Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Christoph's Gambit!? (Read 95081 times)
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #122 - 05/17/10 at 02:46:41
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 05/17/10 at 01:46:15:
You contradict yourself, sir. First you say that you would not play the BDG as White, and second, that the Huebsch Gambit is unsound. But if you do not play the BDG, how would you know if the Huebsch Gambit is sound or unsound?


I don't have to play a gambit as White to study it from a Black perspective and develop an opinion. Maybe you are misunderstanding me? I didn't think you liked the Huebsch anyway and I thought you preferred 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3. To elaborate further, I would not play this way as White because I consider 2.f3 d5 3.e4 c5 4.e5 Nfd7 to lead to favorable French structures for Black. Of course, one doesn't have to play the BDG against 1..Nf6, but that is one obstacle in practical play to reaching a proper BDG as White. There are also others for 1..d5 as well. This is simply a reality of the opening, whether I play it as White or not.

My philosophy of the opening is that when I offer the opportunity for my opponent to enter a sharp continuation, I want to be able to punish him if he declines. If he is able to avoid complications with a comfortable game, frankly I feel it defeats the whole purpose of preparing a sharp variation for practical play.
« Last Edit: 05/17/10 at 06:00:44 by ChevyBanginStyle »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #121 - 05/17/10 at 01:46:15
Post Tools
You contradict yourself, sir. First you say that you would not play the BDG as White, and second, that the Huebsch Gambit is unsound. But if you do not play the BDG, how would you know if the Huebsch Gambit is sound or unsound?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
ChevyBanginStyle
Full Member
***
Offline


2 \infty & *CRUNCH*

Posts: 238
Joined: 01/03/10
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #120 - 05/16/10 at 22:32:12
Post Tools
Reverse wrote on 05/16/10 at 16:18:46:
It seems like most people on this forum are hoping that Scheerer comes up with some brilliant novelty's to keep the gambit alive or revive old lines so that it is completely playable again.  Everyman chess is a company. They know if the publish a book on the blackmar diemer gambit, regardless of the quality, all the BDG fans will buy it.  I doubt the reason that this book is being published has to do with scheerer wanting to publish his new ideas (i doubt there are any groundbreaking ones that make this opening anything but =+).  Everyman and Scheerer are just filling a void in most people's chess library. 

I just don't think anyone should run to the bookstore thinking that this book is going to provide a sound system for white.

What do you guys think?


Before you preemptively attack an author on his work, have you read any of Cristoph Wisnewski's books before? Based on the reputation of his previous works, I consider him to be a diligent and thoughtful author. He has also been active in this forum answering questions about his books. He claims to have put in a lot of work into researching the opening. Have you?

The best recommendations I have seen by OTB titled players nearly always avoid the gambit in its proper form. The recommendations I have seen based on acceptance usually have a significant hole in analysis, probably because they are not familiar with the work of strong correspondence players. This should tell you something.

BTW I would never play the BDG seriously as White. This is mainly because I consider it to be very impractical for my approach to chess. There are also very good practical methods for declining it as well, especially given that the Huebsch Gambit is unsound. Smith-Morra players at least have the respite of transpositions into the c3 Sicilian.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BDG Lover
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 15
Location: England
Joined: 12/08/09
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #119 - 05/16/10 at 19:38:37
Post Tools
I love the BDG and Gambits of the same world. It of constant distraction for me that players keep on saying, " that opening is not sound" , or, with best play black will win!!!   So, it is really enjoyable when i often beat them with these " unsound" openings. As i have said before, i play for the love of the game, the "open" game. On the the playchess.com site i have reached { with slow play, say 30 mins each with a 15 sec inc} at rating above 2200. I am more that happy with that kind of rating. Smiley
  

Play without fear.
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Reverse
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 212
Location: USA
Joined: 11/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #118 - 05/16/10 at 16:18:46
Post Tools
It seems like most people on this forum are hoping that Scheerer comes up with some brilliant novelty's to keep the gambit alive or revive old lines so that it is completely playable again.  Everyman chess is a company. They know if the publish a book on the blackmar diemer gambit, regardless of the quality, all the BDG fans will buy it.  I doubt the reason that this book is being published has to do with scheerer wanting to publish his new ideas (i doubt there are any groundbreaking ones that make this opening anything but =+).  Everyman and Scheerer are just filling a void in most people's chess library. 

I just don't think anyone should run to the bookstore thinking that this book is going to provide a sound system for white.

What do you guys think?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 897
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #117 - 05/15/10 at 23:37:45
Post Tools
I agree with the point about variation trees- my preference in openings books has always been the "variation trees" type of approach.  I always find it harder with the "illustrative games" approach to find where particular lines are located, for example.

I'm not sure that MNb has claimed that Black emerges from the BDG a clear pawn up- perhaps just with regards some of Gambit's pet sidelines?   The analysis I've been involved in with other contributors has suggested that there is no way for Black to emerge a clear pawn up- Black is certainly no worse in a number of the lines, but even proving a small edge for Black is tricky.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dmp4373
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 99
Joined: 03/04/07
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #116 - 05/15/10 at 23:17:49
Post Tools
I have played the BDG for years, but my believe in this opening is probably closer to Mnb's than tafl. With accurate play black will neutralize white's short term advantages and be a clear pawn up. Now a pawn advantage doesn't always win, but it sure scores well. In the thematic BDG correspondence tourney in the early 1990s, white scored significantly less than 50%. That is the best source I have seen for showing the true strength of that opening.

I made a comment about opening books saying something like, white has an advantage, but black should be okay. Here's an example, Play the Classical Dutch by Simon Williams, (Mnb I know you have it) page 40. "Maybe white is slightly better, but the game should end in a draw."

The question I raised was whether an evaluation can grow from say, += to +- without black making a mistake or += to = without white making a mistake. I believe it can, and the original evaluation of += remain valid. But I think what Mnb is saying is that the original evaluation must have been faulty if no mistakes were made and the evaluation later changed. Anyway, it's an interesting debate.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
tafl
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 380
Location: Norway
Joined: 05/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #115 - 05/15/10 at 22:09:29
Post Tools
Obviously evaluations like '=+' or '-0.34' can and will change as a line is more deeply explored. These are rather meaningless practical evaluations, basically telling that the position is easier to play for one side. To then revert to the initial position and say that the original evaluation was wrong will frequently be meaningless, as if you follow another plausible path you will get another slightly different evaluation.

What Steinitz showed (or claimed) was that the three evaluations 'White wins', 'the position is drawn' and 'Black wins' cannot change unless one of the players make a genuine mistake.

I would be slightly surprised if the BDG isn't a draw if handled perfectly by both sides. White after all has something for that pawn. For practical purposes my guess is that White has the better chances at sub 1800 level and that Black will score better above 2300. In between I suppose the chances will be rather balanced (which isn't great for White).

However, I look forward to Scheerer's conclusions. The gambit deserves a full and objective investigation by a strong player, and the tree format should make any conclusion more reliable than Everyman's standard annotated games format.
  

A computer once beat me at chess but it was no match for me at kick boxing - Emo Philips
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10373
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #114 - 05/15/10 at 21:05:39
Post Tools
dmp4373 wrote on 05/15/10 at 19:25:06:
I understand your reasoning and it's logical, but it fails to recognize the very real situation that often occurs where an advantage exists, yet there is no way to forcefully exploit it. Here is an example of my point; White has a lead in development and all other things are equal. There is no way for white to cash in on that lead and so black gradually catches up in development and the position goes from += to =.

By your reasoning, white's advantage was an illusion and didn't actually exist.

Exactly.

dmp4373 wrote on 05/15/10 at 19:25:06:
But evaluations are based on the static and dynamic elements of a position at a given moment. White really did have a lead in development and therefore really did have the advantage at that point in time.

This is not really a contradiction. An advantage can be meaningless. This especially happens to temporary advantages like a lead of development or a badly placed peace.
I have had an extreme example of the latter in one of my games. In a Volga Gambit I had a knight on b6, my opponent doubled pawns on b2 and b5. I played Nb6-a8. According to your logic White at that moment had a real advantage (extra pawn and that knight on one of the worst squares of the board. Just a move later I played Na8-c7 (I had foreseen that White could not prevent it; big deal) after which I soon won back pawn b5 with an advantage. I won the game.
So according to you within two moves the correct evaluation went from more or less equal (blockading Knight on b6 offered enough compensation) to good for White to good for Black within two moves.
Does not make any sense. The point is of course that dynamic play requires separating real advantages and weakness from virtual ones. As Kortchnoi and Bronstein declared: a weakness is only a weakness if the opponent can take benefit from it. And exactly that is the question of all gambits: can the defender take benefit of the extra material? Concerning the BDG the debate continues.

dmp4373 wrote on 05/15/10 at 19:25:06:
You see this all the time in opening books with comments like, 'White has a slight advantage, but black should be okay.

Not in the opening books I have. Though I quite read often something like "White has a slight advantage, but Black has decent play." That's quite different.

Still I think I know what you mean. I have seen games in which one players maintains an edge until the very last move, when it proved not enough for a win. But as long as the BDG is not analysed until deep into the endgame this is not that relevant for the evaluation of this opening. If openings are indeed analysed until the very end only three evaluations remain: won, drawn, lost.

Btw I am curious how you evaluate a perfectly closed position in which one player has Queen and King and the other only a King; no way to invade. Evaluating that one as advantageous makes as much sense as evaluating a gambit that offers optical compensation iso real one as more or less equal. I have enough experience with the former. To distinguish the two is essential for any gambit player - and a very hard task.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dmp4373
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 99
Joined: 03/04/07
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #113 - 05/15/10 at 19:25:06
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 05/15/10 at 16:29:12:
I don't understand the thought behind this question. If after perfect play the evaluation at the end of the BDG-lines is =+ or = then the evaluation after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 is also =+ or =. If at some stage White does not have enough he/she did not have enough at move 2 either. So compensation only grows or dissipates if Black respectively White plays suboptimal moves. If you are convinced that White has enough after 2.e4 but not at say move 20 you should look for improvements.


I understand your reasoning and it's logical, but it fails to recognize the very real situation that often occurs where an advantage exists, yet there is no way to forcefully exploit it. Here is an example of my point; White has a lead in development and all other things are equal. There is no way for white to cash in on that lead and so black gradually catches up in development and the position goes from += to =.

By your reasoning, white's advantage was an illusion and didn't actually exist. But evaluations are based on the static and dynamic elements of a position at a given moment. White really did have a lead in development and therefore really did have the advantage at that point in time.

Have you ever seen a grandmaster annotate a game where he gives += after say move 14 and = at move 20 with no ? or comments as to what happened. The advantaged simply petered out. That doesn't mean the advantage didn't exist, only that with best play it wasn't dangerous and couldn't last. You see this all the time in opening books with comments like, 'White has a slight advantage, but black should be okay.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 897
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #112 - 05/15/10 at 19:05:38
Post Tools
Exactly.  If White optically appears to have a strong initiative for the pawn (e.g. the line 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Ne5 e6 8.0-0) the assessment is still -/+ if Black can fend off the initiative with good play (8...Bg6!).

In a position that is genuinely "=", the initiative should, with accurate play, either be a long-term initiative, lead to the regain of the lost pawn, or force Black to make concessions that devalue the pawn plus (the lines following Lev Gutman's suggestion 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4, endorsed in Stefan Bücker's article, give good examples of this).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10373
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #111 - 05/15/10 at 16:29:12
Post Tools
I don't understand the thought behind this question. If after perfect play the evaluation at the end of the BDG-lines is =+ or = then the evaluation after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 is also =+ or =. If at some stage White does not have enough he/she did not have enough at move 2 either. So compensation only grows or dissipates if Black respectively White plays suboptimal moves. If you are convinced that White has enough after 2.e4 but not at say move 20 you should look for improvements.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dmp4373
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 99
Joined: 03/04/07
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #110 - 05/15/10 at 16:09:27
Post Tools
The great debate in the d-pawn sections forum has been whether the BDG is = or =+. I believe the most important question is actually; with best play, does white's compensation for the sacrificed pawn grow, remain stagnant or dissipate? The answer to that question will tell you whether the BDG is sound or not.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #109 - 05/13/10 at 20:46:03
Post Tools
Blackmar-Diemer Keybook I (1992) by NM Tim Sawyer

BDGK II, (1999)

BDGK III (2009)

Das Moderne Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit, 5 volumes (in German)

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World magazine, 1983 - 1998.

And that is just for starters!
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Reverse
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 212
Location: USA
Joined: 11/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Christoph's Gambit!?
Reply #108 - 05/13/10 at 19:25:17
Post Tools
all this talk kind of makes we want to learn about the blackmar diemer. What are some sources for info on this gambit?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo