|
Ironically, I think most GMs would call playing 1...b6 a very courageous thing to do, as well as 1.e4 e6 2.d4 b6. Whereas most GMs would call playing the Zilbermints Gambit (any one of the 7,216 them) something far stronger (and less flattering) than 'brave'.
I admire the type of chess LDZ tries to play. In that regard he is a man after my own heart - I regularly play all sorts of gambits, both known and unknown. I dabble with moves like 3...Na5 against the Ruy Lopez. As white, I play an early g4 against nearly all 1.d4 Nf6 systems (when I'm not playing the BDG). My heart sinks a little when someone plays 1.e4 g6 against me (not least because I am far too apathetic to ever sit down and study this variation) and my beloved Belgrade, Reti and other gambits are ruled out.
However, like most people here, I do not admire his personality, which is brash, arrogant and alienating. It is not a case of "saying what I think", as he put it - I do this as well, and have made my opinion on a lot of openings clear in the past, but yet I have never come in for the widespread abuse and chagrin of the forum that LDZ has. MNb and Markovich, as well as Smyslov and Willempie, are also people I regard as "straightshooters", and similarly they have not caused the problems that LDZ continues to. LDZ is antagonistic, and deliberately so at times in my view. He does also have moments of kindness (as MNb displayed), and sometimes can contribute very interesting ideas and analysis. But he is also completely unable to accept any form of constructive (or otherwise) criticism, either personally or directed at his ideas. It is fine being a pioneer of gambits and originality in the opening, but when people post not one, but several, routes to advantage against your openings, and you still fail to accept them as inferior and then continue to spout off the cliched 'THERE ARE NO COMPUTERS IN OTB CHESS AND I WILL BEAT YOU WITH MY OPENINGS' comments, you will antagonise.
And that, HTH, is exactly the point. LDZ is not a big enough man to admit when he is wrong. When his lines are refuted, he does one of four things:
a) He goes silent for anywhere between 3 and 18 months on that thread, before reactivating it with some meaningless G/3 ICC game;
b) He churns out the sickening line above, or a variation of it, and ignores the refutation completely;
c) He (rarely) comes back with an improvement, usually combined with an abusive or unnecessarily harsh comment such as "Rubbish! Nonsense! White can just play .... instead and is completely fine!" And usually these revised lines fall flat quite quickly, and the cycle continues - I am yet to see LDZ refute a refutation convincingly, and most of his gambits remain theoretically impotent.
d) He screams cowardice at a move like 9...c6 in the Euwe Defence BDG, or 4.Nc3 against the 3...Nge7 Englund - despite the fact that they are actually just objectively very strong moves. 4.Nc3 especially, since there is no free pawn on offer, and the move contains the very strong idea of Nd5 setting up an attacking platform - not at all cowardice in my view. I would be interested to see his opinion of 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 - white offers the pawn back, intending to wallop through with f4-f5-f6 and attack. Cowardice, or bravery?
In fact, surely when your opponent offers you a dodgy gambit... taking what is, in essence, a free pawn is pretty cowardly. I would prefer to forward the alternative view that declining a free pawn, and choosing to try and outplay the opponent in an even position, is in fact a far braver thing to do. But not all have the inclination or skill to do this, just as many do not have the inclination or "balls" to offer such gambits in the first place.
In the end, do what makes you happy on a chess board. But the main point is this: This is an opening THEORY forum. We are here to discuss THEORY. Not practicality, not cowardice, just theory. Does an opening give equality, or is it junk? Does a new gambit offer an unclear position, or can it be refuted with simple OTB play? That is what we discuss here, and that is where LDZ's inventions fall flat. Not in practical terms - I've won OTB with openings like 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.d4?, or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Nc3 f5? OTB. But I would never be so arrogant or close-minded to say that everyone else in the world was wrong, and these openings were good. In theoretical terms, a lot of what I play is/was junk. I get told it all the time, I'm willing to accept it. I still win with it.
I think LDZ is scared to accept that theoretically his openings are junk... I think he feels that admitting this will almost instantly render them less effective. He might even be right - perhaps if you lose some faith in an already dubious line, then the wheels will come off. But I think this fear is the real cowardice.
|
Pages: 
The Art of Flogging a Dead Horse (formerly C in C) (Read 40638 times)
