Gambit wrote on 10/29/10 at 19:37:37:


Well ... thats fine. But thats not the point. The point is if the line is good or not. So the question is, would you play the line when you're opponent knows that you will play this line in the next game vs him. 

To play an offbeat gambit where you know the theory and the opponent doesn't, and afterwards claim about "practical chances" is - sorry - just nuts. The "practical chances" of an opening are revealed, when you play vs someone who knows the theory as good as you do. Otherwise it just a matter of "I know something that you don't." Which is quite a different thing.

And - btw - I play the french and I got a score of (I guess) about 80% with black vs that line. I just simply don't play 5...dxe4, but 5...Ne7. Usually then it is all over with gambitting. And I outplay all those gambitteers in a "normal" french position. 

Edited:

LDZ, wake me up if someone plays 6...c5 or 6...Bd7 against you. Your hero Winckelmann recently ended second in the ICCF-WCh. He apparently isn't so afraid of computers as you are. The last time he played his gambit seems to be 2001; an eventless draw in 17 moves.

Winckelmann,T (2494) - Knudsen,J (2485) [C15]
WC25-SF15 ICCF Email, 01.08.2001

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 e5 7.Bb5+ c6 8.Bc4 exd4 9.cxd4 Qh4+ 10.g3 Qe7 11.Qe2 Bf5 12.a4 Nf6 13.Ba3 Qc7 14.fxe4 Qa5+ 15.Kf2 Nxe4+ 16.Kg2 Nd7 17.Nf3 ½-½

Still congratulations with your nice performance, albeit I would be much more impressed if it were a game with classical time control.

Gambit wrote on 11/25/10 at 04:28:56:


I don't understand why a player would get so heated over an unrated blitz game. I'll warn you though, ICC has a reputation for wrongly identifying players as cheats when they are innocent. Some of my friends have been wrongly accused and have wisely switched to Playchess.

Konstriktor wrote on 10/28/10 at 12:13:03:


Lev Zilbermints, the man of 1000 Gambits.

My favorite LDZ lines: 1.f4 h6!? & "This Isn't Dunkin Donuts!!"

How is 6...Bd7 and ...Bc6 holding up? I though that was quite a neat idea when I first saw it, just pretending it's a Fort Knox. In one recent otb game Kislov-Khamitsky 2006 (quoted by MNb above), White played 7.Qd2 Bc6 8.Qf2, but that can't possibly be critical.

Gambit wrote on 10/29/10 at 19:37:37:

That's because your opponents don't know their theory. If they do and if they have the skills to exploit the opening advantage you will get creamed.
You know this or you would not have called 6...c5 "yellow". You always do when some defence proves to be strong.
In the meantime I will be waiting for your brilliant ideas after 6...c5 to come, which, just like in ...c6 vs. the BDG, probably will be when the cows come home.

Winckelmann excepted, many White players did not play well. In two games Moser played, Blacked avoided the gambit with 11...e3? but won because White played badly later.

As for theory, yes there is theory, like in every other opening. Sources are Das Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit I (1995) II (1998) and Schach-Archive #46.
In the last one, Grandmaster Lev Gutman does the analyses.

To win with the WRG, you have to know the opening inside out, and then some. When you do not know it well, you lose. Christ, that's how I first learned the BDG, back in 1991! It was awhile before I started beating Masters with it regularly, but I did, eventually.
The same holds true for the WRG, King's Gambit, and any other opening.

Computer is all very good, but in over-the-board games you do not have the benefit of computer assistance. Also, when you play 1 e4, you have no idea what the opening will be: Caro-Kann, Sicilian, Pirc, Latvian Gambit or French Defense. So, if the White player is well-prepared, he can win with the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit.

Finally, in Das WRG I (1995) Winckelmann gives a number of games against Fritz 2 and Pentium computers. Both of these chess engines, strong at the time, lost to the WRG!

I don't care what the detractors say. I am going to play the Winckelmann-Reimer Gambit in over-the-board chess and win tons of games with it!

6...Nd7 7 Nh3! and now:

7...exf3 8 Qxf3

7...Ngf6 8 Nf2 ef3 9 Qf3 00 10 Bd3

6...b6 7 Nh3! Bb7 8 fxe4 Be4 9 Ng5 Bc6 10 Bc4?! Bxg2 11 Qg4 Bh1?! 12 Nf7 Kf7? 13 Qe6+ Kf8 14 Qf7 mate, Winckelmann-Brinkmann, blitzpartie, 1995

6...b6 7 Nh3 Bb7 8 fxe4 Be4 9 Ng5 Bg6 10 Bd3 Nf6 11 00 Nbd7 12 Bf4 Bxd3 13 Qxd3 h6 14 Qh3 Nf8 15 Be5 Ng6 16 Nxe6!! fxe6 17 Qxe6+ Qe7 18 Qc6+ Kf7 19 Rae1! +- 1-0/30, Winckelmann-Gaard Schweden, corr. 1993  

My opinion is that the players having the White pieces in the WRG games you posted did not know the theory.