Latest Updates:
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G (Read 17460 times)
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #22 - 08/01/16 at 23:35:35
Post Tools
I should mention there is a Vote Chess game going on right now at chess.com with the ZGED. Two teams of players against one another!
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #21 - 03/16/15 at 06:16:37
Post Tools
Do you mean 5... e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 00 ?

I did not consider it because 10 Nxd4! wins a piece after 10...Qxd4 11 Bxh7+ !

The 9...Bc5 line leaves the Nf6 undefended, and thus, White's attack is more dangerous.

9...e5 just opens up the e-file and creates a weakness.
In fact, I considered all these moves in my original analyses, back in 1993.

Scheerer has no line with 9...00, for the reason stated above. If you refer to 10...00, then please see page 156 of Scheerer's book, line b13.

Hoping to hear from you soon. I do not visit this site as much as I used to, hence the late response.

  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
aram
YaBB Newbies
*
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 2
Joined: 01/20/15
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #20 - 01/20/15 at 19:57:34
Post Tools
Lev. I'm wondering why you did not discuss the 9...o-o, 9...e5 and 9....Bc5 in UONs. scheerer in his book claimed that 9...o-o is black's best and you mentioned nothing about this line. Would you please discuss about these lines a bit or is there a pdf that refers to them? Tnx
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #19 - 04/13/11 at 09:22:12
Post Tools
We have already covered 9...c5 10.Nxd4 cxd4 11.Bxf6 gxf6! (not 11...Bxf6 which allows White decent compensation) haven't we?  Here's an updated version of my PGN combining what we have on ZGED so far, and it doesn't look pretty for White after either 9...c5 or 9...Nc6:

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bresando
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 59
Location: Pavia, Italy
Joined: 02/12/10
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #18 - 04/13/11 at 08:41:48
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 04/13/11 at 04:00:45:
ratings. My chess.com rating is currently 1679, so I am in the 1601-1800 section.

Shocked i think you will end playing in the 1800-2000 section, at least, if you play some more games.
I am for certain a much weaker player than yourself, but my rating here is 1795(and increasing), obtained by moving at blitz speed in most of my games. The correspondence ratings on that website are inflated in a ridicolous way. This is to say that if you want some enjoiment from the tournament you should play some more games before the start. A real-life >2000 player like you does not belong the that section. This is of course true also for CraigEvans.

Sorry for the offtopic!

(by the way,i'm also currently registered for the 1600-1800 section)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #17 - 04/13/11 at 04:00:45
Post Tools
Huh? Craig, where were you? I already invented a counter to 9...c5 , in case you have not looked closely enough. It has been known since 1993 at least, but you did not look at it. Thus,

9...c5 10 Nxd4 cxd4 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Ne4 Be7 13 Nxf6 gxf6 14 Qf3 Qe7 15 Qf6 Qf6  16 Rf6 e5 17 Rae1 Be6 18 Bh6 Rfe8 19 Rh7 Bd5 20 Re1 Rg8 21 Re5+ Be6 22 Bc4 Ke7 23 Rxe6+ Kd7 24 Rf7+ Kc8 25 Ree7
b6 26 Rc7+ Kb8 27 Rb7+ Kc8 28 Rfc7+ Kd8 29 Bg8 Ke8 30 Bd5, 1-0, Zilbermints - GeordiLaWoog, Internet Chess Club 3 0 rated blitz, 3/20/2003.   


Zilbermints - Bolzoni
ICC 3 0 rated blitz
19 March 2011

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 c5 10 Bxf6 Bxf6
11 Nxd4 Bxd4 12 Qh5 g6 13 Qh6 Bd7 14 Ne2 Bc6 15 Nd4 Qd4 16 Rf4 Qb2 17 Raf1 000 18 Rf7 Rxd3 19 Rf8+ Rxf8 20 Qxf8 Rd8 21 Qxc5 Qxa2 22 h3 Qd5 23 Qf2 a5 24 Re1 a4 25 Re3 Qc5 26 Qe2 Rd1+ 27 Kh2 Qd6+ 28 Rg3 Rd2 29 Qf1 a3 30 h4 Bxg2 31 Qc4+ Kb8 32 Qc3 Be4+ 33 Kg1 Qxg3+ 34 Qxg3+ Ka8 35 Qxa3 Kb8 36 Qf8+ Ka7 37 Qc5+ Kb8 38 Qe5+ Ka8 39 Qxe4 1-0.

Regarding your challenge, great! I should point out that on chess.com BDG tournament, you play 10 games at the same time against various opponents.
The time limit is 1 move in 3 days. There is an elimination process, with the winners advancing to the next round. So, you will end up playing me, but I will also play against you with the Black pieces.

The BDG tournament is divided into sections arranged by ratings. My chess.com rating is currently 1679, so I am in the 1601-1800 section. For you to play me, I would suggest joining ASAP and started playing as many games as possible. That way you can get your rating to my level and face me in the same section. Otherwise, as per chess.com rules, you will end up playing in a different section.

I'm telling you like it is at chess.com, so you know what the deal is. I did not make these rules, chess.com did! I have no objection to playing you on chess.com, under the rules stated there.

With regard to "hope chess", you are missing a key point here, Craig. Chess is skill, endurance, art, science, and also luck. That's how it is. There is a little of everything in chess.   

The Caltrop Coefficient does mean something, as Tim McGrew demonstrates in his article. It is the equivalent of chess psychology, perhaps. Why don't you tell McGrew your opinion about the Caltrop Coefficient? I'm sure you two would have a lively discussion! Also, let me point out that it was not I who brought the CC into our argument here, but another poster.

You just said that in the 9...c5 line, Black has to play more accurately. Which means that White has decent chances, as my earlier analyses, posted in the other thread, demonstrated. I also posted a couple of other games here, above.

I understand that you guys are looking for both sides playing the most perfect moves. That might work away from the pressures of the tournament hall, in the quiet of your cabinet. Then you can analyze ad infinitum, with result of a draw (assuming the best moves for White and Black). But, I ask, how many grandmasters caved in under pressure of a relentless attack? How many times various factors contributed to the defeat of a chess-player? A blind spot, forgotten analysis, a surprising new move, health problems, room temperature... All these factors can influence chess-players in choosing less-than-perfect moves! We are all human, and humans have weaknesses. These are the facts of everyday life.

Might I point out that the Fischer-Spassky and Topalov-Kramnik matches were full of many factors that influenced the games?

Perfection? I don't think so.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #16 - 04/13/11 at 01:54:26
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 04/12/11 at 15:36:55:
Your response is inaccurate, Craig. We already saw that White does get chances after 9...c5, so it is hardly a refutation. As for 9...Nc6, it could well transpose. What is wrong with the transposition 9...Nc6 10 Qe1 h6 11 Bf4
to begin with?

Let me respond to your argument of 1 f3 e5 2 g4 Qh4 mate. Everyone knows that is unsound. The losing move here is 2 g4. I never said you could win by playing these two moves in such consequence. Stop putting words that I never said in my mouth.

Yes, you could win with 1 f3, 2 Kf2. I have seen a few people do it. Though why would anyone play like that is open to question. Giving up Castling prematurely?

Yes, this is about opening theory. I should point out that the ZGED fits into this category. It is an opening whose theory is being discussed. At present, the topics under discussion are 9...Nc6 and 9...c5. I deem  9...c5 to be easier to play against, since it does open the game somewhat.

The game Zilbermints - FM Eric Schiller, email correspondence 2011, continued 9...h6 10 Bf4 Nc6 11 Qe1 00 12 Rad1 Bd6 13 Ne5 Nxe5 14 Bxe5 Bxe5
15 Bh7+! Nxh7 16 Rxd8 Rxd8 17 Qxe5 c6 18 Rd1 Rxd1 19 Nxd1 Nf6 20 Qc7 Ne4 21 Ne3 f6 22 Nc4 e5 23 Na5 Bf5 24 Nxb7 Rc8 25 Qa5 Kh7 26 h3 h5 27 Kh2 Re8 28 Qa7 Re7 29 Qb8 Rd7 30 Qe8 Kh6 31 Nd8 Nd6 32 Qg8 h4 33 Nxc6 Nf7 34 Nb4 Ng5 35 Qb3 Rd2
36 Qe3 


Currently the game is still ongoing. I wish to point out that there could be a transposition after 9...Nc6 10 Qe1 h6 11 Bf4. Furthermore, there is hardly such a thing as perfect play in chess. Everyone, World Champions included, makes mistakes! And that is a fact.

You guys are invited to join the BDG tournament starting up on May 1 at chess.com website. Membership is free.



Huh? You couldn't find a decent move after 9...c5? You've failed to discuss 9..Nc6 in about seven years. 1.f3, 2.g4 is just about as refuted as your junk.

I'll play in that tournament if there's a guarantee I'll play you and you'll play this line - I love free points. "It could well transpose" is 'kinda chicken' for "white is lost with best play". If white is 'kinda hoping' for transpositions into lines that don't lose so badly, he's lost. Markovich might well delete this challege, but if you will play into the 9...Nc6 ZGED, I would love to play you. Literally every day of the week. I'd be a 2800. In correspondence. OTB. In blitz. This nonsense is refuted.

"The topics under discussion are 9...c5 and 9...Nc6"... yet the only games you post are in 9...h6. You have failed to improve in the lines I posted many, many years back after 9...Nc6. Markovich, MNb and others have posted lines which prove 9...c5 to be a viable alternative refutation, even if black has to play a little more accurately.

The ZGED is +-. This is an opening theory site, not a "hope chess" site. The caltrop coefficient is irrelevant. Invent an opening that is worth discussing, please. Wink
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #15 - 04/12/11 at 20:46:09
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/12/11 at 17:18:55:
I think the main point Craig was making is that this is an opening theory site, and thus debates focus on the objective merits of individual lines from a theory perspective.   It's hard to discuss theory when people come back and, as Markovich put it in the other thread, say, "So what?  Practice!".

ZGED is a classic example of, as Tim McGrew would put it, an opening line which is theoretically bad, but scores well in the databases because of a high "Caltrop Coefficient"- i.e. one slip by Black can lead to instant ruin while one slip by White might just reduce White's hacking chances a little.  This is fine in itself, but again, doesn't help regarding discussing it from a theory perspective.


Theory has to use examples from practice too, you know? As for the Caltrop Coefficient, that is true of the entire BDG. My gambit is just a rather pointed example of this.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #14 - 04/12/11 at 17:18:55
Post Tools
I think the main point Craig was making is that this is an opening theory site, and thus debates focus on the objective merits of individual lines from a theory perspective.   It's hard to discuss theory when people come back and, as Markovich put it in the other thread, say, "So what?  Practice!".

ZGED is a classic example of, as Tim McGrew would put it, an opening line which is theoretically bad, but scores well in the databases because of a high "Caltrop Coefficient"- i.e. one slip by Black can lead to instant ruin while one slip by White might just reduce White's hacking chances a little.  This is fine in itself, but again, doesn't help regarding discussing it from a theory perspective.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #13 - 04/12/11 at 15:36:55
Post Tools
Your response is inaccurate, Craig. We already saw that White does get chances after 9...c5, so it is hardly a refutation. As for 9...Nc6, it could well transpose. What is wrong with the transposition 9...Nc6 10 Qe1 h6 11 Bf4
to begin with?

Let me respond to your argument of 1 f3 e5 2 g4 Qh4 mate. Everyone knows that is unsound. The losing move here is 2 g4. I never said you could win by playing these two moves in such consequence. Stop putting words that I never said in my mouth.

Yes, you could win with 1 f3, 2 Kf2. I have seen a few people do it. Though why would anyone play like that is open to question. Giving up Castling prematurely?

Yes, this is about opening theory. I should point out that the ZGED fits into this category. It is an opening whose theory is being discussed. At present, the topics under discussion are 9...Nc6 and 9...c5. I deem  9...c5 to be easier to play against, since it does open the game somewhat.

The game Zilbermints - FM Eric Schiller, email correspondence 2011, continued 9...h6 10 Bf4 Nc6 11 Qe1 00 12 Rad1 Bd6 13 Ne5 Nxe5 14 Bxe5 Bxe5
15 Bh7+! Nxh7 16 Rxd8 Rxd8 17 Qxe5 c6 18 Rd1 Rxd1 19 Nxd1 Nf6 20 Qc7 Ne4 21 Ne3 f6 22 Nc4 e5 23 Na5 Bf5 24 Nxb7 Rc8 25 Qa5 Kh7 26 h3 h5 27 Kh2 Re8 28 Qa7 Re7 29 Qb8 Rd7 30 Qe8 Kh6 31 Nd8 Nd6 32 Qg8 h4 33 Nxc6 Nf7 34 Nb4 Ng5 35 Qb3 Rd2
36 Qe3 


Currently the game is still ongoing. I wish to point out that there could be a transposition after 9...Nc6 10 Qe1 h6 11 Bf4. Furthermore, there is hardly such a thing as perfect play in chess. Everyone, World Champions included, makes mistakes! And that is a fact.

You guys are invited to join the BDG tournament starting up on May 1 at chess.com website. Membership is free.

  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 588
Location: Bryn, South Wales
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #12 - 04/12/11 at 11:03:59
Post Tools
I let out a loud sigh when I saw this thread. 11 posts so far, and absolutely nothing of substance as usual. Mostly off-topic, and the usual diatribe from Lev.

This is an OPENING THEORY forum. It accompanies a website on such opening theory. Theoretically, the Zilbermints Gambit is refuted not once, but twice! 9...Nc6 and 9...c5 have been shown to give black a sizeable advantage as well as a material surplus. White is lost.

Your last thread was locked, Lev, because you were adding nothing productive and you were arguing a different point to everyone else. If you want to post games then start a website or a blog to do it in. This is a forum for discussing opening theory. 9...h6 is an inferior move in a refuted opening - there will be no-one here really interested in discussing it. I will be asking Markovich as co-moderator to take a close look at and, if necessary, close this thread also.

No-one either argues with or cares about your definition of soundness as an indication of practical chances. This is a theory site, it is interested in the theoretical truth of soundness, and the ZGED falls hugely short in this respect. Until you find some lines which rescue white in all the variations actually causing him some problems (see the other thread for these, for they are many!), there is no need for any further posting on this line. That is my view, at least.

Your spurious argument that a line is only unsound if you cannot win or draw games with it, btw, is ludicrous. In blitz and bullet chess I have won games with 1.f3, 2.g4 and 1.f3, 2.Kf2, 3.Ke3 - both lose outright but opponents can blunder. If you are arguing that 1.f3, 2.g4 is sound because some of my opponents play too quickly to spot 2...Qh4#, then you are being foolish Lev, hopefully you are intelligent enough to realise this.

We can all agree that the ZGED gives white chances to go wrong, and that if white goes wrong balck can make a game of it. However, bringing it back to my original point - this site is interested in the theoretical side: what happens with perfect play? In this sense the ZGED is moribund - there are two different refutations, and the only question remaining is, "Which refutation is the 'perfect' one?". For me, knowing that there are two routes to a won game, I am not actually interested in this question. For most others, I suspect they'd rather spend their time looking at lines of the BDG which are causing white problems but have a chance of being salvaged. Please create a blog or website if you wish to trumpet your blitz games, or write more articles for obscure magazines. Don't clutter an opening theory website with something which is almost nothing to do with opening theory.
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #11 - 04/11/11 at 22:44:57
Post Tools
8.Qc2 in the Danish two-pawn gambit is not forced, I'm not aware of any known refutation of the more conservative 8.0-0 approach which Danish Dynamite suggested may be underestimated. 

I certainly agree about 7.Nc3 in the 5...d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 line though.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10546
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #10 - 04/11/11 at 22:05:05
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 04/11/11 at 12:45:37:
This 8.0-0 gambit is refuted in a theoretical sense.

I'm afraid the Double Danish/Göring Gambit is refuted in a theoretical sense as well: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qc2 d6 9.0-0-0 0-0. For details I have to refer to Danish Dynamite. In this book the piece sac 7.Nc3 (iso the endgame line 7.Bxf7+) alas is also refuted.
These two fall in the same category as the ZGED.
  

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
 
linksspringer
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 376
Joined: 09/25/07
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #9 - 04/11/11 at 20:23:26
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 04/11/11 at 12:15:59:
Second, we agree that theory and practice are two different birds. One is a robin, while the other is a sparrow. LOL! That said, linksspringer, you just contradicted yourself by saying that a line is refuted if it leads to an advantage for Black. Yet earlier on, you admit there is a difference between theory and practice. So, how can it be refuted? What am I supposed to think, given the contradiction in your argument?


You said that in the other thread as well, but there is no contradiction. I'm just pointing out that we are using different definitions of the word 'refuted'. This leads to misunderstandings and makes discussions very difficult. Am I getting my point across?  Sad
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #8 - 04/11/11 at 16:39:58
Post Tools
Yes, that is correct. He did have health problems.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4666
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #7 - 04/11/11 at 15:42:24
Post Tools
That's quite a fall in rating for Schiller.  I know that he has had health problems.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #6 - 04/11/11 at 15:35:14
Post Tools
I have only had the pleasure of playing the ZGED against
2300+ players maybe two times, both on the Internet Chess Club. Once was against GM Michael Rohde, back in 2007. Had I played a different 16th move, I still would have had the initiative and winning chances. Instead, I erred ( see game in earlier ZGED thread) and lost. The other game I lost too, but again, I had a long-lasting initiative. With a better move than what was played in the game, I would have likely drawn or won. And in both games I stood better.

Turning to regular tournaments, I had not the opportunity to play 2300+ players with the ZGED in many years. Most likely because it is a rare variation. Also many strong players choose defenses other than the Euwe. Refuted? I don't think so!

Eric Schiller holds a 2118 ELO with FIDE, and is a FIDE Master. He is a USCF Life Master with a 2200 rating.
I'm playing him right now by email correspondence.
He won the first game, so this is the second game.
I have every intention of winning this game!! Rest assured, I will see it through...

As for theoretical vs. practical, we talked about that ad nauseam. Suffice to say you can have all the theory you want, but over the board it might be different. Even SWJediKnight admitted that in the ZGED Black has more chances to go wrong than in the Ryder Gambit.

There are so many plausible-looking moves in ZGED that Black has to figure out which 9th move to play! In the Ryder Gambit, all you have to know is 5...Nc6 or 5...Qxd4 6 Be3 Qg4! 7 Qf2 Qh4+ 8 g3 Qb4 just to name two key lines.

Even with all that said, a true gambiteer, well-versed in the intricacies of the ZGED would win against stronger opponents in an OTB game.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 900
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #5 - 04/11/11 at 12:45:37
Post Tools
About the line in the Danish,
1.  A drawing line is not the same as a line where the opponent has a significant theoretical advantage.
2.  The Danish endgame (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 etc) isn't quite a drawing line.  Although it isn't the kind of position that your typical Danish Gambiteer wants, the rival pawn majorities nonetheless give both sides some scope to play for a win.
3.  More theoretically critical is 5...c6 followed by ...d6, 5...Nf6 (intending to meet the dubious 6.e5 with 6...d5 7.exf6 Bb4+! 8.Nc3 Qxf6!) and 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 and now 6...Bb4+ or 6...d6.  Any one of these lines might give Black a theoretical advantage, but if so, the route to advantage is far less clear-cut than in the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defence with 9...Nc6 or 9...c5.  Meanwhile in practice Black often screws up in these lines, leading to wins for White.

This 8.0-0 gambit is refuted in a theoretical sense.  It clearly works quite well in rapid games below about 2300 Elo, and if it works for you, by all means keep playing it and winning with it.  But I think if an IM played the line repeatedly, the result might be, at best, one or two wins against unprepared opponents followed by a string of depressing losses in which Black fends off the white attack and wins- often the key is to be prepared to give back one pawn at the right moment in order to secure a fair share of the initiative.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #4 - 04/11/11 at 12:15:59
Post Tools
linksspringer wrote on 04/11/11 at 10:22:53:
Before this thread gets locked...
Lev, I think we are making progress. You seem to be willing to acknowledge the difference between theoretical advantage and practical chances. We could have a fruitful discussion if
1. we understand that a line is refuted in your eyes only if you cannot win or draw games with it (practice).
2. you understand a line is refuted in our eyes if it leads to a theoretical advantage for Black.
Hopefully we could then concentrate on the chess instead of arguments about ticking clocks or challenges on ICC.

The other thing: please pay attention to what we consider to be strongest play. In the other thread 9...Nc6 10.Qe1 h6 was analysed to leading to a Black theoretical advantage.

Regarding this thread: I don't mind discussing 9...h6 even if Black has better moves. But since you have an ongoing game, I assume that will have wait until the game is finished (or has progressed far enough)?


First, I already posted a game against Juan Tica here, where  9...h6 10 Bf4 Nc6 11 Qe1 was played. Isn't that what you wanted to see? The game against Eric Schiller will be posted much later. Right now I have a Queen and Knight against his Rook, Knight and Bishop with a bunch of pawns still on the board. He has a dangerous passed e-pawn, so I have to play very accurately to avoid cheapos.

Second, we agree that theory and practice are two different birds. One is a robin, while the other is a sparrow. LOL! That said, linksspringer, you just contradicted yourself by saying that a line is refuted if it leads to an advantage for Black. Yet earlier on, you admit there is a difference between theory and practice. So, how can it be refuted? What am I supposed to think, given the contradiction in your argument?

Third, if you can't get a draw or win, then the line is not good. But, just because Black gets an advantage in theory, does not preclude White from winning games in practice! It's like the Danish Gambit, where Black accepts both pawns. The drawn line, leading to early endgame, has been known for decades, and yet White still wins games!

  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
linksspringer
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 376
Joined: 09/25/07
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #3 - 04/11/11 at 10:22:53
Post Tools
Before this thread gets locked...
Lev, I think we are making progress. You seem to be willing to acknowledge the difference between theoretical advantage and practical chances. We could have a fruitful discussion if
1. we understand that a line is refuted in your eyes only if you cannot win or draw games with it (practice).
2. you understand a line is refuted in our eyes if it leads to a theoretical advantage for Black.
Hopefully we could then concentrate on the chess instead of arguments about ticking clocks or challenges on ICC.

The other thing: please pay attention to what we consider to be strongest play. In the other thread 9...Nc6 10.Qe1 h6 was analysed to leading to a Black theoretical advantage.

Regarding this thread: I don't mind discussing 9...h6 even if Black has better moves. But since you have an ongoing game, I assume that will have wait until the game is finished (or has progressed far enough)?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #2 - 04/11/11 at 03:21:25
Post Tools
Nope. I think that after 9...c5 White gets a good game. The conclusion in an earlier thread was that 9...c5 theoretically gives Black the edge, but practically, White gets the advantage! I also found some of my games against Pablo Schmidt, where the continuation was 9...c5 10 Nxd4 cxd4 11 Bxf6 gxf6 and White still won!

After 9...Nc6 10 Qe1 Bd7 there was a line analyzed by MNb earlier. That one looks drawish.

See, theory is one thing, practice another altogether.
What happens when you have a clock ticking away at your side?
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
Reply #1 - 04/11/11 at 02:19:24
Post Tools
This is of quite marginal interest, isn't it, given our mutual conclusion that both 9...Nc6 and 9...c5 produce significant advantage for Black?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1388
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: Euwe Defense:Zilbermints G
04/10/11 at 22:40:09
Post Tools
Recently I found my old score-book from 2009/2010.
While leafing through old games, I found one that I played against Juan Tica in the Fourth Ernest Marx Memorial in Ridgewood, New Jersey.

Zilbermints - Tica
IV Ernest Marx Memorial, Round 5
Game/90 minutes
12 April 2010

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1 h6

This move is recommended by FM Eric Schiller, with whom I'm playing by email correspondence.

10 Bf4

This move is better than 10 Bd2, which clogs up the d-file. Zilbermints - Schiller, email correspondence 2011, later ended in a win for Schiller after 10 Bd2?!.
Now I'm playing a second game with Schiller. There, 10 Bf4 is the move. The game is ongoing, and I'll inform you once it is over.   

10...Nc6  11 Qe1 Nd5? 12 Nxd5 ed5 13 Qg3! Kf8 14 Bxc7 15 Rae1 Be6?? 16 Rxe6! fxe6 17 Nd4+ 1-0/41.
« Last Edit: 04/11/11 at 00:30:56 by Gambit »  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo