Unorthodox Chess Openings #28 has been published!!
Zilbermints Gambit in Euwe Defense, Part III is there, plus an Index.

Markovich wrote on 04/25/11 at 12:10:32:


Precisely my point.

Because the old computer has viruses and needs to be cleaned.

I just had a new computer and printer installed yesterday. The problem is that BOOKUP 2000 is on my old computer. So are some inportant files. I will have to go to a computer store and have them help me transfer them via a zip disk.

Chess.com is great for testing new ideas! I just finished playing a few games with the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense. In one of these games, I was black. Still, White played well enough to draw the game. Will post these games here later.

UON #27 is being delayed, as the editor-in-chief is looking for a new job.

Markovich, I wasn't aware that I'd made any personal comments - I think Lev is well-known to be anti-computer in terms of their sole use in analysis, as he stated himself! Other than that I congratulated him on becoming a little more open to the thoughts of others.

I'm afraid to say that your analysis of 11...Bd7 falls down quite quickly - I agree completely that 12...Nb4 13.Ne5 is good enough for at least equal play.

Sadly, the manoeuvre (9...Nc6 10.Qe1 h6 11.Qh4 Bd7 12.Rad1) 12...Nh7!, known from other lines that we have analysed, will still cause you a lot of headaches. 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Qg3 looks just about forced, but black can choose between castling either side and giving a pawn back. 14...O-O-O looks preferable, and better for black comfortably - indeed it's unlikely black can even grab a pawn here. Maybe 15.Be4, but that can be met by, amongst other moves, 15...Ng5!? or 15...f6! and black is at least -/+

So, 11...Bd7 still lives and causes major headaches, all due to 12...Nh7 and a human brain, human thought processes. Where does white's compensation lie? Usually in exchanges and combinations involving f6, sometimes sacrifices on h6, and the pressure due to the pin on the h8 rook. 12...Nh7! solves all three of these problems in one simple step. And this manoeuvre, as I said, has cropped up elsewhere.

As for your last comment on "white's last hope", we have demonstrated that all of 11.Bf4, 11.Be3 and 11.Bh4 are theoretically close to refuted. Please don't bring it back to practical chances - I am only interested in theoretical discussions. I have won a lot of games with weaker openings, where my opponents have gone wrong. However, I acknowledge openly that if my opponents find the strongest moves I am left bankrupt. I would even venture this line OTB myself, but again knowing that a strong opponent or one versed in this website would probably bankrupt me. It is hope chess of a sort. It is gambling. I am happy to admit and accept it. Theoretically 9...Nc6 is still looking like a refutation of this line, just like 4.Nc4 looks like a refutation of the main line Latvian at present - of course "refutation" and "automatic win" are not the same words.

I have a chess engine all right, a gift from a chess-friend. However, I rarely use it with regards to this website. However, there are certain times when I do use the computer. You just annoyed me to the point where I had to use it to refute your pesky analyzes with 11...Bd7. Now I'm hearing "last hope", "complicated", "playable for both sides" , and similar adjectives. Translation: You don't want to admit I got the better of you in analyzing these lines!

Is 11 Qh4 White's last hope, as you think? I have already pointed out that the alternatives, 11 Bf4, 11 Be3 and even 11 Bh4 are all viable against unwary opponents (as is often the case). Zilbermints - Schiller, correspondence 2011, and Zilbermints-Kopiecki, 2nd Blitz-Discussion-Match, New York 2001/2002, is ample proof of that.

As a veteran reporter, with 20 years of experience, I believe in giving credit where it is due. In this case, the source is a computer. Any professor or newspaper editor will tell you to properly cite sources, otherwise you would be a plagiarizer. Sometimes two independent sources come up with the same idea, and then you cite both (e.g., Smith, 1998; Bell, 1998a).
In chess, you see this in such names as Blackmar-Diemer Gambit; Greco Counter-Gambit aka Latvian Gambit; Makogonov-Bondarevsky System; Richter-Rauzer Attack, etc.

That is what we were taught in undergraduate school and graduate school, to give proper credit. Does that answer your question?

I am anti-computer in the sense that I do not like people depending 100% on computers to find the answers. Use your own head to find something. Otherwise, what is going to happen, is that in OTB chess you will be so dependent on computer, that you may not be able to function without it. Wasn't there a case where 3 French chess players were penalized for cheating? There is even a thread here elsewhere.

I will have to send yet another revision to UON #27, which is being held up again. As for 11...Nd7, I have not seen it much in our voluminous discussions. A lot of attention was on 11...Bd7 instead.

Gambit wrote on 04/18/11 at 14:00:09:


The famous anti-computer Lev, giving credit to a chess engine? Accepting that certain lines are causing theoretically huge trouble? I am very, very impressed with this turn of events. Nonetheless, I don't think you can call 11...Bd7 "refuted" on the basis of a line which looks complicated and playable for both sides! And, as already pointed out, 11...Nd7 has long been considered the more critical move. Still, it looks like 11.Qh4 is surprisingly white's last hope in this line.

White is still struggling against 11...Nd7!- I gave 15...Ra7 (rather than 15...Rb8) 16.Rae1 Nf6, I would also prefer 16...Nf6 in the case of 15...Rb8, while I think 17...Qa3 is an error (17...Nc5 harrassing the d3-bishop).

It's a shame, because I think you have indeed managed to demonstrate sufficient compensation against 11...Bd7, while in the 11...Nb4 line with 18.Rdf3! White wins the pawn back, and there are no easy improvements for Black.  Your first line against 11...Bd7 is the more convincing in my opinion- 16.Ne5! is a nice shot, and if Black tries to avoid it with 15...Qc7 then White has 16.Ng5!.  11...Nd5 was already given by Markovich in an earlier thread as allowing White sufficient compensation.