CraigEvans wrote on 05/22/11 at 09:56:53:
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed a page here.
11...g6 12.Bh6 Nd5! 13.Bxf8 Qxf8 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Qf3 Be6 16.Rae1 Bd6 (to keep it simple) - where is black's "hope for equality"? He has the bishop pair and two pawns for the exchange. If anyone has winning chances it is him, unless my understanding of chess and my evaluation of this position is way off. It may end in a draw, it might even be "unclear" - but with half of the pieces traded, black is definitely not worse. If this is one of the better lines for white, then it goes to show how dodgy this gambit actually is. We've obviously unpicked some of the holes in 9...c5 and 9...Nc6, and 9...c6 seems like a solid reply also, but the fact that black can be completely fine (which I opine he is) even in this line (which, by my understanding, is pretty much the whole point of 9.Kh1?!) shows that this gambit should not be taken seriously.
The amusing irony is that I have recently won a correspondence game in it where my opponent chose the weaker 12...Re8. Had he found the move I stumbled across (12...Nd5!), then I believe he could have proven black to be better even here. In a simplifying line.
Moving on, another correspondence game I've recently been playing involved the Pietrowsky defence (5...Nc6). Now theory old and new seems quite damning of this move after 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.O-O, but here my opponent uncorked the rare 7...a6!, which I think puts the onus back on white to prove something. I chose 8.Bd3 but after 8...Bg4 I seemed to find myself in quite an inferior position, though I've managed to turn it around and reach what I think is an equal position in the middlegame. But neither 8.Bc4 or 8.Bxc6 (possibly best) seem convincing either. What are people's experiences/opinions of this rare line?
Regarding your opinion of 11...g6 etc., I think it is inaccurate. White still has a Bishop remaining, which he can exchange. Hardly a refutation, in my opinion. Perhaps more accurate would be to say that after the line you give, the position is unclear.
You just contradicted yourself by admitting you actually
won a game with the Zilbermints Gambit in correspondence. Care to share it?
That is the thing about the 'dodgy' gambit: Computers may find the perfect line, but a human will not. More proof is that a computer, Deep Blue, beat the World Champion, Garry Kasparov, back in 1996.