Alapin-Diemer is the STRONGEST anti-French gambit

#60
The Milner-Barry Gambit has some logic: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Nc6 5 Nf3 Qb6 6 Bd3 cxd4 
The Alapin-Diemer has no logic at all: why give up a central pawn to put Bc1 at a passive position Be3 between pawns f2 and d4, as if it were a pawn itself?

I figured out a bunch of gambits today

Because it provides good trolling ground- or at least the O.P. thinks that a bucketful of nonsense that he's claiming at every one of his posts in this thread is good trolling.

One of these days he will probably understand that it is not, and I do not care when.

indeed@ThrillerFan~Yeah, I believe you when you say 6. ... Nc6 is better than the line with 6. ... c5 but it doesn't change my opinion that your first proclamation about this line being "utter crap" is really out there! And yeah, I gave you a little dig about not following up because it's only right. Lots of newbies or grass root players are popping up everywhere with little to no guidance...AND DEFINITELY YEAH, IT DOESN'T TAKE A CHESS GENIUS OR A CHESS GM TO POINT OUT CERTAIN THIINGS THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL IN THEIR SPHERE OF DEVELOPMENT. IN SOME CASES, TO POINT OUT TO PLAYERS, THAT INSTEAD OF BASHING CERTAIN LINES THAT THEY THEMSELVES TELL THESE GUYS THEY SHOULD DO THEIR OWN DUE DILIGENCE INSTEAD OF JUST CALLING SAID LINE "CRAP".

Cool if YOU don't have the patience, but DON'T FRIGGIN SAY I'M TRYING TO "TRICK" YOU OR SOME STUFF LIKE THAT BRO. My focus was on the OP.

Likw the diemar dum more

regarding the "unsound smith morra gambit"

i just DESTROYED a 1650+ playing a "normal french" variation of the smith morra where i used my king's gambit/krejcik favorite castle grabbing technique to unpin my f4 knight and just continued with the initiative.

i'm still using the same basic formation theory i started out with, only RUSTY and no longer studied up on my original 40 lines, but am finding it STILL fits like a glove. when i need a piece for a tactic, it's THERE! i needed to use my queen's bishop to f4 (no g5 pins today!) to attack the pawn on my knight's future outpost square, but had pieces ALL OVER IT after castling and Qe2.

i WISH everything i played was that tactically accommodating.

my rating's ALREADY high 1500s! i'm thinking it might be not getting tripped up in the opening by irrational 1300s who test my positional ineptitude.

i won my game my way and will NEVER get reactionaries who keep trying to tell me to embrace positional voodoo main lines i'll NEVER UNDERSTAND (terrible ratings in the french & sicilian WITHOUT gambits) to aim for foofy 1/2 pawn endings i'll never win. what is the point of PLAYING WRONG?! i need tactics, and if i can't have them, i can't play and am not happy.

last time i checked, nakumura plays nothing BUT gambits. i'm not concerned with ratings myself. besides, if i get my ratings from UNSOUND (i am destroying in kings gambit) gambits, then i'm stronger than my ratings indicate EARNING every win THE HARD WAY.

DON'T get me started on re-rating people for blitz chess. my 15 minute rating was 300 points higher than my 10 minute one DESPITE playing at the same pace and never needing the extra 5 minutes, in effect HOBBLING myself with a 5 minute DISADVANTAGE, but my rating was higher.

again... i don't need to know what i'm talking about and don't give a flying eff what YOU TROLLING HATERS think. i'm following performance, the hardest most irrefutable metric for how a move performs IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. i'm counting on everyone ELSE's homework and testing. you're ignoring the FACT that these lines are being carved by strong players who READ CHESS BOOKS and every other thing that adds to the theory. i'm tracking them down and using their own moves against them picking the strongest performing replies. i don't know WHY the quade gambit is performing at an an insane 8% or more better than the classical king's gambit, but it IS and the FACTS don't care what you think of them.

i've SEEN the fruits of my labor studying the zeller BDG and finding that a simple Qe2 instantly drives one's book into PREDICTABLE winning territory. it's up top YOU to refute the theory THAT ALREADY WORKS! me? i've NEVER had a chess book where the STOCKFISH MEASURED evaluations are NO LESS than +2.7 by move 15 IN EVERY LINE! that's what happens when you build a book with nothing but the best moves refuting EVERYONE ELSE'S not so best ones.

you can argue against facts all you want because your confirmation bias and feelings can't take it, but i still don't see you daring to step into my zeller book and get owned NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO unless you play a SIDELINE. there's nothing you can do in my book and get an advantage, and my theory's tested against who knows how many HUNDREDS or even thousands of players.

so troll... keep trolling, SAFE from putting your big mouth up and getting EMBARRASSED because it is YOU that knows not of what you speak.

numbers don't lie

YOU DO

you TOTALLY failed to notice GM Lamford's TIMELY MAKING MY POINT comment from a book that predates the internet...

you want the best chess theory... STUDY WHAT WORKS BEST

the RESULTS

i'm looking for results where GMs don't do theory ANYWAYS!!! i'm doing WHAT I MUST. it's the ONLY WAY to get AMATEUR theory for the games i'll ACTUALLY PLAY.

i get so frustrated arguing with emotionals and social dominance losers when they are WRONG and THIS mastermind fixes NASA GRADE wrong kids. your DENIAL OF THE REALITY OF PERFAMCE BASED METRICS IS WRONG.

getting someone to agree with you won't make it right. moves perform stronger FOR REASONS! those reasons REVEAL THEMSELVES when you follow THE EVIDENCE... the smoking pawn. that lines that START OUT at 53:45 are +2.7 in ONLY ONE LINE and more like +5 or more in everything else is PERFECTLY LOGICAL. 

you REALLY need to get your heads examined for your IGNORE THE PROOF psychosis. there's already too much of science denying etc. aholes in the world that you don't need to bring your denial of facts to the table. it really makes YOU look the fool DESPITE all your butt buddies club self congratulation.

i'll go where the numbers lead and COMPLETELY ignore EVERYTHING you have to say about THEORY with all your strawaman whataboutist arguments.

the moves that win games WIN GAMES

the ones that don't? nope... don't see THOSE at the proverbial final table.

you can show an idiot a bunch of tesla 9 second timeslips (the METRICS) , but idiots'll still go out and buy a challenger with its 10.8 second RATING and still not get why a 4 door beats them in a race EVERY TIME.

the irrefutability of statistics are so much more than your not even listening to your (ignore the facts! ignore the proof! what i say is how it is because i say so and am convinced) own comments... the subtext. moves that are highest performing and STOCKFISH APPROVED (most of the time) are somehow magically WRONG in some bizarro universe where up is down.

haters gonna hate... i hate the haters. the GAME is KNOWABLE

Paul Lamford is a Grandmaster at Bridge, not Chess. I think he was a bit over 2300 at some time, but never applied for FIDE Master title.

You made plenty of arguments. Too bad that all of them are void.

i brought RECEIPTS, your denying the facts is what's wrong... just like KNUCKLE HEADED sealed speaker lovers who lose their damn minds when you TRY to show them the HARD SCIENCE of all the ways ports might boom loud, but that boom is DISTORTION (even with SPEAKER MANUFACTURERS weighing in on the pros and cons of tech) but their PATHETIC "can't take you challenging my assumptions" (i'm ALWAYS ready to change my position when FACTS demand it... better than DOUBLING DOWN ON WRONG) confirmation bias PREVENTS them from ACCEPTING REALITY.

i see YOUR convinced you're right when you're not type a million times a day.

well, you never REALLY win an argument with someone who just declares victory and puts their fingers in their ears, but that ISN'T why my peers elected me as captain for EVERY DEBATE. facts matter THERE

indeed. There will always be players on their high horses who will defer to their engines, reputation and look down on players these days (as opposed to the "Ol days" here on chess.com) instead of constructively engaging. Mostly reactive, quotes and never says anything remotely conducive just ends in a "punchline". They were never ever a newbie or a grass roots player (perish forbid! heh). I'll not comment on casual bandwagoneers who input their take on what these high horse guys convey. As it is, as in Life, rely on yourself, believe in yourself, grow & experience what's out there... Be free 👍🏼

So you shout every 5th word?

I reasin you were chossen is completly different

I have very little patience with people doubling down on wrong (I see it CONSTANTLY... and I'm not yelling, I'm EMPHASIZING). the stats are the stats because they tell the story of HOW the best moves won. DISCLAIMER, I'm NOT calling my research "grandmaster strength". that's not what it's about. it's about finding solutions at MY level, and NOT foofy get nothing accomplished EVER (oh I despised analyzing with wishy washy fritz 6 and used crafty instead) in grandmaster and computer lines. i'm looking for double edged AMATEUR games. my theory catches ALL of the AMATEUR blunders (and I'm finding them A LOT, in large clusters even, simply following the results).

i'm positionally stupid, i hate computer analysis (I loved demoing deep junior and WISH I could get leela opening advice) and don't understand the too subtle junk grandmasters play. i'm a tactician and nothing but. i need theory to minimize getting tripped up in the opening. i just looked at my results, and my 90% +250pts glory days in the smith morra are over. i'm getting killed in it, and a lot of people are dodging it these days. i need to re-learn it.

again, at the AMATEUR LEVEL, people are playing lines that aren't in books. as a gambiteer... no, i DON'T like wishy washy grandmaster lines. they assume i understand the concepts, i don't. the thing i love about making my own books is 

1. i can use ALL of the "out of book" theory that's actually getting played and I trust the results way more than lousy stockfish recommendations that often perform hideously over the board. i'll never forgive the scandinavian author who simply dismissed 1.e4 d5 2.e5 as "nothing t0o worry about"  when he couldn't have been more wrong. it was the straightjacket that drove me nuts, theory free and counting on lame fritz 6 to build confusing slow theory. i ended up quitting because i could no longer take being stuck behind my pawns in that and the stonewall.

2.i'm using real human theory, closer to my level so hopefully I can wrap my head around some of the ideas intuitively, at least. the way I see it, the theory is a well worn comfortable blanket. it's what works and isn't THEORETICAL, it's TESTED. THIS TIME around, I actually finished my scandinavian advance to move 7 book and have it all ready to study. when i was studying it the hard way using my phone and my book on a tablet, i was overjoyed that i was already making mostly right moves the very first time i actually looked at my theory.

3.I'm not STUCK following a LAMETASTIC  (that was yelling) recommendation to retreat a piece to its starting square. i'm NOT a hypermodern, i despise hypermod games. i can pick moves that suit my tastes on the fly knowing that if my theory fails, it's my fault

i like the irony of whoever pointing out that mr lamford is NOT a grandmaster. you don't even realize you made my point. it takes an OUTSIDER to write a TIMELESS gambit book. 40 years later, and it's STILL the reference. that, and the comment about chasing lines that perform terribly = a one two facts punch.

i'm ALSO annoyed that troll likes talking trash, but is a coward when it comes to backing it up and taking my challenge. i'm telling you here and now, EVERY LINE in "my" (as in discovered and refined) ice queen book is winning. every line. the "main line" is +2.7. the rest are +5 or more as analyzed by stockfish. in fact, i finally got to use it and won a game where my opponent left book quick. actually, i'm surprised that my blackmar diemer results are about 2:1 without study yet my formerly studied smith morra experience is something like 5:1 and i'm getting beat by 1300s sometimes. lower rated players mess me up big time because if i don't have targets, i develop terribly. i'm at peace with it. i take all my pride and pleasure in brilliant tactical combinations, especially against 1700s+ and from losing positions.

my ice queen book's theory is 100% grandmaster free! they play the "safe" mainlines, yet i have tens of thousands games worth of AWESOME theory that... stockfish tested as it is, could hurt grandmasters who stumble down the wrong alleys and NO-ONE is perfect. that "only grandmaster approved theory" idea assumes that a player can exploit the pawn advantage and i'm seeing that very often, +2 points doesn't guarantee a line's viability. weaker lines PERFORM better sometimes.

i'm guessing that a lot of it is about initiative. it's easier to attack than defend. that, or i imagine "inherent soundness" in moves that don't measure +, but that serve longt term, like castling improves safety. there's SOMETHING going on when a line performs 10% better for one side. no amount of wishful magical thinking will make those numbers go away, and like i keep saying, following the ice queen's numbers, it looks like a TRUE refutation unlike fisher's BOGUS one in king's gambit. hate to break it to ya bobby, but your line sucks at the amateur level! 

3.Nf3 is 54:42 at 808,346 games in the real world! lotta losers there

3.Bc4 is 54:42 at 46,969 games

3.d3 is 53:43 at 14,756 games

3.Nc3 is 54:43 at 10,232 games

3.d4 is 54:42 at 9,819 games

3.c3 is 55:41 at 848 games

so EINSTEIN... explain to me how "the most perfect grandmaster refutation ever created"  is 10% worse in soooooo many lines. you can't because your inflexible thinking and confirmation bias are making you short circuit... real world indisputable proof. the numbers aren't going ANYWHERE soon. maybe it's just that GAMBITEERS are actually better players. that's what the stats are saying. even if the reason is freakin' horoscope based, the results are the results and 10% is well out of any margin for error. 

i love my theory, it's mine, and i don't want YOURs. why would i ever want to learn a lame  49:49 mainline full of .1 point positional subtlety i don't understand when i can go with my kind of tactical/gambit theory and simply join in the points harvesting.

BTW, it's really hard to find an advantage in 49:49 lines for some perfectly balanced reason. i'm seeing a lot of impending bad news in more positional lines like mainline scandinavian. it's in GAMBITS where all the REAL power plays make the theory breathe. the best ideas stick. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. i'm just building theory with a giant database sized instruction manual...

this is what works... do this

pretty straightforward concept

there you have it... any AMATEUR that plays that crap is asking to lose! grandmasters don't street fight. they're clueless about what goes on in chess club. (pun) anyone that would recommend someone play a line that performs so badly is a complete idiot. i might suffer from a lack of social skills being a robot and all, but i never have cognitive dissonance issues. there is one reality. 

at the amateur level, toss everything grandmasters tell you about openings and throw it out a window! in the real world, gambits kick so much butt against players almost as imperfect as me. i have 1700+ miniatures under my belt and i've just clawed my way up to 1580 from a 1350 re-start. attacking is what i do... anyone that would try to take my strengths away is clueless... like trying to tell a blind man to go watch a movie.

i still don't see troll stepping up to prove me wrong. it would be so embarrassing, i'm sure, to get trashed in public by someone you ATTEMPTED to status bomb. it shows that he's AFRAID to put his game where his attitude is. if i thought i was wrong for a second, i wouldn't make a fools bet.

i'm so proud of my ice queen theory i intend to make a youtube video. it is the most brutal death trap i've ever seen, and it's been hiding in plain sight for decades. +2.7 MINIMUM... even by grandmaster kowtowing standards, EVERY line is a guaranteed win! if 1 point makes a difference, then 3 points is winning and 5 is an absolute blowout. ANYTHING that's a threat to the line doesn't get played YET and is buried so deep in the sidelines as to be a waste of time studying.

the REALITY is that i don't have the skills to convert every +3 into a win, but i'd like to see ANYONE show me GRANDMASTER theory that perfect. they would be -3 or more too playing the same moves. maybe it's just that the theory is so new and off the radar that it favors the prepared. never heard a grandmaster say that... that was sarcasm, i'm wearing my sarcasm tee today. whatever the reason(s), i'll study the gambits with the best numbers and play my way with the best theory possible.

THERE... that's how it works... grandmasters and computers are horizon locked. i can just fast forward through time to see how a line's doing in the future. bad lines don't perform +10 and good ones don't perform -10 and that's why well traveled mainlines all look 49:49 fugly... no matter what you try, it's been tested. it's really the same thing with the theory i'm hunting... powerful sidelines. that's where the numbers are coming from... novelty. it hasn't been around long enough to get sorted. hey... as long as it works and i keep finding +3s. (or -3s as black)

Dood? What are you doing?

I am sure you are a nice fellow but why are you arguing with the plebeians? It just seems you are getting sucked into feeding the trolls 

Arguing with a pleb who thinks that his 60 seconds of experience with an opening in the 500 plus years of the history of the modern game means something grand is like arguing religion with a fundamentalist zealot....even you are right you are never going to win.

Remember: it is mind over matter. You don't mind and they don't matter.

Peace

Lol.  INTJs and INTPs are very well represented in the chess community.  It doesn't mean much, though.  An INTJ poster could be Einstein, or they could be a bipolar miscreant on meth.  I will let others decide where you fall on this spectrum .

[quote]Gambits have never been advantageous for White if Black knows how to defend.  This stands to reason...if a gambit really worked statistically and had no counter, it would be played by almost every GM, in every tournament, until it got refuted  [/quote]

NOPE! you are just parroting tired old grandmaster talking points that really only matter in grandmaster games. the REALITY is, at the amateur level, gambits ARE SOUNDER! 

king's gambit:

favors white at 52:44 in 7 million games 

BDG: more winning than losing here too...

smith morra?

there's 3 of the most well known gambits and the GAMBITEERs are doing more of the winning. you would need to be REALLY cognitive dissonant to look at such PROOF and still keep parroting talking points that have no basis in reality... oh, like a certain orange face treasonous POS who argued that his empty fields held more people than someone else's full one IN PHOTOGRAPHS.

the stats are the proof, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG and indisputably PROVEN wrong. hey, now's the time to double down on your wrongness. when you can't win an argument with facts, just yell louder.

at the AMATEUR LEVEL, gambits REALLY exploit AMATEUR weaknesses. 

i just finished my ice queen book. there actually ARE a COUPLE lines where black has figured out how not to repeatedly shoot himself in the face, but maybe half a dozen of those inside a couple hundred +3 or mores makes them irrelevant. now if EVERYBODY took to those lines, then the theory would be refuted. if one never even sees those lines (and getting checkmated is actually MORE popular in at least a couple lines) then they don't matter.

you speak in theoretical absolutes of the way things "should be", but it has nothing to do with how they actually are.

more people are winning with gambits than losing under 2000. say otherwise and i'll call you a lying idiot to your face. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt as to just being confused because statitistics are hard.

if you were correct, and you so aren't, the EVIDENCE would back you up and the evidence says YOU don't know what you're talking about.

YES! the stats would be flipped  in grandmaster games, but who's a grandmaster here?

oh yeah... back to the original topic...

ANOTHER gambit that's REALLY kicking butt and taking names.

you STILL think you're right? the numbers are somehow magically thinking NOT indicative of ACTUAL results? man... if there was a way, i'd open up a casino and put all my money on equal rated amateur gambiteers! better than collecting interest on money in the bank! why that's an 8% return in THE MAINLINE... you know... where "my theory is so much better than yours!" black should be winning, but ISN'T. there goes THAT THEORY (pun intended)

you will really look ridiculous trying to argue against facts, but it hasn't stopped you yet. BTW you still haven't dared step into my book. nice to talk trash from the safety of one's home as long as one doesn't have to back it up as i'm soooooooo eager to do here. my amateur hunting theory eats everyday mistakes like THIS:

look at the MAIN LINE... Qxc6! if you can't see what's wrong with THAT, then you'll never understand how wrong you are... that, and i might question YOUR rating. 49 x 1600 plus rateds all committing suicide... well 2% got a miracle anyways.

OK... not legible...

before anyone accuses me of trying to pull a fast one... BTW, the actual STRONG line, in that hornets nest of losing and mates under 10 is 6...Nc6, and even then, black tosses his advantage plenty negating it more often than not. when you follow the actual moves, 9.Qc8# jumps to 392 games by transposition. that is JUICY THEORY IN MY BOOK (pun very much intended) 

i'm hunting AMATEUR MISTAKES. that is my point entirely, and you aren't getting it. grandmasters have NOTHING to do with this theory. they don't even exists on this island though once in a while one might beam in. i've only played against 3-4 2000 plusses ever. the theory is an autopsy of every death in whatever opening. follow the evidence, and you'll find the cause of death... find the cause of death, and then you can inflict it on the next whoever that wanders down YOUR alleys where you know where all the slippery ice is and open manholes are.

in amateur games, wrong moves are often the most POPULAR moves, like "hey! checkmate me in one!" players get distracted.

you know, overconfidence can be fatal in chess. that 2200 i stomped as a lowly 1480 thought he was smart asking me "where's your gambit?" in mainline scandinavian as he traded down pieces before ravaging my kingside pawns with his queen until he couldn't check me anymore and i could spring my X ray attack on his rook on the kingside. 

"There's my gambit! All those pawns for your rook!"

punk logged out and made me wait for my win when he saw he couldn't stop me from queening OR get a replacement queen of his own with my rook protecting the 8th and f. his rating was USELESS that day. that's the point in booking up. knowing the territory better. it is a GIVEN that if i played 20 intermediate masters, at least half of them would stumble into the same minefield as everyone else that lost 70% of the games in my theory. (actually, more as not playing weak moves only drives the number closer to 100%.) ain't no GMs studying the ice queen as i have the only book in existence.

MUHAHHAHAHA!

i want to share it if anyone here plays BDG