were the best white could do (looking at 10...Qd5 11.Bf4!? Qxd1+ 12.Kxd1 Nge7 13.e4 b6, I find it hard to believe white has any advantage due to his weak pawn structure, and in an endgame black is in no danger) then the Englund Gambit would be a lot stronger than it is.

11.e4!? is interesting, but after 11...Qxe4+ 12.Re3 Qd5, white has compensation but again I would find it hard to claim an advantage - I think black can return the pawn at some point to reach equality. Of course, without specific continuations it is hard to really assess, but I see nothing too terrifying.

10.Bxc3! has been played more times, has a very good score for white and, for what it's worth, is the computer's choice. Black has to defend against e6 thrusts, the bishop is on it's natural diagonal, the Rb3 exerts pressure on the b-file as well as, in some lines, threatening to swing over to the k-side. White's lead in development is threatening. When I've played this in games as black, it is this which has worried me a lot more than 10.Rxc3. Of course, this is all a moot point, since it is 8.Nd5 which completely refutes black's play, and therefore the choice of two captures down a less-advantageous route is completely irrelevant.  Wink
  
"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
FacebookTwitterYouTube  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1396
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #24 - 07/12/09 at 02:40:10
Post Tools
Really, SWJ? How come then that after 10 Rxc3! White has scored 3/3 games? I recently played an Englund Gambit specialist. He is the editor of Atlantic Chess News, my state's chess magazine. I defeated
him in the same line, with 10 Rxc3!

After 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5 Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Rb1 Qa3 8 Rb3 Qa5 9 a3 Bxc3 10 Rxc3! what is the best move for Black here?

Zilbermints-Ferrero, Branchburg 2009, went 11 Bf4!? Qxd1 12 Kxd1 Nge7 13 e4 += 1-0/53.

Personally, I like 11 e4! as in Zielinski-Pokojski, Polish U18 champ, 2002. 

I will post other responses later.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #23 - 07/12/09 at 02:14:50
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 07/11/09 at 00:40:40:
I have been away for several days due to medical reasons. Having checked out of the hospital...


I hope your health is good, dear chessfriend.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #22 - 07/11/09 at 22:27:08
Post Tools
I would be happy to defend the 10.Rxc3 line of the Englund Gambit as Black.  At worst White just gets a small edge in a murky position IMHO, similar to after 10.Bxc3.  More critical is 8.Nd5.

I cannot believe that Black gets an edge after 3...Nge7 4.Bf4 Ng6 5.Bg3 Qe7 6.Nc3 Qb4, I'm afraid.  Most critical is probably 7.a3 Qxb2 8.Nd5 Kd8 (this is already looking similar to the critical 8.Nd5 lines following 3...Qe7) and White can plunge into the complications after 9.e6, or probably have a decent edge after 9.e3- although I don't think Black is without chances in either case.

It's worth noting that I initially preferred the continuation 7.Rb1 Qa5 8.Qd5 Bb4 9.Qxa5 Bxa5 but a discussion on another thread with Stefan Bucker, in which the analysis was taken a lot further, suggested that Black may end up with decent structural compensation for the pawn, regardless of Fritz's insistence on the contrary. 

However I think 4.Nc3 is the way for White to go.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1830
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #21 - 07/11/09 at 21:49:19
Post Tools
What about 4. Nc3? You haven't addressed any of the analysis posted in this thread.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1396
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #20 - 07/11/09 at 00:40:40
Post Tools
I have been away for several days due to medical reasons. Having checked out of the hospital, I would like to give a few games concerning the Englund Gambit:


[Event "Second Annual Eastern Intercol"]
[Site "Philadelphia PA USA"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[White "Zilbermints, Lev"]
[Black "Mucerino, Joseph"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2075"]
[BlackElo "1876"]
[ECO "A40"]
[Round "?"]

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Rb1 Qa3 8. Rb3 Qa5 9. a3 Bxc3 10. Rxc3 Qd5 11. Bf4 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1 Nge7 13. e3 Nd5 14. Rd3 Nxf4  15. exf4 b6 16. Rc3 Bb7 17. Bd3 h6 18. Be4 O-O-O 19. Kc1 Ne7 20. Bxb7+ Kxb7 21. Rd1 Rhe8 
22. g4 Rh8 23. Rcd3 Kc8 24. Re3 h5 25. h3 hxg4 26. hxg4 a6 27. Ng5 Rhf8 28. f5 f6  29. exf6 gxf6 30. Ne4 Nc6 31. f4 Rf7 32. Rh3 Rg8 33. Rh4 Rgg7 34. c3 Na5 35. Rg1 Nc4  36. Rg3 Nxa3 37. Rh6 Nc4 38. Rxf6 Re7 39. Rf8+ Kb7 40. f6 Rh7 41. fxe7 Rxe7 42. g5 Rxe4 
43. g6 Re1+ 44. Kc2 d5 45. g7 Re2+ 46. Kd1 1-0

[Event "POL-ch U18"]
[Site "Bartkowa"]
[Date "2002.01.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Zielinski,Przemyslaw"]
[Black "Pokojski,Patryk"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Rb3 Qa5 9.a3 Bxc3 10.Rxc3 Qd5 11.e4 Qxe4+ 12.Be2 Nge7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Bd3 Qd5 15.Bc4 Qe4 16.Re1 Qg4  17.h3 Qh5 18.g4 Qxh3 19.Ng5 Qh6 20.Rh3 Qg6 21.Bd3 f5 22.exf6 Qxf6 23.Bxh7+ Kh8 24.Bd3+ Kg8 25.Rf3 Nf5 26.Rxf5 Qd6 27.Rxf8+  1-0


These two games should illustrate the value of 10 Rxc3! over the regular 10 Bxc3. My point is that the c7-square is pressured and the Nc6 cannot move for quite awhile. That is first.

Second, with regard to the Zilbermints Gambit, Black has an edge there in the 4 Bf4 line. This is because after 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 4 Bf4 Ng6 the most common move is 5 Bg3, removing the Bishop from danger. I almost never see 5 e3 or 5 g3. Now, after
5 Bg3 Qe7 6 Nc3 Qb4! the difference is obvious: White's Bg3 cannot return to the Queenside.

While I do not play the Charlick-Hartlaub Gambit often, I should point out that after 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 d6 3 Nf3 Bg4 4 Bg5 Qd7 is OK for Black.
Below is a game between two masters. Black could have drawn, but blundered in the endgame.

[Event "HUN-chT 0304"]
[Site "Hungary"]
[Date "2003.09.28"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Restas,Peter"]
[Black "Dombai,Istvan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Bg5 Qd7 5.Nbd2 h6 6.Bf4 Nc6 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e3 0-0-0 10.Be2 Nf6 11.0-0 Qb4 12.c3 Qxb2 13.Nd4 Bxe2 14.Qxe2 Qxc3 15.Nxc6 Rxd2 16.Nxa7+ Kb8 
17.Nb5 Qb4 18.Qe1 Rb2 19.Qxb4 Rxb4 20.Nd4 g6 21.Rab1 Rxb1 22.Rxb1 Kc8 23.f3 Nd5 24.e4 Nb6  25.Kf2 Rd8 26.Ke3 Nc4+ 27.Kd3 Ne5+ 28.Kc3 c5 29.Nb3 b6 30.a4 Rd3+ 31.Kc2 Re3 32.Nc1 Nc4 
33.Rb3 Rxb3 34.Nxb3 Kc7 35.g4 Kc6 36.h4 Ne5 37.Nd2 b5 38.axb5+ Kxb5 39.g5 hxg5 40.hxg5 Kb4  41.f4 Nc4 42.e5 Nxd2?? 

Best is 42...Ne3+ followed by 43...Nf5 

43.Kxd2 Kc4 44.f5 Kd5 45.e6  1-0
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #19 - 07/07/09 at 20:31:31
Post Tools
Stefan Bucker scored 83% with the 3...Qe7 line in tournament play at the 2300-2400 level, but five of the games continued with 4.g3 and one with 4.Qd5 f6 5.Nc3?!, illustrating that even at such a high level you can get away with it.   Most players think that White can get a nice advantage by any old development plan, but I think of White's alternatives to 4.Bf4 and 4.Qd5, only 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.e4 (or 4.e4 Nxe5 5.Nc3 transposing) offers a serious challenge to Black's system.

However if a player finds 4.Bf4! with the follow-up 4...Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3! Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5! catching the king in the centre, Black is certainly in for some turbulence.  I have not faced this in my various online blitz and friendly games with the gambit, but it has discouraged me from playing it in serious games except as an occasional weapon.  The main alternative 8.Rb3 is also good for White but IMHO does not seriously test the viability of the gambit.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that 3...Qe7 and 3...Nge7 are both of roughly equal value- it is easy for White to drift into an equal or worse position by playing too casually, but with accurate play the assessment should be between += and +/-.  I am also of the same opinion with regards the Soller (3...f6) and Felbecker (3...Bc5) but consider the Hartlaub (2...d6) inferior in view of 3.Nf3 followed by 4.Bg5 and 5.exd6 +/-.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #18 - 07/07/09 at 15:26:08
Post Tools
TicklyTim wrote on 07/07/09 at 13:14:01:
TN wrote on 07/07/09 at 12:58:34:


Are you referring to IM Michael Basman?


Yes.
I seem to recall reading that Botvinnik made some encouraging comments about Basmans play when Botvinnik was in England. Not sure when Basman veered away from recommended theory.
His 1.a3,2.h3 at the tournament certainly created a slight buzz, but for novelty factor rather than true chess.

There is a difference in a variation being dodgy and outright refuted. I think the Englund is somewhere between the two.
Playing it against people you suspect won't have looked at it will probably be fine. Thrashing out the theory with people who have isn't such a good idea. 
Fortunately for fans of the opening, the vast majority of people haven't looked at it, and a good portion of those that have will have forgotten it through lack of use.
For white it's the old debate of whether to play a safe line (letting black get away with it) or risk playing critical stuff that you may only use once every few years.


I think I've told the story of how I once saw (U.S.) N.M. Chuck Deibert, then rated 2320 or so, whip out the Englund against a 1950-rated player and get summarily flattened.  A lot of people thought that it served him right.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TicklyTim
Senior Member
****
Offline


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #17 - 07/07/09 at 13:14:01
Post Tools
TN wrote on 07/07/09 at 12:58:34:


Are you referring to IM Michael Basman?


Yes.
I seem to recall reading that Botvinnik made some encouraging comments about Basmans play when Botvinnik was in England. Not sure when Basman veered away from recommended theory.
His 1.a3,2.h3 at the tournament certainly created a slight buzz, but for novelty factor rather than true chess.

There is a difference in a variation being dodgy and outright refuted. I think the Englund is somewhere between the two.
Playing it against people you suspect won't have looked at it will probably be fine. Thrashing out the theory with people who have isn't such a good idea. 
Fortunately for fans of the opening, the vast majority of people haven't looked at it, and a good portion of those that have will have forgotten it through lack of use.
For white it's the old debate of whether to play a safe line (letting black get away with it) or risk playing critical stuff that you may only use once every few years.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #16 - 07/07/09 at 12:58:34
Post Tools
TicklyTim wrote on 07/07/09 at 12:42:13:
Some players are spoken of as having wasted their potential by playing obscure openings. If reaching IM level or there abouts it just doesn't cut the mustard. I remember watching an IM at the British Championships playing 1.a3,2.h3 (1..a6,2...h6) and to me he seemed to be wasting his talent, as it was obviously undermining his possible results.
Obviously this a biased opinion, as I'm not much of a risk taker, but I think I'm correct in a 'true chess' sense.


Are you referring to IM Michael Basman?
  
All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TicklyTim
Senior Member
****
Offline


can I take that back,
please...

Posts: 274
Location: England
Joined: 05/29/09
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #15 - 07/07/09 at 12:42:13
Post Tools
Sorry for my earlier messing about.
Isn't the gist of these type of gambits that they don't stand-up to computer checking and that they are theoretical unsound, but, that up to a certain level of play the unsoundness doesn't matter so much. Maybe to an average club level or less, these 'slightly wrong' openings can upset, confuse or catch-out an opponent.
I used to face someone in county matches that played in a similar style. He was slightly stronger than me, but always played odd gambits. I used to hate playing against him, but always did pretty well. I felt with his grade against mine he would be doing better if playing standard openings. However, with his sub-standard openings, he was handicapping himself from the start. But maybe he had no choice - he played what he played.
There is a place for these openings. Firstly, playing weak people (if you are brave enough). Playing very strong players where you are expecting to lose (if you have a sense of humour). And in Blitz and Bullet either online or in skittles.
If you were in a last round of a comp, and you and your opponent were similar strength and both on 4 out of 4, would you venture a risky sub-standard opening. I don't think many people would. If it's the most important game (if you life depended on it!!) wouldn't you naturally want to maximize your chances by the choice of opening.
If however, sub-standard openings were all you knew (or knew them so very well) then perhaps this would be maximising your chances - at that moment, but then that would be a strange decision to have made in a chess career - and could be correct in a month or two.
Some players are spoken of as having wasted their potential by playing obscure openings. If reaching IM level or there abouts it just doesn't cut the mustard. I remember watching an IM at the British Championships playing 1.a3,2.h3 (1..a6,2...h6) and to me he seemed to be wasting his talent, as it was obviously undermining his possible results.
Obviously this a biased opinion, as I'm not much of a risk taker, but I think I'm correct in a 'true chess' sense.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #14 - 07/07/09 at 12:04:25
Post Tools
I've deleted two posts about computers and chess, which is a discussion that belongs in "General Chess."

It's fine to discuss the merits of a computer's evaluation of a given position of relevance to a thread; it's not fine to launch into how evil or how useful chess engines in general supposedly are. 

I don't like taking such a heavy-handed approach, but there's been a lot of provocation going on in this thread.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge