Could we get back to chess and stop discussing Lev?  It really is not what this forum is for.  I just deleted a post of his that was mainly chest-puffing, and by the same token, we here should leave off provoking him or criticizing him and just talk about the chess of the thing.  If you want to talk about Lev per se, do it in Chit Chat or perhaps general chess.  But really what is the point, since Lev is merely annoying, not important.

If you want to talk about d-pawn specials, do it here.

MNb wrote on 04/19/10 at 01:52:48:


If someone isn't interested in the Search for Truth in chess, fine, that's his loss.  But to talk as if he is interested and yet perpetually slide into "this succeeds in practice" is shapeshifting, it seems to me.

But I don't think it's entirely fair to LDZ to say that has provided no analysis.  He sometimes does provide analysis.

Frankly I don't see any difference between "playuing a dubious opening in the hope of achieving a specific trap" (and JDKnight should have added: "which leads to an inferior position if the opponent avoids that trap") and "playing a dubious system on the grounds that it's easy for the opponent to go wrong" (and JDKnight should have added: "which leads to an inferior position if the opponent plays good moves.")

I am all for setting traps. But if the opponent avoids them I still want to have at least an equal position. Playing an opening (especially as White) that leads to an inferior position if the opponents play the best moves is hope chess. The Ryder Gambit is one example.
It's something completely different if one studies an opening with a dubious reputation and one tries to prove it playable by finding improvements in critical lines.

Regarding the BDG with 5.Nxf3 I would say that White has problems proving sufficient compensation in a couple of lines, just like the Morra Gambit. At the other hand a clear route to an indispute advantage for Black is not known either yet, again just like the Morra Gambit. The way ArkHein and Sevenviolets (Patrik Shoupal) play the BDG is certainly not hope chess. They are convinced and willing to show that white has enough.

As much as LDZ I love playing gambits. But I only play the ones I think correct. And typically LDZ has provided zero analysis to show that White has sufficient compensation in the BDG, many requests notwithstanding. He only blabbers about "psychology", "computers" and in the past about another infamous c-word. Neither is he interested in Black's best moves, again unlike ArkHein and Sevenviolets. That's my reason to write he plays hope chess.

I don't care about Heisman. What I care about is winning with my chess style... and I do!

Gambit wrote on 04/18/10 at 17:20:59:

Hope chess (ie playing inferior moves assuming that the opponent will not find the best replies), yes.

Read Heisman's columns on Chesscafe. Gambit's "psychology" perfectly fits in Heisman's definition of hope chess.

Madness, no. Psychology in chess, yes.

It's sloppy chess, but it might work at a higher level than many people want to admit. For an extreme case, take Sam Sloan's Damiano Defense with 3.Nxe5 fxe5?? where he knowingly accepts a lost position in standard time controls to have the opportunity to demoralize his opponents. I think the Halloween Gambit (Four Knights with 4.Nxe5) is almost -/+ (or at least =/+) with accurate play in a couple of the most critical lines, but when I studied it carefully, it soon became clear to me that it is not an easy opening to refute "cold" OTB. It's funny. Sometimes I have a fascination with "improper" openings. If this were Go, they would be called hamete in Japanese which roughly translates to "trick plays." Often they are most likely incorrect, but a strong player should be able to figure out why beyond the fact that they are not joseki (standard). I will almost never play an opening that I believe to be incorrect, even if I find it to be interesting. It is matter beyond practical chances for me. As a consequence, there are many openings that I have studied that I never intend to play, even if it is unlikely that I would ever face them with the opposite color. I imagine a lot of people would think that I am wasting my time. I see it as a form of training, but perhaps it could be argued that it's not the most efficient use of time.

In regards to TN's claim that White is just as likely to make a miscalculation as Black, I would tend to agree in general terms if the positions were "cold" to both players, but that is often not the case and I think there may be a method to Gambit's madness.