(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › d-Pawn Specials › Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
(Moderators: Bibs, CraigEvans)
‹ 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 26847 times)
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #43 - 09/23/09 at 20:04:57
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 09/23/09 at 18:20:34:
After 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.e4 Nge7, I have looked at three alternatives against 10.Bc4, and think 10...Qa4 may be better: [...] 
C) 10...Qa4 can lead to a long, forcing line with 11.Bd3 [...]
[...]
Interesting about the lack of 4.Bf4's at high levels.  It would also be interesting to see the proportion of 4.Bf4 games that continue with the horrible blunder 6.Bc3, as those might be inflating the percentages at lower levels.  

In the line above, 10.Bc4 Qa4, the reply I feared was 11.Qe2 Nxd5 (or 11...Qxc2 12.0-0 Nxd5 13.exd5 Nd4 14.Nxd4 Qxd2 15.Qg4) 12.exd5 Bxd2+ 13.Nxd2 Nd4 (13...Na5 14.Bd3) 14.Qg4 Nxc2+ 15.Kf1 0-0 16.Qd1 pinning the Nc2. The best attempt then seemed to be 16...d6 17.Kg1 Bf5 18.Bb3 Qb5 19.Bxc2 Bxc2 20.Qxc2 Qxd5 21.h4! dxe5 22.Rh3. Black has three pawns for the knight, but that's only temporary. 22...b6 23.Rd3 Qe6 24.Qxc7 Qxa2 25.Qxe5 Rad8 26.Rbb3 etc. With two passed pawns for the knight Black still has drawing chances, but of course it's +/-. 

I'll continue the analysis when I have more time. These +/- endings in the article already offer good practical chances for a draw, and I don't think that I'll ever need it for a real game (1.d4 players never prepare for the Englund Gambit, it's a firm rule in their sect). But I'll try to work out something more convincing. 

Regarding the proportion of 4.Bf4 ... 6.Bc3? games, my database has 21 of those games: 3 in the 1800-1999 category (the strongest player to fall into it was rated 1935), of a total of 18 games with 4.Bf4. And 18 games in the lowest category, of a total of 217 with 4.Bf4.
  
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 #42 - 09/23/09 at 18:20:34
Post Tools
I have some apologies to give as well- I should've provided a link for that correspondence game:
www.iccf-webchess.com/GetPGN.aspx?id=93060

The game in full:
White: Israel De la Calle (2302)
Black: Prof. Mario Valverde Lopez (2059)
60yearsBdF-WS25, ICCF, 15/11/2006
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.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.e4 a6 12.Rb3 Qxa2 13.Be2 Qa1+ 14.Bd1 Qa5 15.Qxa5 Nxa5 16.Ng5 Nh6 17.Rh3 Rf8 18.Nxh7 Rg8 19.g4 d6 20.exd6 cxd6 21.Rh5 Nc4 22.Nhf6 Rf8 23.Be2 b5 24.Bxc4 1-0

After 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.e4 Nge7, I have looked at three alternatives against 10.Bc4, and think 10...Qa4 may be better:
A) 10...0-0 11.0-0 +/- (11...Ng6 12.Rb3! +-)
B) 10...Qc5 11.Bb3 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 Na5 14.Ng5 +/- is similar to the main line with 10...Bxd2+,
C) 10...Qa4 can lead to a long, forcing line with 11.Bd3 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 Qxa2 14.c4 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 Na5 16.c5 b6 17.d6 cxd6 18.exd6 0-0 +=, when White can regain the lost pawn but I don't think the pawn on d6 offers many winning chances.  Or 11.Bxa5 Qxa5 12.Qd2 (12.Nxd2 Nxd5 13.exd5 Nxe5 14.Qe2 Kd8 with ...Re8 to follow, is pretty unclear) 12...Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Kd8 +=.

On the other hand I think 10.Rb5 should lead to +/-.  I agree that after 10...Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2, 11...0-0!? 12.Nxc7 Rb8 may be a better practical try, in view of 11...Nxd5 12.exd5 Nd8 (12...Ne7 13.d6 cxd6 14.cxd6 Ng6 15.Bc4, 13...Nc6 14.dxc7 a6 15.Rb6) 13.Bc4.  It's worth mentioning that 12...Qxa2 almost works for Black here, but after the accurate 13.dxc6 dxc6 14.Rb3! (otherwise Black gets a perpetual), Black's two pawns should not be enough for the piece.  Indeed I am tempted to suggest that 9.e4 is superior to 9.Rb5 here. 

Regarding 8...Bxd2+, objectively it may be no worse, but I'm not sure that White has more chances to go wrong there, judging by the article- at the very least there are numerous ways to get into an ending where Black is suffering and begging for a draw.

Interesting about the lack of 4.Bf4's at high levels.  It would also be interesting to see the proportion of 4.Bf4 games that continue with the horrible blunder 6.Bc3, as those might be inflating the percentages at lower levels.  In my various games with the gambit (mostly casual/blitz but also with one tournament win over a 1700-rated player) White played 4.Bf4 only about a dozen times, and on all but one of the occasions, followed it up with 6.Bc3.  The one game that continued 6.Nc3 went 6...Bb4 7.Nd5?! Bxd2+ 8.Kxd2 Kd8, when I suspect Black is already at least equal.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #41 - 09/23/09 at 14:09:16
Post Tools
@ SWJediknight: 
 Embarrassed Now that the ChessCafe article is online, I see that you already analyzed 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.e4!? (in the last post) - my apologies for not crediting you for the idea; the next column will put this straight. Yes, 9.e4 is a new problem. After 9...Nge7 10.Rb5 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 (so far your analysis) 11...0-0 12.Nxc7 Rb8 comes into consideration, but sooner or later Black has to sacrifice a pawn to free his Bc8, so it must be +/-. And 10.Bc4 from my article remains another good option (+/-). In a game now I'd probably prefer 8...Bxd2+, when White has more chances to go wrong.  

I decided not to use it in the article, but apparently stronger players deliberately avoid 4.Bf4. Lately I asked a GM what he would have played against the Latvian Gambit. He said: "3.d3 or 3.Nc3. I face the Latvian too rarely, maybe every two or three years, to prepare for it." The reason why good players are so 4.Bf4-shy is probably the same. 

Provided you play the Englund Gambit in the usual way (1...e5, 2...Nc6, 3...Qe7), how are the chances that White goes into Grob's Variation 4.Bf4? My statistic has minor flaws (Alekhine as a player without a rating...), but the general results from the database should be valid:

Rating (White) / Percentage of "Grob Variation" (4.Bf4, or 4.Bg5 Qb4+)
2400+  / 7.8% (from only 60 games)
2200-2399 / 8.3%
2000-2199 / 6.3%
1800-1999 / 15.2%
Below 1800 or unrated / 17.9% (from 1794 games, so Alekhine hardly matters)

Wink Tim Harding once wrote that the Englund Gambit was only playable below 2000 Elo. Maybe it is a sounder advice to start your chess career with a solid opening and only switch to the Englund, when you have reached Elo 2000.  
  
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 #40 - 07/22/09 at 12:33:05
Post Tools
On the subject of alternatives for White in the main line Englund Gambit (e.g. LDZ's 10.Rxc3), what happens after 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.e4!?.  My analysis, with the assistance of Fritz, suggested 9...Nge7 10.Rb5 Bxd2+ 11.Qxd2 Nxd5 12.exd5 Nd8 (I looked at 12...Ne7, White gets a dangerous kingside assault).  I don't think this is a refutation but nor do I particularly like this for Black either.  White has a lead in development and has sorted out the pawn structure.

Therefore I checked out 9...a6, but I remember one line that ran Rb3, ...Qxa2, Qc1, which was close to being a refutation.
  
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 #39 - 07/13/09 at 18:37:54
Post Tools
I believe I analyzed the refutation of that very line some years back. Let me check my archives.
  
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 #38 - 07/13/09 at 18:02:35
Post Tools
8.Qd2! and now:

A) 8...0-0 9.Qg5! Nce7 (or 9...Qxg5 10.Nxg5 Ngxe5 11.Nxc7 Rb8 12.0-0-0 +/-) 10.Nxe7+ Qxe7 (10...Nxe7 11.0-0-0 is great for White) 11.Qxe7 Nxe7 and Black has scant compensation for the pawn.

B) 8...h6 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Qc3 Re8 11.e4 and White's attack will be faster.
  
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 #37 - 07/13/09 at 17:59:18
Post Tools
There will be no discussion of so-called chess cowardice here.  If you want to discuss that, do so under "General Chess."  I consider remarks here on this subject to be provocative, and I will redact them.  Any post devoted substantially to this subject will be deleted.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
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 #36 - 07/13/09 at 17:32:48
Post Tools
White: NM Peter Radomskyj (2202)
Black: Zilbermints (2085)
Westfield Chess Club G/40 Tournament
Westfield, New Jersey
27 February 2000

1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 The Zilbermints Gambit 4 Nc3 [Provocative remark redacted by Markovich.]

4...Ng6 5 Bg5 Be7 6 Bxe7 Qxe7 7 Nd5 Qd8 8 e4 00 9 Be2 Nce5        10 Nxe5 Nxe5  11 f4 Nc6

11...Ng6 is a mistake, for White plays 12 f5! followed by 13 f6!

12 00 d6 13 Bf3 Be6  14 Qd2 

Better was 14 c4!  14...Bd5 15 Qd5 Rab8  16 Rad1 Qf6! Now Black has the advantage.  17 g3 Qxb2  18 Qb3 Qb3 19 axb3 f5  20 ef5 Rf5 21 Be4 Rc5  22 c4 Nb4  23 f5 Re5  24 Rf4 Kf7 25 g4 h6 26 h4 Rbe8

At this point I decided to return the pawn, as Peter was threatening to get all sorts of tricks against my King. Better safe than sorry.

27 Bb7 Re1  28 Rxe1 Rxe1  29 Kf2?? A horrible blunder. After 29 Kg2 it is still pretty much an equal game.  Afterwards,  analyses showed the game to be pretty much drawish.

29...Nd3+  30 Kf3 Nxf4  31 Kxf4 Bd5+  32 Bd5+  Kf8  33 c5 Rd1 34 Bf3 Rd3 35 cd cd 36 Resigns.  

Peter used to say the Zilbermints Gambit was "unsound". Now he has paid the price: he was defeated by the very opening he called unsound.
  
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 #35 - 07/13/09 at 17:02:49
Post Tools
Why do people play this kind of line?  Perhaps it's because they enjoy playing the positions they get out of the opening and that below a certain level it can score at least as highly as sounder, mainline stuff.   At blitz it's one of my highest-scoring systems and I've scored very well with it in casual games, and rarely come out of the opening with less than an equal position- mainly because, as Stefan Bucker alluded to, most opponents react with harmless replies.  

Chess games are not always won by playing the best moves, but rather by playing the moves that are most unpleasant for one's opponent.   Of course, there's a perfectly legit argument that this isn't good chess, or a suitable way to play for those aspiring to reach a very high level, but it depends what you want to get out of chess.

I also think giving 1.d4 e5 a "?" (as many members of Chesspub do) is disproportionate considering that the likes of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 (or 2...d5) are rarely even given "?!".  But, as someone who contributed heavily to the Wiki article on the Englund, I think Wikipedia's label of "?!" seems fair.

As for 11.e4 a6 12.Rb3 etc, I don't see any improvements for Black before move 17, so the position after 17.Rh3 is critical for the assessment of the whole 11...a6 line.   17...Rf8 18.Nxh7 Rh8 18.Ng5 Rf8 is the main alternative at move 17, when it's concievable that Black might be able to hold (Black continues with 20...Nc6 and advances the a-pawn), but it still looks pretty grim.  I think 1.d4 e5 would be too risky in a correspondence game.

As for 3...Nge7 4.Nc3, it's no good posting lots of poorly played games.  Show how Black can prevent White from getting an advantage between += and +/-.
  
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 #34 - 07/13/09 at 16:12:55
Post Tools
Lev, 

Showing 4 games where White blunders away winning advantages doesn't prove any type of theoretical viability. 

In the first game, White plays the stupid 5. Nd5 instead of the natural and very strong 5. Bf4. 

In the second game, White reaches a promising ending, but from ~move 20 to move 27, proceeds to play like crap and bungle a great position. 

In the third game, Black is dead lost until 31. c6? which might let Black draw, then he gets back to probably winning, and then completely blows it with 34. Nd5, when it's a draw. Instead 31. Bb7 leaves Black where he should be - lost. 

In the last game, White played the opening well, but then moves 12-15 pretty much give it all away. 

I'm not impressed. I'm still waiting for you to address the concrete variations which were put forth by various members of this forum, in this thread. Show us the way Lev! Part the White and Black seas and defeat all the unspoken laws of chess that say you can't give up a pawn for nothing and win!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 640
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #33 - 07/13/09 at 15:48:11
Post Tools
How did White manage to score two half-points from those four games ? Where did Black go wrong ? Very disapointing.
  
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 #32 - 07/13/09 at 14:48:54
Post Tools
Stefan,

See, you just made my point! Correspondence, not OTB, play, is something else altogether. That said, I disagree with your assessment of 4 Nc3 against 3...Nge7. Some games:

[Event "DESC SE023 email"]
[Site "DESC email"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Drescher,Thomas"]
[Black "Lagemann,Tobias"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 h6 5.Nd5 Ng6 6.Bf4 d6 7.exd6 Bxd6 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.e4 Be6 10.Qd2 f5 11.exf5 Bxd5 12.fxg6 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 Qxg6 14.Qd3 Qf7 15.b3 Qf6 16.Kb1 Nb4  17.Qd4 Be4 0-1

[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Boesveld,Marco"]
[Black "De Zeeuw,Maarten"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 Ng6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.Qd2 h6  9.Nd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 c6 11.Nc3 Qb6 12.0-0-0 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 Nxe5 14.e4 Ke7 15.f4 Ng6 16.g3 d6 17.Be2 Bh3 18.Rhd1 Rad8 19.Bf3 h5 20.Ra4 a6 21.Rad4 h4 22.a4 Bc8 23.a5 hxg3 24.hxg3 Rh3 25.Ne2 Nh4 26.gxh4 Rxf3 27.e5 d5 28.Rg1 g6 29.Rg3 Rf2 30.Kd2 Rh8 31.Ke3 Rh2 32.c4 dxc4 33.Rxc4 R8xh4 34.Rb4 Rh1 35.Nc3 R4h2 36.Kd4 Ra1 37.Kc5 Rxa5+ 38.Kb6 Ra1 39.Kc7 Rh8 40.Ne4 b5 41.Rd3 Bf5 42.Rd6 Rc8+ 43.Kb7 c5 44.Rb3 c4 45.Re3 b4 46.Nf6 c3 47.bxc3 b3 48.Rb6 Be6 49.c4 Rxc4 50.f5 Bxf5 51.Nd5+ Kf8 52.Rexb3 Be4 53.Rd6 Rc5 54.Rd8+ Kg7 55.Rh3 Rxd5 0-1

[Event "BRA TCS-A corr"]
[Site "Brazil CXEB"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Rain,Ricardo Ernesto"]
[Black "Costa,Antonio Pedro Ramos"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 Ng6 5.Qd5 Be7 6.a3 b6 7.h4 Bb7 8.h5 Nf8 9.h6 g6 10.Be3 Ne6 11.0-0-0 d6 12.exd6 cxd6 13.Ne4 Na5 14.Nxd6+ Bxd6 15.Qxd6 Qxd6 16.Rxd6 Nc4 17.Rd3 Nxe3 18.Rxe3 0-0 19.g3 Rae8 20.Bg2 Nc5 21.Rxe8 Rxe8 22.b4 Ne4 23.Nd4 Nxf2 24.Bxb7 Nxh1 25.Bxh1 Re3 26.Bf3 Rxa3 27.Kb2 Re3 28.c4 f5 29.c5 bxc5 30.bxc5 Kf7 31.c6 Ke7 32.Nc2 Re5 33.Nb4 Kd6 34.Nd5 Kxc6 35.Nf6+ Kd6 36.Nxh7 Re8 37.Ng5 Ke7 38.e4 Kf6 39.Nh7+ Ke5 40.exf5 gxf5 41.Ng5 Kf6 42.Nh3 Kg6 43.g4  1/2

[Date "2002.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Schueller,Rudolf"]
[Black "Fakler,Udo"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "A40"]
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7 4.Nc3 Ng6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Ncxe7 7.e3 Nc6 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nb5 Kd8 10.0-0-0 Ncxe5 11.Nbd4 d6 12.h3 Rb8 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.g3 b6 15.Qxe5 dxe5 16.Nc6+ Ke8 17.Nxe7 Kxe7 18.Bc4 Be6 19.Bxe6 Kxe6 20.Rd2 Rhd8 21.Rhd1 Rxd2 22.Rxd2 e4 23.Kd1 c5 24.Ke2 Rb7 25.f3 f5 26.fxe4  1/2

I will post more games once I check my files.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 640
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #31 - 07/13/09 at 14:13:42
Post Tools
A bit of all the above I would imagine, Dr. Freud.
  
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 #30 - 07/13/09 at 13:57:07
Post Tools
If I may just for a moment take the view from 30,000 feet, you have to wonder why anyone would suppose that 1.d4 e5? would have the slightest chance of producing a playable game for Black.  Why would anyone submit to the Queen's Gambit, or bother to play the King's Indian, if that were true?  Chess would not be chess if this move were any good.  

I can understand why analysts would toy with this gambit just to exercise their intellects, but why anyone with all his marbles would maintain that Black could play this way and get away with it, I cannot imagine.  It's akin to trying to prove the 1.e4, 2.Bc4, 3.Qf3 leads to a big advantage for White in all variations.  Chess would be a trivial game if that were true or if 1.d4 e5? worked; also a game not worth playing.

So what explains this quest, this attempt to make chess a much simpler game than it is?  Coming from any given chess player, is this an unconscious expression of self-contempt?  Or is it a desperate determination to justify one's not to learning the deeply complex game that is chess?
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Englund/Zilbermints Gambit & Wigglesworth Defe
Reply #29 - 07/13/09 at 10:45:53
Post Tools
The correspondence game which SWJediknight mentions, 12.Rb3 Qxa2 13.Be2 Qa1+ 14.Bd1 Qa5 15.Qxa5 Nxa5 16.Ng5 Nh6 17.Rh3, looks even more convincing than 12.Rb1, it may be a refutation. 

So it seems that after 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.e4, the idea 11...a6 (Ian Simpson, Norwich, UK) doesn't cure the Englund Gambit either. Bad news for me.

In comparison, 8.Rb3 Qa5 9.a3 Bxc3 10.Rxc3, favoured by Gambit, is less critical:
10...Qd5 (Qa4!?) 
(a) 11.Bf4 Qxd1 12 Kxd1 Nge7 13 e4 += 1-0/53, Zilbermints-Ferrero, Branchburg 2009. Black could have played 11...Nge7 first, when 12.e4 isn't possible (rather = than +=).
(b) 11.e4 Qxe4+ 12.Be2 Nge7 13.0-0 led to a brutal win for White in Zielinski-Pokojski, Polish U18 champ, 2002. But after the cautious 13...h6 Black's position would have been quite reasonable. 

Lev Zilbermints' 3...Nge7 is an interesting idea which can lead to adventurous positions. Unfortunately 4.Nc3 is for this move what 4.Bf4 is for the Englund Gambit. Both systems retain some, how to put it ... "street credibility". Nothing you can take to your bank, but if you try 3...Qe7 in an open, more often than not the IM on the other side of the board will become very nervous and finally play 4.g3. However, in correspondence chess today I'd prefer something else. 
  
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 © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge