Hi all, I am currently doing a lot of work on antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.

In the past respectable chess players treated this as being a load of old cobblers and did not write about it. These days they still think it is a heap of rubbish but take it more seriously.

These days lots of repertoire books are giving antidotes to the BDG. I unleashed the BDG in a tournament between Christmas and new year. Both games were against much higher rated opponents. One I blew clear out of the water. The other played one of the repertoire refutations and I eventually lost when I made a bad positional error in the middle game. I probably could have forced a draw by sacrificing a knight but wanted more (one of the seven deadly chess sins).

What I need is a list of books and authors and the given antidotes to the BDG.

So far I have

Gallagher – Beating the Anti King's Indians which gives a line of the Euwe Defence.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf 5.Nf3 e6 I have scored well with this line as black in correspondence fixed openings tournaments. However I have analyzed a line which leads to a position where white regains the pawn with a position I find difficult to evaluate. As always if black gets it wrong the wheels come off.

Cox - Dealing with d4 deviations which suggests the Lemberger.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 e5  I have found a line against one line Cox gives where white keeps an edge in a very unbalanced position.

My question is “What other books give antidotes to the BDG and what are they?

There is that Schiller/Watson book called The big Book of Busts or something like that. Schiller also always has advocated the Euwe Defence.

I do remember that Wahls in his book on the Scandinavion gave something against the BDG as well, but don't know anymore what exactly.

Andrew Martin here

http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/110103_blackmar_dmr_gmbt.html

wrote about the Von Hennig-Milner Barry Gambit. That makes me wonder if other authors on the Caro-Kann have written on the transposition 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 or 4.Bc4/5.f3.

MNb wrote on 01/03/09 at 23:42:12:

There is that Schiller/Watson book called The big Book of Busts or something like that. Schiller also always has advocated the Euwe Defence. I do remember that Wahls in his book on the Scandinavion gave something against the BDG as well, but don't know anymore what exactly. Andrew Martin here http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/110103_blackmar_dmr_gmbt.html Thank you very much. Schiller wrote his book with John Watson and the combination worked well. I shall check out his analysis. The analysis of Jeremy Silman scared me off the BDG for some time. There is a separate thread on this site dealing with the Alchemy variation. 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8. Ng5 A totally untested idea which may not be totally sound but would be a shock move to play in blitz is 6.Qd3 I have been having great fun playing this against deep rybka 3 wrote about the Von Hennig-Milner Barry Gambit. That makes me wonder if other authors on the Caro-Kann have written on the transposition 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 or 4.Bc4/5.f3.

Andrew Martin here

http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_bits_pieces/110103_blackmar_dmr_gmbt.html

wrote about the Von Hennig-Milner Barry Gambit. That makes me wonder if other authors on the Caro-Kann have written on the transposition 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 or 4.Bc4/5.f3.

I am playing this very line in correspondence so cannot comment on this variation as I am still in the opening. I will say that considerable thought needs to be given to whether to play 4.f3 or 4.Bc4 followed by 5.f3.

Quote:

Gallagher – Beating the Anti King's Indians which gives a line of the Euwe Defence. 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf 5.Nf3 e6 I have scored well with this line as black in correspondence fixed openings tournaments. However I have analyzed a line which leads to a position where white regains the pawn with a position I find difficult to evaluate. As always if black gets it wrong the wheels come off.

Facing the BDG I follow Gallagher and until now it just looked bad for White. It would be very interesting to get some of your thoughts about White's chances and - if you dont mind - some lines.

Matemax wrote on 01/04/09 at 05:51:44:

Quote: Gallagher – Beating the Anti King's Indians which gives a line of the Euwe Defence. 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf 5.Nf3 e6 I have scored well with this line as black in correspondence fixed openings tournaments. However I have analyzed a line which leads to a position where white regains the pawn with a position I find difficult to evaluate. As always if black gets it wrong the wheels come off. Facing the BDG I follow Gallagher and until now it just looked bad for White. It would be very interesting to get some of your thoughts about White's chances and - if you dont mind - some lines.

Look carefully at Gallagher and you will find one line that he gives as being unclear. I do not wish to reveal too much of my analysis as it is a work in progress.

Too bad this thread did not start 1-2 months earlier; as some might already know, I am currently working on a new book about the BDG - It is nearly finished, the final first draft will probably be finished in a week.

I would have loved to see your ideas, David; but then again, I do think that I have some new ideas up my sleeve as well ;)

James Rizzitano in his QGA repertoire book advocates the Euwe, citing Gallagher quite a few times.


By the way, I thought "Chess you don't learn, chess you understand" was from Ljubojevic ...

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/05/09 at 05:23:48:

Too bad this thread did not start 1-2 months earlier; as some might already know, I am currently working on a new book about the BDG - It is nearly finished, the final first draft will probably be finished in a week. I would have loved to see your ideas, David; but then again, I do think that I have some new ideas up my sleeve as well ;)

That is great that you are working on a book on the BDG. I am at least twelve months away from publishing anything and I may keep my analysis secret for use in correspondence.

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/05/09 at 05:23:48:

Too bad this thread did not start 1-2 months earlier; as some might already know, I am currently working on a new book about the BDG - It is nearly finished, the final first draft will probably be finished in a week. I would have loved to see your ideas, David; but then again, I do think that I have some new ideas up my sleeve as well ;)

this might be a foolish question, do you believe that the BDG is sound?  and have you played the BDG in a serious game.  

I have not played the BDG in a serious game yet, but this is only because tournament games I play very rarely these days. I did play the BDG in numerous blitz games on the Internet Chess Club.

Is the BDG sound? That depends on your definition of "soundness".

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/05/09 at 09:24:17:

I have not played the BDG in a serious game yet, but this is only because tournament games I play very rarely these days. I did play the BDG in numerous blitz games on the Internet Chess Club. Is the BDG sound? That depends on your definition of "soundness".

some people take ICC blitz very seriously, i don't but i think its still fun.  i define soundness as, if i play this i have a reasonable chance at winning, but not losing outright, or would you use it in a tournament game?  my best result w/the BDG is drawing an expert; my worse was losing to a 1300-1400 player.  not bad i guess, but i stopped after that.  i'm more of a e4 player.  i have used BDG against C-K and French defence with mixed results.  

I can assure you that I was very critical while writing this book. Unlike Lane (whose chapters about the Ziegler and the Lemberger are a case for the scrapheap) and Sawyer (who sometimes loves to dismiss critical lines with an uncommented, irrelevant white win in some ICC blitz game) I did "refute" a few lines so far thought to be playable.

But that doesn't mean, the BDG is refuted itself! In fact, I do think that in every Black setup White has enough play to justify his pawn sacrifice. I will not deny that Black will come close to equality (or even achieve it) in most of these lines, but at least it is dynamic (and not dull) equality.

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/05/09 at 10:04:37:

I can assure you that I was very critical while writing this book. Unlike Lane (whose chapters about the Ziegler and the Lemberger are a case for the scrapheap) and Sawyer (who sometimes loves to dismiss critical lines with an uncommented, irrelevant white win in some ICC blitz game) I did "refute" a few lines so far thought to be playable. But that doesn't mean, the BDG is refuted itself! In fact, I do think that in every Black setup White has enough play to justify his pawn sacrifice. I will not deny that Black will come close to equality (or even achieve it) in most of these lines, but at least it is dynamic (and not dull) equality.

this is good news!  most BDG material is rather bias, or to optimistic.  lemberger and ziegler seems to be the best, with the tiechman not far behind.  who is the publisher?  can't wait to see it.  i might play it again after all; or least against those annoying C-K and French players.  

GM Wahls: "Modernes Skandinavisch" (1997) opted for
1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 Bf5 , e.g. 5. fxe4 Nxe4 6. Qf3 Nd6 7. Bf4 e6. At that time he saw black advantage in most lines. However, I don't know whether the 2nd edition of the book (Co-authors were then GM Karsten Mueller et. al.) introduced anything else against BDG.

What is the theoretical status of 4..Bf5 today? Any chances for White for equal play? Regards, papageno.

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/05/09 at 05:23:48:

Too bad this thread did not start 1-2 months earlier; as some might already know, I am currently working on a new book about the BDG - It is nearly finished, the final first draft will probably be finished in a week. I would have loved to see your ideas, David; but then again, I do think that I have some new ideas up my sleeve as well ;)

Hopefully you've already noticed this, but there is a ton of material here on the forum.   Even I, although I've tried to defend the White side in some variations, would say too many threads here on the forum as I felt we'd established at least some Black advantage.

I'll definitely be buying the book if only not to embarrass myself too much should I face the BDG!

I am going to give my opinion on some postings.

Wcywing addressed a question to IM Christoph Wisnewski.

this might be a foolish question, do you believe that the BDG is sound?  and have you played the BDG in a serious game.  

Christoph replied

I can assure you that I was very critical while writing this book. Unlike Lane (whose chapters about the Ziegler and the Lemberger are a case for the scrapheap) and Sawyer (who sometimes loves to dismiss critical lines with an uncommented, irrelevant white win in some ICC blitz game) I did "refute" a few lines so far thought to be playable.

But that doesn't mean, the BDG is refuted itself! In fact, I do think that in every Black setup White has enough play to justify his pawn sacrifice. I will not deny that Black will come close to equality (or even achieve it) in most of these lines, but at least it is dynamic (and not dull) equality.

Let me outline my opinion.

I have played the BDG a great deal in both correspondence and over the board play. Although for several years I have given it a rest due to staleness. In my opinion white always has some compensation for the pawn. Whether it is always enough is the 64 dollar question.

As far as the books by Sawyer and Lane are concerned I have the following comments. The Reverend Sawyer did a great job in collecting material from a great many sources and collating them. However like me he is an amateur and some of his judgments on positions may be suspect. Lane wrote a book which is much stronger on judging positions. However I disagree with the lines he gives against the Teichmann and especially the Lemberger. I also disagree with Lane in that I think that the Hubsch is unsound.  A crucial point is that  there has been a lot of developments in the opening since these books were published.


Wcwwing wrote

this is good news!  most BDG material is rather bias, or to optimistic.  lemberger and ziegler seems to be the best, with the tiechman not far behind.  who is the publisher?  can't wait to see it.  i might play it again after all; or least against those annoying C-K and French players.  

Well I think that I have a really good line against the Lemberger but until I check it against the analysis by Cox I am not totally sure. The Ziegler is in my opinion the critical test of the BDG. There is one line where I am unsure that white has full compensation. One of my mates who is a double IM (over the board and correspondence thinks that white has compensation).

As far as the kerosine is concerned (as an Irish mate terms the C-K ) the attempts to transpose to the BDG need to be examined in depth.

As far as the French is concerned there are transpositions to the Blackmar-Diemer gambit which occur but are seldom mentioned. For instance I found the line in the McCutcheon

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.f3 which was played by Emmanuel Lasker against Tarrasch  in 1916.          


Thank you Papagano for telling me what Wahls recommends.


M Wahls: "Modernes Skandinavisch" (1997) opted for
1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 Bf5 , e.g. 5. fxe4 Nxe4 6. Qf3 Nd6 7. Bf4 e6. At that time he saw black advantage in most lines. However, I don't know whether the 2nd edition of the book (Co-authors were then GM Karsten Mueller et. al.) introduced anything else against BDG.

What is the theoretical status of 4..Bf5 today? Any chances for White for equal play? Regards, papageno.

This is called the Vienna Defence. There is a great deal of published analysis and many games with this variation. Without studying Wahl's analysis I cannot give you an accurate opinion on the current state of this variation. However in the past white has scored very well against the above line and also with 5.g4

Tim McGrew, known most for once doing a ChessCafe column wrote a nice booklet that he sold through ICC on the BDG and the Hubsch.  Of course there were mistakes but a lot of the analysis was quite good.  I agree that the Hubsch is unfortunately unsound and against the BDG I'd love to see what White's supposed to do against the Ziegler or whatever you call the defense with after 1.d4 d4 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 (of course 3...e5 is very critical too) 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6.

Glenn Snow wrote on 01/06/09 at 03:06:23:

Tim McGrew, known most for once doing a ChessCafe column wrote a nice booklet that he sold through ICC on the BDG and the Hubsch.  Of course there were mistakes but a lot of the analysis was quite good.  I agree that the Hubsch is unfortunately unsound and against the BDG I'd love to see what White's supposed to do against the Ziegler or whatever you call the defense with after 1.d4 d4 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 (of course 3...e5 is very critical too) 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6.

Tim McGrew is no patzer and knows a great deal about the BDG.

There is a sparate thred on the Ziegler,

@DavidFlude

By no means did I want to sound disrespectful, when I talked about the books by Lane and Sawyer. I just feel that there are certain weaknesses that have to be addressed (and will be in my book):

Regarding Lane:

His coverage of the Lemberger is truly pitiful, even for yesterday's standards. Two pages (!) with mostly irrelevant variations for a critical line that has been known since the 1890s and that is played in about every 10th game? And on top of that, he states that the Lemberger can "easily be dealt with" by playing the Endgame Variation after 4 dxe5? Uhh...

In his chapter about the Ziegler he quotes old analysis from Studier that is simply flawed (yes, the one from the Rodriguez - Bricard game), which I suppose even Fritz 3 would have spotted back in 1995.

In addition to that, too many lines are covered with either irrelevant or long, uncommented white wins where Black missed one or more signifcant defensive resources. And even if Lane did point out where Black went wrong, he did not offer any improvements and how White should react to them.

As for Sawyer:

I agree that he has done a great job collecting material; unfortunately at some places less would have been more, as he even gives ICC games where Black mouse-slipped - I just don't think it is necessary to cover every move Black is legally allowed to make at any time. Instead, more verbal explanations would have been better.

Furthermore, rather dubious white alternatives are often supplied with uncommented white wins, making them look valid and playable. One example would be the so-called "Kloss Attack" (8 Kh1) in the Bogoljubow Defence.

My last point of criticism is the same as for Lane's book: Sometimes he does not mention critical defensive resources for Black, even if he must have been aware of them.

I know that, given the above statements, expectations for my book are high now, but I am ready to accept this challenge. I buried myself into all kinds of BDG sources for about a year and, assisted by Rybka 3, I feel quite confident.

@papageno

According to my analysis, the Diemer Gambit is good enough for equality, but not more. But as DavidFlude pointed out, White can also play 5 g4.

Concerning the Hubsch, I don't know if my publisher lets me include options against the Indians as the amount of the material about the BDG proper is quite large (and I don't know if I get any lenience toward my page count) - I'll let you know when I know more ;)

flaviddude wrote on 01/06/09 at 01:50:52:

As far as the kerosine is concerned (as an Irish mate terms the C-K ) the attempts to transpose to the BDG need to be examined in depth.

From a historical point of view it's the other way round - in the BDG Black can force a transposition to an anti-kerosine. Von Hennig and Milner-Barry played their variations long before Diemer. And who the heck is Ziegler?

MNb wrote on 01/06/09 at 10:20:32:

And who the heck is Ziegler?

Yeah, it seems strange to name a line after a guy who got beat with it by Diemer like a red-headed stepchild, especially when Gunderam deserves to be credited most; I haven't decided yet, but I will probably stick to Ziegler anyway to avoid confusion with the "real" Gunderam Defence (5...Bf5)

The names of the variations in the BDG are somewhat of a mess. For example Bogoljubov plaed a fianchetto after 5.Qf3. So why is 5.Nf3 g6 named after him

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/06/09 at 09:05:48:

@DavidFlude By no means did I want to sound disrespectful, when I talked about the books by Lane and Sawyer. I just feel that there are certain weaknesses that have to be addressed (and will be in my book): Regarding Lane: His coverage of the Lemberger is truly pitiful, even for yesterday's standards. I totally agree. In his chapter about the Ziegler he quotes old analysis from Studier that is simply flawed (yes, the one from the Rodriguez - Bricard game), which I suppose even Fritz 3 would have spotted back in 1995. In addition to that, too many lines are covered with either irrelevant or long, uncommented white wins where Black missed one or more signifcant defensive resources. And even if Lane did point out where Black went wrong, he did not offer any improvements and how White should react to them. As for Sawyer: I agree that he has done a great job collecting material; unfortunately at some places less would have been more, as he even gives ICC games where Black mouse-slipped - I just don't think it is necessary to cover every move Black is legally allowed to make at any time. Instead, more verbal explanations would have been better. Furthermore, rather dubious white alternatives are often supplied with uncommented white wins, making them look valid and playable. One example would be the so-called "Kloss Attack" (8 Kh1) in the Bogoljubow Defence. My last point of criticism is the same as for Lane's book: Sometimes he does not mention critical defensive resources for Black, even if he must have been aware of them. I know that, given the above statements, expectations for my book are high now, but I am ready to accept this challenge. I buried myself into all kinds of BDG sources for about a year and, assisted by Rybka 3, I feel quite confident. I also have been using deep Rybka to check analysis and it keeps finding improvements for both sides. @papageno According to my analysis, the Diemer Gambit is good enough for equality, but not more. I think that you are correct. But as DavidFlude pointed out, White can also play 5 g4. Here is a secret line but check it out youself 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4 exf  7.Qxf3 c6 8.h5 Bxc2 9.g5 is the new move 9...Nd5 10. Rh2 Nxc3 11. bxc Ba4 12.Bc4 in my opinion white has lots of compensation for the pawns.

flaviddude wrote on 01/06/09 at 08:24:38:

Glenn Snow wrote on 01/06/09 at 03:06:23: Tim McGrew, known most for once doing a ChessCafe column wrote a nice booklet that he sold through ICC on the BDG and the Hubsch.  Of course there were mistakes but a lot of the analysis was quite good.  I agree that the Hubsch is unfortunately unsound and against the BDG I'd love to see what White's supposed to do against the Ziegler or whatever you call the defense with after 1.d4 d4 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 (of course 3...e5 is very critical too) 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6. Tim McGrew is no patzer and knows a great deal about the BDG. There is a sparate thred on the Ziegler,

You mean this thread of 10 pages? http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1083622751/0

Looking back to find that thread, started by someone familiar to me, I was mildly surprised to see just how many BDG threads there were but not nearly as surprised as I am by IM Wisnewski's announcement of a book on the BDG.  As curious as I am to see the book, (very) I'm a little fearful of another 50 or so threads on this one opening.

Glenn Snow wrote on 01/06/09 at 12:13:04:

flaviddude wrote on 01/06/09 at 08:24:38: Glenn Snow wrote on 01/06/09 at 03:06:23: Tim McGrew, known most for once doing a ChessCafe column wrote a nice booklet that he sold through ICC on the BDG and the Hubsch.  Of course there were mistakes but a lot of the analysis was quite good.  I agree that the Hubsch is unfortunately unsound and against the BDG I'd love to see what White's supposed to do against the Ziegler or whatever you call the defense with after 1.d4 d4 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 (of course 3...e5 is very critical too) 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6. Tim McGrew is no patzer and knows a great deal about the BDG. There is a sparate thred on the Ziegler, You mean this thread of 10 pages? http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1083622751/0 Looking back to find that thread, started by someone familiar to me, I was mildly surprised to see just how many BDG threads there were but not nearly as surprised as I am by IM Wisnewski's announcement of a book on the BDG.  As curious as I am to see the book, (very) I'm a little fearful of another 50 or so threads on this one opening.

yes, the BDG seems to spark constant debate, the believers and the naysayers.  i was surprised there is going to be another BDG book.  i have used BDG in speed chess and icc blitz.  i have used in tournament games but it was at club level where anything is sound.  maybe we can make this one a 100 page thread?!  ;D

Christoph, did you look at Rizzitano's analysis of the so-called "Euwe Defense" in his QGA repertoire book?  If so, what is your opinion of it?

Rizzitano's analysis is valid, as far as I'm concerned...

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he covered everything, if you get my drift...

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/06/09 at 17:53:36:

Rizzitano's analysis is valid, as far as I'm concerned... But that doesn't necessarily mean that he covered everything, if you get my drift...

Is it fair to surmise the book will attempt to be objective as opposed to the "Win with the BGD" variety that so many Chess Alchemists seem inclined to author?

I must admit to surprise that this opening would warrant a full book, but I fully support the effort and look forward to using it!  :)

Unless, of course, it is more Alchemy.  ;)  

Rest assured that this book will be objective. While others might be OK with neglecting important defensive resources, I couldn't sleep knowing that people pay for my book only to be surprised by (often simple!) defenses.

That said, being into exotic openings, I cannot deny my sympathy for the BDG either. And it is fun using it on ICC  8-)

A few quick questions, since I'm excited to see a new BDG book. Did you draw on either of these online sources?

www.zimbeckchess.com

http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/IntroEN2.htm

The first is by a player who started in my area who was a well known tactical genius. He's more well known in the puzzles world, but I bet there might be some interesting analysis. The second is a more well known site I think, but it's a complete mess.

Also, when is the book due to be out, and who's publishing it? Thanks!

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/06/09 at 11:03:41:

I haven't decided yet, but I will probably stick to Ziegler anyway to avoid confusion with the "real" Gunderam Defence (5...Bf5)

You could name it the Von Hennig-Milner Barry Variation, who after all played the white side on a regular base against the Caro-Kann.

IM Christoph Wisnewski wrote on 01/06/09 at 11:03:41:

MNb wrote on 01/06/09 at 10:20:32: And who the heck is Ziegler? Yeah, it seems strange to name a line after a guy who got beat with it by Diemer like a red-headed stepchild, especially when Gunderam deserves to be credited most; I haven't decided yet, but I will probably stick to Ziegler anyway to avoid confusion with the "real" Gunderam Defence (5...Bf5)

Diemer had a penchant for naming BDG variations after grandmasters. Sometimes the connections were rather tenuous, as with the Euwe and Teichmann. Ziegler was apparently just the first player to stumble into 5...c6 against Diemer. The only significance of that game at a 1950 Easter tournament at Wangen, as Diemer wrote in his Blackmar Gemeinde, was that it was the first time he had played 5.Nxf3 (rather than Qxf3) in a tournament game.

I corresponded with both Diemer and Gunderam. Gunderam was unhappy (bitter?) with not having 5...c6 named after him. He was equally upset when Diemer insisted on calling 5...Bf5 the Tartakower Defense (that GM thing again). In later years I think Diemer acquiesced to Tartakower-Gunderam.

I think keeping 5...c6 as the Ziegler and 5...Bf5 as the Gunderam would be good choices.

If you think Ziegler a more significant player than Von Hennig and Milner-Barry, yes.
The connection of 5...e6 with Euwe is far more obvious. The Dutch ex-WCh recommended this move back in the 50's in De Losbladige, a Dutch chess magazine edited by him (later Pachmann took over). Diemer certainly knew this.

Also back in the 50's quite a few Dutchies learned about Diemer's peculiar thinking. GM Donner has written a lovely comment on him.

TonyRo wrote on 01/06/09 at 21:30:19:

A few quick questions, since I'm excited to see a new BDG book. Did you draw on either of these online sources? www.zimbeckchess.com http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/IntroEN2.htm The first is by a player who started in my area who was a well known tactical genius. He's more well known in the puzzles world, but I bet there might be some interesting analysis. The second is a more well known site I think, but it's a complete mess. Also, when is the book due to be out, and who's publishing it? Thanks!

I did consult Emanuel's site, but thanks for pointing me to the first link. I'll see if I can use anything of it; in fact I am already past my deadline, but I hope my publisher agrees that quality is preferable :-)

I do not know exactly when the book will be published (probably late summer, something like July/August), but the publisher will be "Everyman Chess"

Hey, IM Wisnewski,

After 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf3 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 ef3 7 Qxf3 c6 8 h5 Bxc2 9 g5

Here you can try 9 Rh2 Qxd4 10 Be3!

9...Nd5 10 Bc4 e6 11 Rf2 Qd7 (or 12...Qc7) 12 g6!

Is this what you propose?

Attached is an example of Black playing the Euwe Defence.

Notes:

1) I play Qd2 before Bd3.

2) This game illustrates why an early h6 may create problems for black as 0-0 usually allows sacrifices on h6.

3) This game also shows why the BDG should be played against players with much higher ratings who do not want to draw against you.    

---

I want to respond to the first post of this thread.

Gallagher and others have recommanded the Euwe defense. The Euwe defense with 7.Bd3 (7.Qd2 is probably ok for a dynamical equality) may face some problems against 7..Nc6 without quick castling. But I know that Gallagher and other suggested 7..c5, even computers use that move in their book sometimes. But the way it is played by Black, usually something like this: 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. O-O Qxc5+ 10. Kh1 Nbd7 11. Qe1 a6 12. Qh4 Qb4, is +/- or even winning for White according to my deep analysis. So, I would be happy to face that line in a corr game where I already have 2/2 as a logical result according to my analysis.

The Hubsch is at least =/+ to me, GM Prié convinced me long time ago with the huge debate (between Lane and Prié), for that reason I play 2.f3 even if that move is suboptimal that 2.Nc3 in early Black's deviations. White has just to be ready to play in a Saemisch vs KID style, or f3 vs Pirc, because it may be a practical choice from a KID or Benoni player that doesn't want to challenge White with 2..d5.

The Lemberger is nice, but I think the Rasmussen attack is ok, about equal (I never lost with that at corr, and I remember the challenge between Schoupal vs Prié with a draw result.). As an alternative I would recommand 3.Nxe4 with a very unclear and fighting game, I think.

Against the Vienna defense, I think it's a very good defense that gives at least equality to Black, but I don't think more. I don't trust that much the line for White with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4, but I didn't see yet the last idea mentionned here. But I think 5.fxe4 and 6.Qf3 is fully ok.

In fact I don't know any bad defense for Black, but there is many dangerous and hard game for Black, and losing variations too. As always I think 4..c6 is the best, and 5..c6 the best of the BDG accepted for Black where the best way to play for White is not fully established. I think 5..Bf5 really deserve the name of Gunderam, see how much of Diemer - Gunderam games exist with 5..Bf5, with a lot of interesting ideas...

The Teichmann is the most popular at every mode, blitz, OTB or corr, and that's not a bad thing for White because it's really doesn't scare the BDG player despite the fact that the Teichmann is of course very good. For the anecdote, I played some days ago against a GM who played to me the Teichmann but I was really in my element, got total control at the end of the opening-middle game, I couldn't lose the game, it was about +/- (I even missed a winning move) but I overpressed the position very badly (went from +/- to at least equal or better for Black in about 3 moves) and I lost badly, but I am still happy because I got a very promising position, about winning in less than 25 moves where I would probably never get this with a Queen's gambit against a GM.

I give the following suggestions, based on this forum and also Kaissiber 5 and Fritz:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3:

A) 3...e5!?
A1) 4.Bc4 Qxd4 5.Qe2 Nf6 6.Be3 Qd8 7.Rd1 looks pretty unclear.
A2) 4.Nxe4 Qxd4 5.Bd3 (5.Qe2!? Bucker) 5...f5 6.Nc3 (not 6.Nf3?! Qb6 7.Neg5 h6 -/+) 6...Bb4 7.Bd2 e4 8.Nf3 Qd6, unclear.
A3) 4.Nge2 exd4 (or 4...Nc6 5.Be3 exd4 6.Nxd4) 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.Bg5 and again it's not clear if Black stands any better.

Other lines were knocked on the head by an earlier analysis by Eric Prie, and I cannot find any potential improvements for White there.

B) 3...Nf6 4.f3

B1) 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Qd2 (or 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.Qd2 Nb4 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Ne5 unclear, but not the bold 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1, which may give enough compensation after 9...Nxf3 10.Qxf3 0-0 11.Rad1, but falls short against 9...c6!) and now I give 7...0-0 8 Bd3 c5 9 0-0-0 cxd4 10 Nxd4 e5 unclear.

B2) 4...c6!? 5.Bc4 (5. Nxe4!? Nxe4 6.fxe4 e5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 is about equal, while 7...exd4 8.Bc4 gives White good compensation, and 5...Bf5 6.Bd3 Qxd4 7.Ne2 may give compensation) 5...exf3 (5...b5!? 6.Bb3 e6 7.fxe4 b4 8.Na4 improves on Nigel Short's play against Bareev and should be about equal) 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Qe2!? (7.0-0 e6 8.Ne5 Bg6! =+) 7...e6 8.Bg5 Bb4! (8...Be7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Rhf1 works quite nicely for White) 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 0-0, and White may be able to get compensation.

In the Hubsch I suggest after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 (which I sometimes play against the Alekhine: 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4) after 3...Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 I suggest the relatively uncharted 5.Bf4!?, rather than 5.Bc4 when Black has many routes to safe equality and probably a little bit more.

Gary Lane is a fan of the opening but I have to say his coverage is rather superficial at times (and this goes for his Opening Lanes column as well), for instance he only gives the 7.0-0 e6 8.Ne5 against the Ziegler, which doesn't work for White against good play.

I think the BDG, while objectively sub-optimal relative to 2.c4, is not as bad as its reputation.  True, Black may well be at least equal with best play, but the same is probably the case in some other, much more respected gambit lines, e.g. the Poisoned Pawn (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2) and the Geller Gambit in the Slav (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 b5).  This said, I only use it as an occasional weapon.

IM C. Wisnewski writes, "According to my analysis, the Diemer Gambit is good enough for equality, but not more." And at another point states that this is a dynamic equality, not a dull equality.

If IM Wisnewski is correct, this is a major victory for White in the BDG propaganda wars that have been ongoing for years. Detractors of the BDG believe the opening is unsound, unsound being defined as Black can force an advantage. i.e. Andrew Martin's article on Silman's site where he claims playing the BDG is like shopping for a tombstone.

My belief is that if Black can objectively only get dynamic equality out of the opening, he's in serious trouble. The practical advantage will be with the player of the White pieces that plays those sharp positions often and has a greater understanding and feel for the middlegame. This is something that BDGers already know from experience, but the detractors fail to appreciate.

dmp4373 wrote on 01/11/09 at 00:32:24:

IM C. Wisnewski writes, "According to my analysis, the Diemer Gambit is good enough for equality, but not more." And at another point states that this is a dynamic equality, not a dull equality. If IM Wisnewski is correct, this is a major victory for White in the BDG propaganda wars that have been ongoing for years. Detractors of the BDG believe the opening is unsound, unsound being defined as Black can force an advantage. i.e. Andrew Martin's article on Silman's site where he claims playing the BDG is like shopping for a tombstone. My belief is that if Black can objectively only get dynamic equality out of the opening, he's in serious trouble. The practical advantage will be with the player of the White pieces that plays those sharp positions often and has a greater understanding and feel for the middlegame. This is something that BDGers already know from experience, but the detractors fail to appreciate.

Is is that nice to know someone has finally found a way for White to equalize in the BDG  ;D

Is is that nice to know someone has finally found a way for White to equalize in the BDG  ;D[/quote]

Yes, as a matter of fact it is nice.  ;D

dmp4373 wrote on 01/11/09 at 00:32:24:

IM C. Wisnewski writes, "According to my analysis, the Diemer Gambit is good enough for equality, but not more." And at another point states that this is a dynamic equality, not a dull equality. If IM Wisnewski is correct, this is a major victory for White in the BDG propaganda wars that have been ongoing for years. Detractors of the BDG believe the opening is unsound, unsound being defined as Black can force an advantage. i.e. Andrew Martin's article on Silman's site where he claims playing the BDG is like shopping for a tombstone. My belief is that if Black can objectively only get dynamic equality out of the opening, he's in serious trouble. The practical advantage will be with the player of the White pieces that plays those sharp positions often and has a greater understanding and feel for the middlegame. This is something that BDGers already know from experience, but the detractors fail to appreciate.

Funny, I view things quite differently. Restricting oneself to dodgy opening systems with limited plans and flexibility is an excellent way to stagnate as a player. Years go bye and suddenly lo and behold the realisation hits, but by then its too late, patzer for life.

Having said that, if you play chess simply for fun then you can do worse than the BDG, however if you play chess for steady improvement and growth as a player then the BDG must be a short term investment. There is simply so much more important stuff to master in chess than gambiting pawns willy nilly in the opening for speculative attacks.

Mastering the techniques involved in winning seemingly quiet and simple positions is much more valuable in the long run, not to mention harder than the unrealistic brute force attempts to impose ones will on a position, that gambit opening play often neccessitates.

Toppy :)

Funny, I view things quite differently. Restricting oneself to dodgy opening systems with limited plans and flexibility is an excellent way to stagnate as a player. Years go bye and suddenly lo and behold the realisation hits, but by then its too late, patzer for life.

Having said that, if you play chess simply for fun then you can do worse than the BDG, however if you play chess for steady improvement and growth as a player then the BDG must be a short term investment. There is simply so much more important stuff to master in chess than gambiting pawns willy nilly in the opening for speculative attacks.

Mastering the techniques involved in winning seemingly quiet and simple positions is much more valuable in the long run, not to mention harder than the unrealistic brute force attempts to impose ones will on a position, that gambit opening play often neccessitates.

Toppy :)
[/quote]

There is nothing you said here that I disagree with so we really don't view things differently at all. If I gave the impression that White should play the BDG exclusively, well, then I failed to express my point clearly. However, there is a time in ones development as a chess player when it becomes necessary to get over the fear of sacrificing material and I think the BDG is an excellent tool for that specific purpose. Also, as in my case, I'm 55 years old, growth as a player no longer interests me - been there, done that - it's now time to relax, have fun and not worry about losing.

[quote author=TopNotch]

Funny, I view things quite differently. Restricting oneself to dodgy opening systems with limited plans and flexibility is an excellent way to stagnate as a player. Years go bye and suddenly lo and behold the realisation hits, but by then its too late, patzer for life.

Having said that, if you play chess simply for fun then you can do worse than the BDG, however if you play chess for steady improvement and growth as a player then the BDG must be a short term investment. There is simply so much more important stuff to master in chess than gambiting pawns willy nilly in the opening for speculative attacks.[/quote]

In my opinion you are absolutely correct. I am convinced that large numbers of club players spend far too much time on the openings and not enough on middle games, endgame technique and especially on defence. Nevertheless the BDG is a near perfect shock weapon for use now and again.

Since Christmas I have been working through "Why Lasker matters" By Soltis. It has been a revelation. He seemed to be able to play any sort of position.  The trouble is that the games are so good it is difficult to learn from them. So for me it is back to the Jeremy Silman books on the middle game and various books on endgames.  

Mastering the techniques involved in winning seemingly quiet and simple positions is much more valuable in the long run, not to mention harder than the unrealistic brute force attempts to impose ones will on a position, that gambit opening play often neccessitates.

Toppy :)
[/quote]

Much of the BDG's reputation probably stems from the fact that many players become obsessed with it and try to get it in every game, and often try to get a Soller Gambit in every game with Black as well.

I think TopNotch's points are quite correct, but also that they represent a specific case of a general problem- it's a bad idea to play one opening all the time as it means you get a narrow range of middlegame positions, a point that applies to positional openings as much as gambits (though gambiteers are the most notorious for doing this).

But for players who play for fun and aren't so bothered about improvement, or are a fair way below the level where opening preparation becomes important (say below about 2100) I see little wrong with incorporating the BDG as a part of one's opening repertoire.  The only downside is the health warning that if you aspire to reach master level then it won't be an opening for life.

I'd quite like to see what Wisnewski has in line against the Lemberger as that's the line that Eric Prie endorses heavily.

Quote:

I give the following suggestions, based on this forum and also Kaissiber 5 and Fritz: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3: A) 3...e5!? A1) 4.Bc4 Qxd4 5.Qe2 Nf6 6.Be3 Qd8 7.Rd1 looks pretty unclear. A2) 4.Nxe4 Qxd4 5.Bd3 (5.Qe2!? Bucker) 5...f5 6.Nc3 (not 6.Nf3?! Qb6 7.Neg5 h6 -/+) 6...Bb4 7.Bd2 e4 8.Nf3 Qd6, unclear. A3) 4.Nge2 exd4 (or 4...Nc6 5.Be3 exd4 6.Nxd4) 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.Bg5 and again it's not clear if Black stands any better.

After 4.Nge2 exd4 I only play 5.Qxd4 that seems to me the best. 5.Nxd4 always seemed doubtful to me here.

After 4.Nxe4 Qxd4 5.Bd3 f5 6.Nf3 Qb6 7.Be3 may be an improvment over 7.Neg5, but I don't know if it's ok.

For David:

In Chess Openings for Black explained Zinzi gives the Hubsch...but a bit different

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4

A) 5.Be3 [...]
B) 5.f3    [...]

C) 5.Bc4 as main line...then
    5. ... g6
    6. f3 Bg7
    7. c3 c5
    8. Qb3 OO
    9. dxc5 Nd7
  quoting the game Josslen - Vanderstricht , 2003 0-1  :(

I will also check other books I have... (i.e. Meeting 1.d4 by Aagard, etc)

Even without sight of board, I can tell you that the line 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 e4 Nxe4 4 Nxe4 de4 5 Bc4 g6 6 f3? is not very good. I suggest 6 Be3, 7 000 8 Qd2 aiming to attack on the Kingside.

I don't really trust 5.Bc4 in the Hubsch, despite it being the main response, because for one thing, Black can simply play 5...c5 which equalises without much effort.  5...Nc6 6.c3 e5 is also at least equal, as endorsed by Eric Prie.

I prefer 5.Bf4, covering e5 and preparing for queenside castling and queenside play, throwing in f2-f3 at an appropriate moment.  In some lines the king's bishop might be better placed on d3, or b5 if Black goes queenside.

SWJediknight wrote on 01/19/09 at 18:44:47:

I don't really trust 5.Bc4 in the Hubsch, despite it being the main response, because for one thing, Black can simply play 5...c5 which equalises without much effort.  5...Nc6 6.c3 e5 is also at least equal, as endorsed by Eric Prie. I prefer 5.Bf4, covering e5 and preparing for queenside castling and queenside play, throwing in f2-f3 at an appropriate moment.  In some lines the king's bishop might be better placed on d3, or b5 if Black goes queenside.

I certainly agree that Black is more than fine after 5.Bc4 but I'm not so sure 5.Bf4 is much better.  I have to admit though to not knowing any analysis of the move.  What should White do after say 5.Bf4 Bf5?

Just picked up this thread and am supprised nobody has mentioned 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 Nc3 f5!

Perhaps I'm being thick but isn't this a "not very promising Dutch gambit line" for white.

e.g 1 d4 f5 2 Nc3 d5 3 e4?! de.

I would appreciate someone showing some compensation for white in this line. :-?

Nelson wrote on 02/02/09 at 20:28:07:

Just picked up this thread and am supprised nobody has mentioned 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 Nc3 f5! Perhaps I'm being thick but isn't this a "not very promising Dutch gambit line" for white. e.g 1 d4 f5 2 Nc3 d5 3 e4?! de. I would appreciate someone showing some compensation for white in this line. :-?

Is there a particular reason to think that ECO and NCO (as well as people like Gelfand, Rublevsky and Benjamin who have played it as White) are wrong to think that it offers White compensation?

Hi Kylemeister,

Whilst I was aware that Benjamin had played it on occasion quite a number of years ago, I will go away and check all 3 players games with this line to determine their results and try to understand where the compensation is comming from.

Thanks for the lead.

Kind regards, Nelson. :o

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 is maybe playable, but positionnally bad (white's squares weakened for ever), and doesn't developp anything. White has tried many moves with more or less success (4.f3, 4.Bg5, 4.Bc4, 4.Bf4, 4.Nh3), and the most popular has been 4.f3, which is good against 4..Nf6 or 4..exf3. But I think 4..e5 is good here, and it's the reason I would probably play 4.Bg5 here (prevent ..e5 and that move is often played against a future Nf6 anyway), followed by f3. Impossible to prove who is better here but I would say that White has at least sufficient compensations for the pawn.

Well, every book I know of thinks 4. f3 e5 is good for Black, and they tend to prefer 4. Bf4, which it would appear has been played by clearly more GMs and IMs than the others.

ArKheiN wrote on 02/02/09 at 22:07:07:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 is maybe playable, but positionnally bad (white's squares weakened for ever), and doesn't developp anything. White has tried many moves with more or less success (4.f3, 4.Bg5, 4.Bc4, 4.Bf4, 4.Nh3), and the most popular has been 4.f3, which is good against 4..Nf6 or 4..exf3. But I think 4..e5 is good here, and it's the reason I would probably play 4.Bg5 here (prevent ..e5 and that move is often played against a future Nf6 anyway), followed by f3. Impossible to prove who is better here but I would say that White has at least sufficient compensations for the pawn.

After all the fumferry here I got caught up in I decided to give the BDG a punt in a CC game (5o days/10 moves on ICC).   My opponent played this variation as Black.  1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 f5  
Game is on going.   As White, I am 400+ higher rated and my postion is now miserable and a loss looks to be on the horizons!   :)

Seriously.  I will post it when finished for a good laugh at my expense (and my rating  ;D)  I hope one day someone will show me where my "compensation" was and how I was supposed to use it.

Is there actual theory in this line?    ;D  Feels like I effed up a Dutch/Staunton attack and let him play two moves, or something silly.

drkodos wrote on 02/02/09 at 23:05:03:

.... After all the fumferry here I got caught up in I decided to give the BDG a punt in a CC game (5o days/10 moves on ICC).   My opponent played this variation as Black.  1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe 3.Nc3 f5   Game is on going.   As White, I am 400+ higher rated and my postion is now miserable and a loss looks to be on the horizons!   :) ... Is there actual theory in this line?    ;D  Feels like I effed up a Dutch/Staunton attack and let him play two moves, or something silly.

Yes, this is "normal" dutch theory and is covered in various sources, like Steffen Pedersen's leningrad book.

The dutch move order is: 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4!? dxe4

Hi Kylemeister,

I have checked the games of the players you mentioned and it appears that they were used some time ago and not really repeated.

This leads me to suspect that they were generally experiments with suprise value and if the line was a good one how is it that there is only a handful of games on Chessbase where both players a graded over 2400 and not very recent at that.

Who is the strongest player who regularly plays this line?? especially since  good anti-dutch lines are so popular these days.

I agree that  4 Bf4 seems to be the most logical move but I can't see the advantage if black avoids moving Nc6 too early allowing Bb5. I will nethertheless check out ArKheiN's suggestion that 4 Bg5 gives white compensation although I am not believing it at the moment.

Regards,
Nelson  :-?

Stefan Bucker in Kaissiber 5 recommends 4.Bg5 and suggests it gives compensation, if I remember rightly.  He also mentions that 4.f3 e5! is poor for White.

1.d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4. Bg5 a6!?

Before I embarrass myself by giving my next set of moves, what type of compensation is here?  What move would a BDG'er toss out as White here?

I did not like the look of 4.f3 e5 but without knowing what am I supposed to be aiming for I figured here & now I was supposed to go Whole Hog and played "the move" because what else is there to play?




It's been days now, but my mouth still tastes like snake oil.


To be clear, the game is ongoing, I am at move 12, and am not looking for deep analysis.  Just wondering if there was some "theory" and a "tabiya" to see where I turned off the solid BGD path that leads to glorious victory for the player of the White pieces.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4.Bg5 a6, is it really a good move? Depend on what Black has in mind. What I know here, is my next move, 5.f3, because it was what I wanted to play with 4.Bg5. Now I think Black will play 5..exf3 6.Nxf3. What do I see as a compensation? 3 develloped pieces and a d4-pawn against a pawn on a6 and a pawn on f5, holes in Black's light squares. That's may be worth a pawn to me.

ArKheiN wrote on 02/04/09 at 09:47:13:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4.Bg5 a6, is it really a good move? Depend on what Black has in mind. What I know here, is my next move, 5.f3, because it was what I wanted to play with 4.Bg5. Now I think Black will play 5..exf3 6.Nxf3. What do I see as a compensation? 3 develloped pieces and a d4-pawn against a pawn on a6 and a pawn on f5, holes in Black's light squares. That's may be worth a pawn to me.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4.Bg5 a6

And now:

5.f3 Nf6  

There really is no way to force Black to capture that f4 3 pawn.  Why should Black help us out?


ArKheiN wrote on 02/04/09 at 10:12:48:

Would you win against every BDG you could face? The BDG is proved to be worse for White than for Black? If yes, is it easy to prove that?  White players couldn't learn anything from the BDG, couldn't they win or have fun win it? A BDG book is not less respectable than any other chess opening book.

I took this post from the other thread on the BDG.

~ I think it is easy to prove this is worse for White. I am trying my best as White.  Playing for a win (as always!)

~ I am playing White pieces (and am a white player!)and I am trying to see what I can learn from this BGD. So far, the lessons learned is to not play it again.

~ I'm not having all that much fun with it.  The resultant position is miserable.

I do not (yet?) see any way for White to even gain true equality and I do not (yet?) see how this would be helping me learn to play better chess.  

The pieces are very difficult to coordinate because the pawn structure is horrible.  My biggest fear is that I might actually be losing knowledge playing this.   ;)







6.Qd2 c5!?

SWJediknight wrote on 02/04/09 at 00:51:46:

Stefan Bucker in Kaissiber 5 recommends 4.Bg5 and suggests it gives compensation, if I remember rightly.  He also mentions that 4.f3 e5! is poor for White.

Please let me see some compensation after a few more moves because I'm personally struggling with this one! :-?

Nelson wrote on 02/03/09 at 20:15:30:

Hi Kylemeister, I have checked the games of the players you mentioned and it appears that they were used some time ago and not really repeated. This leads me to suspect that they were generally experiments with suprise value and if the line was a good one how is it that there is only a handful of games on Chessbase where both players a graded over 2400 and not very recent at that. Who is the strongest player who regularly plays this line?? especially since  good anti-dutch lines are so popular these days. I agree that  4 Bf4 seems to be the most logical move but I can't see the advantage if black avoids moving Nc6 too early allowing Bb5. I will nethertheless check out ArKheiN's suggestion that 4 Bg5 gives white compensation although I am not believing it at the moment. Regards, Nelson  :-?

Hi,

I don't know of anyone who plays it regularly.  Just from the general look of it I would think that White should probably get decent compensation, e.g. as in ECO's and NCO's quite plausible-looking main line (5. Bf4 Nf6 6. f3 ef 7. Nxf3 e6 8. Bc4 Bd6 9. Qd2 0-0 10. 0-0-0 c6 11. Rhe1 etc.).

Hi Kylemeister,

Thanks for the reply, not at a board at present but will check and reply accordingly.

My initial thought though is that perhaps exf3 is not necessary leaving it a bit awkward developing the knight.

Regards,
Nelson.

I am shocked, disappointed, even maybe have hurt feelings now.   ;)


1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4.Bg5 a6 5.f3 Nf6 6.Qd2 c5!?   and now I went with 7.d5 ?! because I did not want my "wife" leaving me soon soon.  Perhaps it was better to grab the pawn and trade, but I keep expecting this amazing attack that I've heard White gets.

 ;)


For sure I thought BGDer would have posted they see this line all the time and "here is a secret pathway to mess with Black's mind (and computer program)".  

8-)


For an opening that is so highly touted there is such uncharted waters off the coast of the fifth move?  I mean, I can see why, as White's position is horendous, but I thought some Kool-aid drinkers would at least have some marginal pathway that at least allows White to not get busted so soon.  

:'(



Maybe I should go the Gambit route?  Start naming all my moves here while simultaneously plying IM Wisnewski with all sorts of flattery hoping to get my grotesque name in an upcoming historical record?


:-/


:D

@drkodos: Firstly I think 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4.f3 e5! 5.dxe5 Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 is around equal, but yes, that is very boring for White, and White should be happy with a draw after a boring game where skill is needed to keep the balance in an equal material game. But I have found a page about 3 games with 3..f5 4.Bf4!?, a respectable move, probably one of the best move here. http://bdgpages.blogspot.com/2008/10/from-dutch-to-bdg.html

Ok now let's talk point by point about that:


Quote:

~ I think it is easy to prove this is worse for White. I am trying my best as White.  Playing for a win (as always!) ~ I am playing White pieces (and am a white player!)and I am trying to see what I can learn from this BGD. So far, the lessons learned is to not play it again. ~ I'm not having all that much fun with it.  The resultant position is miserable.

- What is proved to be worse for White, the BDG in general or that 3..f5 line of the BDG?

- With the BDG, you may learn how to put pressure on Black with your free pieces, free diagonals and free files. You  may learn mating patterns and how to master activ pieces play against material. I think if you lost position with the BDG, it's because you mishandled that, that's not the fault of the BDG.

- Everyone doesn't like to play in a gambit style, I can understand that. If you like to give a pawn to have some pressure for that, the BDG should be ok. But you shouldn't get miserables positions with the BDG if you played that well.

Now about the position: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5 4.Bg5 a6 5.f3 Nf6, ok you didn't want to take that pawn on f3, so you can't have a permanent pawn up by now, because the point of playing f3 is to take, or to be took. So I don't play 6.Qd2 now but 6.fxe4, and now after 6..Nxe4 7.Nxe4 fxe4 or 6..fxe4, what do I see? I see a weak e4-pawn and light squares weakness. The e4 pawn seems maybe annoying for you because White's knight can't go on f3 but that not a big problem. It will go to e2-g3 and the e4 pawn will fall sooner or later, so the material problem shouldn't exist. And White has none activity problem too. Black's pawn structure tell us that the bishop f8 will go on g7, that's nice for me because my Bg5 is already nicely placed, and I will play Qd2 and 0-0-0 with attacking plans on the kingside. The only thing I don't know yet is where I will put my f1 bishop, it depends how the game will continue. If I can it will go on c4, to profit of your light squares weakness. So, White is clearly alive, not winning, that sure, but not worse for me. It's a dynamical equality, and if White wins back the e4 pawn (I don't see how it could survive the entire game) in good conditions, Black may even be worse.

When you play a gambit, you shouldn't be afraid about the pawn down, you should learn how to use your dynamical advantage, playing gambits is a good teacher to learn the balance activity/material. So, only you will know if the BDG or gambit style is for you or not. But if you get bad positions with the BDG, it's because you mishandle it, the BDG is good enough to keep a dynamical equality or more in most cases!

ArKhein, all good stuff.  Thank you.



For 40 years (with time off in between) I play the sharpest stuff and always have, as well as all types of Gambits particularly as Black where playing behind material can make one even more "anxious", if you catch my drift.

I stopped playing King Gambit as White long time ago because having to face reality of fighting for a draw against strong player most of the time was not what I wanted to do.  As black, yes.  But, as White?  

I find it harder to win that way.  For some reason, I win more from winning positions that I do from losing ones.  Go figure.


Heck, I even played the stupid Grob in the U/2200 section of the World Open and scored $$$!

Currently I am playing the Riga as Black otb, cc, Blitz on ICC and anywhere I can.    It is not considered sound.  For some reason I think maybe it is.  

I will continue to post this BGD game and you can punch it and smack it and show me where my moments of idiocy where.  I would appreciate that.  Clearly if I am playing garbage like the Spike, I can take a beating and walk away without it being the definition of what I am so please do not show any mercy if it is me.

But, is it not possible that the opening has a solid refutation? And, maybe more than one, at that?

Some do, you know.

After 3...f5 4.Bg5, Fritz's openings book gives 4...g6, whereupon 5.Qd2 with 0-0-0 to follow should give nice compensation for White.

If instead 4...a6 as suggested above, 5.f3 Nf6 6.fxe4 Nxe4 7.Nxe4 fxe4, and now for example 8.Bc4 Nc6 9.c3 and castling on either side.  White has a lead in development and Black has doubled and isolated e-pawns.  Looks like full compensation to me.

The alternative of 6...fxe4 transposes to the Staunton Gambit, a position alternatively reached via 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 d5 5.fxe4 dxe4 6.Bg5 a6.  I seriously doubt that 6...a6 is the best move in that position.  White continues with Bc4 and Nge2 and has fair compensation for the pawn.

Instead perhaps 4...Nf6 5.f3 Nc6, when White should continue with 6.d5, and again a series of exchanges on e4 are likely to cause a transposition to the Staunton Gambit: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nc6 5.f3 d5 6.fxe4 etc.

If the best Black has against the BDG is to transpose to the Staunton Gambit- a line which is sound enough, if insufficient for advantage against best play- then the BDG is looking pretty healthy.   And I haven't even touched upon 4.Bf4 yet.  Thus I seriously doubt that 3...f5 is Black's best move.

There is no compensation in the position you sited that is worth a pawn, to me.  Fair enough?  In fact, I think there is better play for White in not taking the e-pawn, but that is another matter entirely.

I never use thought terminating cliches such as "we'll have to agree to disagree," and I won't here because I like provoking thoughtful argument and in discipline such as science, math and chess, I belive there may actually be a truth a right and wrong, as it were, and I like the excitement of continuing that pursuit.

So, I will just respectfully state I believe you are wholly incorrect (Wrong! ) with regard to the evaluation of this line in particular, and the BGD in general.

Nothing personal.  I am a big fan of your work (ideas and posts!)

I hope one day I get to take this argument with you to the venue it belongs, the chessboard.   :)

But for now, in good spirit with no ill feelings, I remain,

~ the nefarious, drkodos

drkodos wrote on 02/07/09 at 22:17:32:

There is no compensation in the position you sited that is worth a pawn, to me.  Fair enough?  In fact, I think there is better play for White in not taking the e-pawn, but that is another matter entirely. I never use thought terminating cliches such as "we'll have to agree to disagree," and I won't here because I like provoking thoughtful argument and in discipline such as science, math and chess, I belive there may actually be a truth a right and wrong, as it were, and I like the excitement of continuing that pursuit. So, I will just respectfully state I believe you are wholly incorrect (Wrong! ) with regard to the evaluation of this line in particular, and the BGD in general. Nothing personal.  I am a big fan of your work (ideas and posts!) I hope one day I get to take this argument with you to the venue it belongs, the chessboard.   :) But for now, in good spirit with no ill feelings, I remain, ~ the nefarious, drkodos

If you tire of an analytical exchange and verbal exchange why don't the two of you play a forum game here?  You'll have plenty of time to contemplate your moves and show that White doesn't have enough compensation.  Of course one game, no matter the time control, won't be the final word but it's a start.

Glenn Snow wrote on 02/07/09 at 22:49:49:

If you tire of an analytical exchange and verbal exchange why don't the two of you play a forum game here?  You'll have plenty of time to contemplate your moves and show that White doesn't have enough compensation.  Of course one game, no matter the time control, won't be the final word but it's a start.

It is not the analytical exchange nor the verbal (for which I enjoy tremendously!) that is the genesis of my fatigue.  

It is seeming lack of forward progress and the constant back-and-forth contradiction that to me is more reminiscent of exchanges between Apollo 11 Hoax conspiracists and www.clavius.org.

I side with Clavius.   :)  They are rather protective of their intellectual property, and rightly so, which makes me hestitant to re-post any of their sagacious prose on dealing with conspiracists.  But, if one wishes to follow this direct link, http://www.clavius.org/occam.html, it is the third graph down which I believe sums up my thoughts regarding these types of arguments.

As for a turn based game here in the forums, I am opposed to it as there are sufficient resources available to do this.  I understand the entertainment value that could be offered by this excellent proposal of yours (Glenn Snow) but I feel that many of the other user will look and react derisively to the use of their precious forum space.  ;)

Well, if you don't see a pawns' worth of compensation in those positions, it doesn't reflect very well upon the Staunton Gambit, which can also give rise to the same positions.

SWJediknight wrote on 02/08/09 at 00:02:17:

Well, if you don't see a pawns' worth of compensation in those positions, it doesn't reflect very well upon the Staunton Gambit, which can also give rise to the same positions.

Dutch players do not fear the Staunton as much as White players hope or wish that they did.  One reason why is because Black gets a very playable and clear route to equality and gets to play for the full point.

The Staunton is better system, otb and in cc, for White than is the BGD, but it is still inferior to other choices against the Dutch, several of which actually do lead to a nagging and lasting edge for White.  It is from this position from which I prefer to play for the win.

Gambits do not have to be so "generous."  The Benko is a great example because Black gets simple to understand counter play and can usually can win back the material with ease, but often  DECLINES to so because the REAL PRESSUE Black gets often results in very tangible positional imbalances for which Black can actively play for the full point without merely relying on his opponents mistakes or their fundamentally inadequate understanding of the opening (something BGD'ers seem to prey upon with a very bizarrro and seriously misplaced sense of pride, IMHO).  

The "true" gambit Staunton (1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5) is probably better than the 4.f3 Staunton. The position for Black tend to become strange here and I really like White in the Timoschenko system. I don't know if the dutch player really like theses positions as Black, but me, I wouldn't.

So do I, on the rare occasions that I play 1.d4 and Black plays 1...f5 I usually aim for this 4.Bg5 6.Qe2 variation.  Black might be able to equalise with accurate play- but I certainly like the resulting positions for White.  If Black plays something other than 4...Nc6 then White can usually get an improved version of the 4.f3 Staunton.  

Still, with respect to the 4.f3 Staunton positions that can arise from 3.Nc3 f5 in the BDG, I think that 4.f3, while slightly inferior, shouldn't be worse than equal for White.

There's an article on the 'net that sums up my views perfectly, and Drkodos's scornful dismissal of the BDG reminds me of the attitude described in there.  I can't post a link as the site seems to be in some kind of "swear filter"- simply look up "What's the Deal with the BDG"?

But Drkodos hasn't answered my main point- if the BDG is argued to give White insufficient compensation for the pawn, and the Staunton gives equality, then how is 3...f5, which often transposes to the Staunton, a refutation of the BDG, or even close to being Black's best move in the position?

I've had 3...f5 played against me, btw, on a few occasions where I got a BDG against the Scandinavian (normally I play 1.e4 instead) and it is the response to the BDG that I've scored best against.

swjediknight; I never stated it (3. ...f5) was the best move in that position, only that is it is one among several that lead to Black's better position that can be achieved if White plays the BGD gambit against a strong player that has done some homework.

I'm out for reasons expressed in my "clavius" post.

Good luck and good chess!

Still missing the point- if it transposes to the Staunton with best play, and the Staunton is equal, how does Black get the better position?

Quote:

is it is one among several that lead to Black's better position that can be achieved if White plays the BGD gambit against a strong player that has done some homework.

drkodos, could you show us where are the others several lines that lead to a better position for Black?

Well the game Fleuch-Szabolcsi, 1994 (you can find it on chesslive)
is not a good advertisement for this system.

Uruk, Black player is a good player, and he is stronger than is opponent. And 11.Qe3! is best. Look at the BDG expert, Leisebein on chesslive after 11.Qe3, there is 20 games, could you tell me how much did he lose, and how much did he win?

I see, he's scoring damn well with 10.Qe3...

But why nobody answers ...Qb6 to prevent d5 ?

2 persons did in a corr. server.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Leisebein"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]


1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 Bf5 5. fxe4 Nxe4 6. Qf3 Nd6 7. Bf4 e6 8.
O-O-O c6 9. g4 Bg6 10. Qe3 Qb6 11. Nf3 Nd7 12. Qe1 Nf6 13. Na4 Qc7 14. Ne5 b6
15. c4 b5 16. Nc5 bxc4 17. Nxc4 Be7 18. h4 h6 19. Ne5 1-0

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Leisebein"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1-0"]


1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 Bf5 5. fxe4 Nxe4 6. Qf3 Nd6 7. Bf4 e6 8.
O-O-O c6 9. g4 Bg6 10. Qe3 Qb6 11. Nf3 Nd7 12. Qe1 Nf6 13. Na4 Qc7 14. Ne5 Be4
15. Rg1 h6 16. c4 g5 17. Bg3 Qe7 18. Nc3 Bh7 19. Bg2 Rc8 20. c5 Nb5 21. Nxb5
cxb5 22. Qa5 a6 23. Rge1 Bg7 24. Qb6 1-0

Black could hold back ...c6, which increases the power of the f4-bishop.
He could play 8...Nd7 instead.

I found one game by Leisebein, a draw, but Black played a quick ...c6 after all.

9.g4 Bg6 10.Qe3 Nf6 and then ?

Kramer does Karate.

Uruk wrote on 02/10/09 at 04:38:03:

Black could hold back ...c6, which increases the power of the f4-bishop. He could play 8...Nd7 instead. I found one game by Leisebein, a draw, but Black played a quick ...c6 after all. 9.g4 Bg6 10.Qe3 Nf6 and then ?

Sawyer gives 11.h3 c6 12.Nf3 +=, from which we don't get much wiser than we already were.
I assume this is your safe antidote to the BDG? As White I would prefer 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4, to reach the kind of irrational play you mentioned when you compared the BDG with the KG.

I beg to disagree with Sawyer.
Add 12...Nde4 13.Ne4: Nd5, I see a pawn less for White.

As for 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4, wow. In the KG it is Black who must compromise his structure !
What on ...h6 ?

Uruk wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:46:48:

I beg to disagree with Sawyer. Add 12...Nde4 13.Ne4: Nd5, I see a pawn less for White. As for 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4, wow. In the KG it is Black who must compromise his structure ! What on ...h6 ?

7.Ne2

...e5 comes into consideration but I'll try 7...Nc6

@Uruk, on 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 Bf5 5. fxe4 Nxe4 6. Qf3 Nd6 7. Bf4 e6 8.0-0-0 Nd7 9.g4, I have 4 "secrets" games of Leisebein against it. He played 2 games with 10.h4 here and 2 with 10.Qe3, the 4 games were draw. After 10.Qe3 he didn't face 10..Nf6 and I am curious what he would have played because it seems to be the best move of the position and it's not so easy to meet. I prefer 10.h4, and then 10..h5 11.g5 c6 12.Bd3 Nf5 13.Nge2 Be7 14.Ne4 Qa5 15.Kb1 were played in both games.

Exchange light-squareds before landing on f5,

12...Bd3: 13.Qd3: Qa5

An illustration 14.g6? f6 15.Re1 0-0-0 16.Re6: Qf5! white pawns are all weak.

Uruk wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:46:48:

I beg to disagree with Sawyer. Add 12...Nde4 13.Ne4: Nd5, I see a pawn less for White. As for 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4, wow. In the KG it is Black who must compromise his structure ! What on ...h6 ?

I am not surprised you disagree with Sawyer - I have lost count how many time I do.
5.g4 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nh3 and 8.Nf4.
Also interesting is 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4.
Ftr: I don't play the BDG, so I won't be as fanatic as some others. My only point is that White can reach messy positions playing like this. Imo 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 is safer.

How exactly is 7.Nh3 better than Flude's 7.Ne2,
...Nc6 attacks d4 so no Nf4 for the moment.

As for 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4, to regain the pawn that way is reckoning failure:
4.f3 (only good move) was to speed up development and there you're left with a pawn on f3, another on g5...  :D

From what I've seen the mess is on one side!

I'm an active player and wouldn't play ...c6 unless forced. I could play my Knight there and attack d4!
Also I'd rather not develop my opponent with ...exf3, that's his dream.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 (3...f5!?; 3...Bf5!?) 4.f3 Bf5 (4...c6!) 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nd6 7.Bf4 e6 8.0-0-0 Nd7 9.g4 Bg6 10.h4 h5 11.g5 c6 12.Bd3


Uruk wrote on 02/24/09 at 22:22:51:

Exchange light-squareds before landing on f5, 12...Bd3: 13.Qd3: Qa5 An illustration 14.g6? f6 15.Re1 0-0-0 16.Re6: Qf5! white pawns are all weak.

13. Rxd3! seems stronger (than 13. Qxd3).

[fen]r2qkb1r/pp1n1pp1/2pnp3/6Pp/3P1B1P/2NR1Q2/PPP5/2K3NR[/fen]
In the BDG building up pressure on the f-file is one of the key ideas. The Rd3 might even participate in this plan, in some lines it could move to f3 or g3. If 13...Nf5 14.Qe2 intending g5-g6, or if Black plays g6 himself, the square f6 becomes weak.


My BDG articles (Kaissiber 5 & 8) claimed that the traditional lines after 4...exf3 give White enough for the pawn, and there were many positions where I'd like to be White. But 3...f5 and 3...Bf5 (Morlo) were problematic, and since 1986 I believe that 3...Nf6 4.f3 c6! is the hardest nut for White to crack.

Regarding another point in this thread, that it were better if young players would not learn the BDG. Here I am not so sure. Many creative players started with the King's Gambit (Steinitz, Tartakower [who later invented the BDG, by the way, so perhaps it should have rather be called the BTG], Reti, Larsen come to mind - and, of course, E. J. Diemer himself), later they changed their repertoire and preferred serious openings (OK, with one exception). I don't think that enjoying tactics in your younger years is a mistake, rather the opposite.  

Look at the great masters: Young Emanuel Lasker played 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 (? Kasparow: "Every schoolboy knows...") 4. dxe5 Nd7!?. And the young Capablanca even used the most irregular opening of his time: the Caro-Kann Defense...

The cleverness of your 13.Rd3: is that on the variation I mentioned above,
13...Qa5 14.g6 f6 15.Re3 0-0-0 16.Re6:
...Qf5 does not work anymore.

The queen is on f3 instead of d3 and protects the bishop, allowing 17.Rd6:
Clever. I will look at it.

My first reaction is to play just 13...g6 from the diagram.
On 14.Fe5 Rh7, Fischer style.

Dark squares vs light squares, who will prevail ?
I still have my dark-squared bishop tho  ;)

Sounds fair, but in your picture, who has the white squares? 13...g6 14.d5!? cxd5 (14...Nc5 15.dxe6 Nxd3+ 16.Qxd3) 15.Nxd5 exd5 16.Qxd5 +=. Btw, in your 14. Be5 Rh7 what will Black's extra pawn f7 do for the rest of the game? Whenever it moves, the resulting weaknesses after gxf6 will more than compensate the pawn deficit. Not to speak about the Rh7...  

Well, if you don't play d5, I will castle and slowly consolidate.
The Rh7 defends f7 in the meantime, it will reactivate later when I have a knight on f5.
My plan is to win the h4-pawn on move 60.

But the immediate d5 works, true.
On 13...Nf5 14.Qe2 g6, d5 again bails out.
Not so simple...

Maybe with 13...Nb6 14.g6 f6 15.Re3 Qe7 16.Qe2 Kd7!?
or 14.Nge2 Qd7!?

though it's not much.

Maybe the gambit is playable after all.

The line Stefan recommends- 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6, has been debated on quite a few other threads.  I personally think 5.Nxe4 is good enough for equality- for instance 5...Nxe4 6.fxe4 exd4 7.Bc4, or 5...Bf5 6.Nxf6+ followed by 7.Bd3 and Black cannot win the pawn on d4.  However, there is a snag in 5...e5!?, when I can find nothing better for White than 6.Nxf6+ (I'm not totally convinced by the gambit 6.Bg5 exd4 7.c3 Be7) Qxf6 7.dxe5 Qxe5+ 8.Qe2, and a barren ending results.

Instead, 5.Bc4 is the usual response but I doubt that it gives full compensation.  5...exf3 (5...b5!?- Bacrot) 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Bg5 (7.Ne5 e6 8.0-0 Bg6! =+) 7...e6 8.Qe2 works fine against 8...Be7 (9.0-0-0 and 10.Rhf1) but I can't find anything convincing against 8...Bb4!.  Perhaps White might be able to find something after 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0.

SWJediknight wrote on 02/25/09 at 18:53:07:

The line Stefan recommends- 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6, has been debated on quite a few other threads.  I personally think 5.Nxe4 is good enough for equality- for instance 5...Nxe4 6.fxe4 exd4 7.Bc4, or 5...Bf5 6.Nxf6+ followed by 7.Bd3 and Black cannot win the pawn on d4.  However, there is a snag in 5...e5!?, when I can find nothing better for White than 6.Nxf6+ (I'm not totally convinced by the gambit 6.Bg5 exd4 7.c3 Be7) Qxf6 7.dxe5 Qxe5+ 8.Qe2, and a barren ending results. Instead, 5.Bc4 is the usual response but I doubt that it gives full compensation.  5...exf3 (5...b5!?- Bacrot) 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Bg5 (7.Ne5 e6 8.0-0 Bg6! =+) 7...e6 8.Qe2 works fine against 8...Be7 (9.0-0-0 and 10.Rhf1) but I can't find anything convincing against 8...Bb4!.  Perhaps White might be able to find something after 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0.

Ah, a 4...Nf6 Caro where White plays 5. f3.

White isn't worried about 7...Qh4+ or 7...Qxd4 after 7. Bc4? (I'm assuming Black's 6th move is supposed to be ...e5.)

If 7. Nf3 instead, surely the exchange of Black's king knight for White's queen knight gives Black an improved Fantasy?

There's also the possiblity of 5...Nbd7 (which looks like a 4...Nd7 Caro met by 5. f3) ...

Yes, apologies for the mix-up!  The first move-order is 5...Nxe4 6.fxe4 e5 7.Nf3 (certainly not 7.Bc4 Qh4+) 7...exd4 8.Bc4, and while it might be an improved version for Black, I think White still has at least enough compensation for the pawn.

Instead 5...Nbd7 is about equal IMO, e.g. 6.Qd3 e6 7.Bf4 Nxe4 8.fxe4 e5.

But in any case I can't find a good continuation against 5...e5.

I've read the 4...c6! thread. Interestingly, c6 was called "cowardice". In my comment after 4...c6 in Kaissiber 5 (1998), I actually asked: Is Black a coward? and after explaining the strategy behind the move, I continued: ...so I am not a coward, only cautious.
When I discussed 4...c6! with Volker Hergert and Volker Drüke in 1986, 5. Nxe4 Nxe4 6.fxe4 e5 7. Nf3 exd4 seemed frustrating for White. - Regarding 5. Bc4 exf3 6. Nxf3 Bf5, I felt that White should perhaps try 7. Bd3 Bxd3 8. Qxd3, when his compensation may not be fully sufficient, but at least he has some activity and the open files.
At that time I was writing the book on the Englund Gambit, and the Soller Gambit offered a (small) chance to reach the same position, with the bishop going from f8 to d6, instead of Bf1-c4-d3! I was willing to accept the line as a lesser evil for Black. Of course it is another question whether you'd like to have it as White.

After 4...c6, how about 5.Bg5?  The potential pin on the f6-knight hinders Black's ...e5 ideas that are annoying for White in many other lines.

Some sample possibilities:
A.  5...Bf5 6.Bxf6 (else White ends up a pawn down for not much) 6...exf6 7.fxe4 Be6 8.Qd2 Bb4 9.Nf3 with roughly equal chances.  Black has slightly better development but I like White's two-pawn centre.

B.  5...h6 6.Bxf6 exf6 7.fxe4 with similar lines to variation A.

C.  5...exf3 6.Nxf3, followed by developing the bishop to d3, transposing to lines stemming from 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 Bg4, which arguably offers White more than 6.Bc4 Bf5.  Instead 6...Bf5 is probably not best in view of 7.Bd3!? Bxd3 8.Qxd3, when White has a useful extra tempo (Bc1-g5) on the Bf1-c4-d3 line mentioned above.  

In all of the above lines Fritz 10 likes ...Qb6 for Black, intending ...Qxb2, but in all cases White can prevent the capture on b2 with a2-a3, or make a Poisoned-Pawn style gambit of it with Qd2, Qxb2, Rb1, Qa3 which leads to very messy situations.

A question: if you intend 4...c6 5.Bc4 ef3 6.Nf3 Bf5,
why not play the order 4...ef3 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Bc4 when you have the choice between
...c6 (transposing) and ...e6 (which seems more useful) ?

It also avoids the equalizer 5.Ne4:

Good question.  I believe the main line after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 is 6.Ne5, followed by g4 and Bg2.  Or perhaps, taking cues from Stefan Buecker's line of the Soller, simply 6.Bd3!? Bxd3 7.Qxd3 and again White is a tempo up on that line.

Also possible 6...Bg6 here.

Black has more chances than in 5.Ne4, I think.

@Uruk: 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 "Tartakower-Gunderam Defense"), here 6.Ne5 was regarded as the the best reply.  


SWJediknight wrote on 02/25/09 at 22:03:42:

After 4...c6, how about 5.Bg5?  The potential pin on the f6-knight hinders Black's ...e5 ideas that are annoying for White in many other lines. [...] C.  5...exf3 6.Nxf3 ...

But here Volker Hergert's 6...Bg4! is logical: In the Teichmann Defense [Bg4] White's bishop belongs to e3, to protect the pawn d4, claimed Hergert.


Could the following be playable: (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3) 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5. It wouldn't be too surprising if someone had already checked and refuted the idea...

[fen]rn1qkb1r/pp3ppp/2p1pn2/5bN1/2BP4/2N5/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1[/fen]
(a) 8...Bxc2 9.Qe2 Bg6 10.Bxe6 Be7 11.Rxf6 gxf6 12.Nxf7 Bxf7 13.Bxf7+ Kxf7 14. Qh5+ Kg8 (14...Ke6 15.d5+ cxd5 16.Bf4 =) 15.Qg4+ Kf8 16.Bh6+ Ke8 17.Re1 Rf8 18.Qg7 Nd7 19.Ne4 Nb6 20.Kh1 Qxd4 21.Ng3 Qb4 22.Bd2 Qc5 23.b4, White is better.

(b) 8...g6 9.h3 h6 10.Nxf7 Kxf7 11.g4 Kg7 12.gxf5 exf5 13.Rf2 (intending Ne2-f4 and/or Rg2) 13...b5 14.Bb3, with a nice attack. Black's pieces lack coordination. Perhaps this is worth to be checked.

(c) 8...Bg6! seems critical and has been played in both games that I found:

(c1) 9.Bxe6 h6 10.Qe2 (Lorenz - Pitre, corr. Canada 1973). Here 10.Nxf7 may be interesting, but the reply the PC hates most is 9...fxe6 10.Nxe6 Qd7 11.Qe2 Kf7 12.Ng5+ Kg8 -/+.

(c2) 9.Re1 Nd5? (1/2, 51 in D. Ivanov - Volovikov, UKR-ch U18 2005) 10. Nxe6! fxe6 11.Rxe6+ Be7 (11...Kf7 12. Re5 +-, 11...Kd7 12.Qg4) 12.Bxd5 cxd5 13.Bg5 Nc6 14.Qe2 Bf7 15.Rxe7+ Nxe7 16.Re1 +=. However, after the simple 9...Be7! 10.Ne2 Nd5 (10...h6 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Nf4) Black is safe, -/+.

(c3) More attractive looks: 9.Ne2! c5 (9...Bd6 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4. To get rid of that Ng5, Black might play h6 in the near future, but that's a small weakness: =+) 10.c3 (10.Bxe6!? fxe6 11.Nxe6 Qb6 12.d5 unclear or 10...h6! 11.Nxf7 Bxf7 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.c3, playable?) 10...Bd6 11.Qb3 h6 (11...Qb6!? 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Qxe6+ Kd8 14.Rxf6 Bxh2+, so perhaps 12.Bf4!? =+) 12.Nf3, for example 12...Be4 (12...Qb6 13.Bf4 Bxf4 14.Nxf4 Be4 15.Bb5+ Bc6 16.Nxe6; 12...cxd4 13.Nfxd4) 13.Ne5 cxd4 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.Bxe6+ Kg6?! 16.cxd4 Kh7 17.Bxh6 Kxh6 (17...gxh6 18.Bf5+) 18.Qh3+ Kg6 19.Rxf6+ gxf6 20.Qg4+ Kh6 21.Qxe4 and Black is in trouble.
 

Stefan, if you commit the knight to e5 on the sixth move,
then I do play ...c6 and you can't reach your last diagram, no?

Indeed the main line after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 is 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 and now either 8.Qf3 or 8.Bg2. This is similar and even may transpose to 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6. All this looks less solid to me than 5...c6.
Why should 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 better than 6.Bc4 ? If 6.Bd3 Bg4 does not work then there is 6.Bd3 g6 eg 7.0-0 Bg7 8.Qe1 Bg4 8.Bg5 Nbd7 =+(Gunderam). White may try 6.Bd3 g6 7.Bg5 Bg7 and a fun line is 8.Qd2 Bg4 9.Ne5 Qxd4 10.Nxf7 0-0!
But if 6.Bd3 indeed is better Black should prefer 4...c6 5.Bc4 (or 5.Bg5 exf3) exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5. This has been extensively debated in several threads. For SB I offer

http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/IntroEN2.htm
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203996272/30#30

I will give two important lines.

TonyRo wrote in yet another thread

Quote:

I want the BDG to be good, but deep down, I don't believe in it. For instance, in one line on the website he gives (I think, I'm doing this from memory, so I might be adding or subtracting important moves): 1. d4 d5 2. e4 de 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 ef 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Bc4 c6 7. 0-0 e6 8. Ng5!? Bg6 9. Ne2 Bd6 10. Nf4 Bf4 11. Bf4 Nd5 12. Bc1! h6 13. Nf3 0-0 14. a4! Nd7 15. Ra3! Qc7 16. Nh4 Bh7 17. Rg3 Kh8 18. Bh6! That's all well and good, but why give only 15...Qc7 if the move sucks? Maybe I missed the improvement somewhere, since the website and the analysis is quite jumbled and messy, but after looking at this for awhile, I couldn't find anything convincing for White after 15...Qe7. Just a simply move that connects the rooks, keeps h4 guarded, maybe prepares ...e5 or ...c5 at some point. I'd take Black, but you of course have to be careful.

In my notes I also have 12...Nd7 13.a4 0-0 14.Ra3 e5.

So the question if Black should avoid 8.Ng5 is very open.
Now if I understand Uruk correctly he wants to play 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 c6. While I do admit that most books on the BDG are unreliable, it is still handy to consult them now and then. Instead of the transposing 7.Bc4 White may try 7.g4 again.

MNb wrote on 02/26/09 at 02:58:32:

Indeed the main line after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 is 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 and now either 8.Qf3 or 8.Bg2. This is similar and even may transpose to 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6. All this looks less solid to me than 5...c6. Why should 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 better than 6.Bc4 ? If 6.Bd3 Bg4 does not work then there is 6.Bd3 g6 eg 7.0-0 Bg7 8.Qe1 Bg4 8.Bg5 Nbd7 =+(Gunderam). White may try 6.Bd3 g6 7.Bg5 Bg7 and a fun line is 8.Qd2 Bg4 9.Ne5 Qxd4 10.Nxf7 0-0! But if 6.Bd3 indeed is better Black should prefer 4...c6 5.Bc4 (or 5.Bg5 exf3) exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5. This has been extensively debated in several threads. For SB I offer http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/IntroEN2.htm http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203996272/30#30 I will give two important lines. TonyRo wrote in yet another thread Quote: I want the BDG to be good, but deep down, I don't believe in it. For instance, in one line on the website he gives (I think, I'm doing this from memory, so I might be adding or subtracting important moves): 1. d4 d5 2. e4 de 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 ef 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Bc4 c6 7. 0-0 e6 8. Ng5!? Bg6 9. Ne2 Bd6 10. Nf4 Bf4 11. Bf4 Nd5 12. Bc1! h6 13. Nf3 0-0 14. a4! Nd7 15. Ra3! Qc7 16. Nh4 Bh7 17. Rg3 Kh8 18. Bh6! That's all well and good, but why give only 15...Qc7 if the move sucks? Maybe I missed the improvement somewhere, since the website and the analysis is quite jumbled and messy, but after looking at this for awhile, I couldn't find anything convincing for White after 15...Qe7. Just a simply move that connects the rooks, keeps h4 guarded, maybe prepares ...e5 or ...c5 at some point. I'd take Black, but you of course have to be careful. In my notes I also have 12...Nd7 13.a4 0-0 14.Ra3 e5. So the question if Black should avoid 8.Ng5 is very open. Now if I understand Uruk correctly he wants to play 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 c6. While I do admit that most books on the BDG are unreliable, it is still handy to consult them now and then. Instead of the transposing 7.Bc4 White may try 7.g4 again.

You miss the point. After your 4...c6 5 Bc4 ef3 5 Nxf3 g6 6 00 leads to a Bogoljubow Defense by transposition. Consult the known theory on the Bogoljubow Defense in this position.

After 5 Nxf3 c6 6 Bd3 g6 7 00 Bg7 8 h3! prevents 8...Bg4 and dares Black to Castle Kingside. Now, if 8...00 9 Qe1 enters regular Bogoljubow lines, where the g4-square is protected. Honestly, I don't much care for the 7 Bg5 Bg7 line. The regular Qe1-Qh4-Bh6 attack plan looks better to me.

Back in 1997, I wrote an article for Issue #79 of BDG World. It covered playing 5 a3!? against 4...c6 and 6 a3 against 5...c6. I will scan that article and post it here later.

You miss the point. After 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 I don't play g6, but Bf5, a line on which you have nothing contributed yet. After 7.Bc4, 7.Bf4 and 7.a3 - some moves you mentioned - I claim ...e6 =+.

@Gambit, your 5.a3 or 6.a3 is just a waste of tempo.

4..c6! is the best reply, very flexible, that's my point of view as a BDG player, but that tought is not new. 4..exf3 followed by 5..c6! is to me the best BDG accepted line for Black (but give the additionnal idea of 6.Bd3!? with double pawn sacrifice idea instead of Bc4), that's not new too. 4..exf3 and 5..Bf5, the Gunderam defense give a good target to White while 5..c6 doesn't. Uruk's idea to play 5..Bf5 to commit the knight on e5 to play c6 is interesting but 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 should be ok, I believe it has been debated on the forum in the past. The Alchemy is interesting seems to be =/+ if Black knows what he is going.

In fact everything has been said in the forum again and again...

Ok guys, I'm not aware of all the analyses,
but how can 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 be good?

Compare with the Advance Caro 3...Bf5 4.Nc3 a6 (edit: or Qb6),
g4 is a mistake without ...e6.

In the BDG comparaison you have the f-file open, the real point of the BDG. You want to clear that file with that move. In a normal Caro-Kann, g4 here would be useless indeed.

Still it's really loosening, and a high price to clear the file.

Moreover the Be6 guards f7 and cannot be harassed.

Uruk wrote on 02/26/09 at 15:23:45:

Still it's really loosening, and a high price to clear the file. Moreover the Be6 guards f7 and cannot be harassed.

White's ending is lost anyway, so it really doesn't matter whether he weakens his kingside like this.  There are no positional considerations, there is only the attack.

Ok I guess by your last comment that you choose 7.g4 Be6, not much games has been played in that territory, but I have 2 games by Leisebein, 2 draws. One beginning with 8.g5 Nd5 and one with 8.g5 Nfd7. The bishop e6 won't stay here so long.

I don't know if that was addressed to me, but if so, no, I don't necesarily choose g4.  I was just pointing out that structural considerations are of reduced importance when playing a gambit.

But to weaken the king is even worse in tactical positions!

8.g5 Nd5 seems logical keeping d7 for the companion.


PS (edit): honestly, do you prefer the white side of this to 4...c6 5.Ne4

Uruk makes a good point, in that 4...c6 is not the way to go if Black wants to prove a theoretical edge against the BDG- 5.Nxe4 appears to lead to approximate equality in all lines.  Still, I would hesitate to go in for that line as White now, having seen the effectiveness of 5...e5!? in sterilising the position.

5.Bg5 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bg4 indeed- a possible continuation is 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qd2 (breaking the pin) 8...e6 9.Ne5 Be7 (or 9...h6).  Does White have enough here?

If 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5, then I think 6.Ne5 followed by 7.g4, in most cases continuing with 8.Qf3 rather than 8.Bg2, gives White good play and already sets up some threats down the f-file.  Probably best, as ArKheiN suggests, is 5...c6! when it remains to be seen whether 6.Bd3 gives enough play.  

So, take & 5...Bf5 seems better than decline 4...Bf5
due to no misplaced d6-knight.

Try to find equality for White.
If you succeed, I will believe the gambit does not lose.

@ MNb: Many thanks, the first link is extremely useful, let's call it [1]. So I re-invented the wheel, and 8.Ng5 is called the "Alchemy Variation". Nevertheless, let me add a few remarks to the variations (a) to (c) which I gave above.

(a) Remembering the old 8.Ne5 Bxc2 9.Nxf7 lines, I only regocnized that here instead of transposing (9.Nxf7), the move 9.Qe2! was good. Thanks to your hint [1], now I see how much work on 9.Qe2! was already done. But 11.Rxf6! wasn't mentioned yet, at least not in [1].

(b) shouldn't be too critical.

(c) 8...Bg6! 9.Ne2. Here the reply 9...c5 [Leisebein] 10.c3 had already been analyzed in [1]. It is difficult to assess the line. But in 10.Be3!? (not in [1]) White also has an alternative, e. g. 10...Nc6 11.Nf4 cxd4 12.Bf2!? Bf5 13.Re1 Be7 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.Nxe6 Bxe6 16.Rxe6 Kf8 17.Qf3, and Black's task isn't too easy.

The move I missed, 9...Bd6! (main line in both [1] and the other info), looks indeed best and comes close to being a refutation. After 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4 Nd5 12.Bc1 White has active pieces, but against careful defense it must be =+ or worse. Practical chances for White, but insufficient for corr. chess.

12.Bd2, discussed in [1], allows some tricks (12...h6? 13. Nxe6!), but is worse in some other respects, so it cannot be recommended.

12.Qd2 0-0 13.Bg3 might be a little worse than the main line 12.Bc1.

More interesting, since it includes several tricks: 12.Qg4 (instead of 12.Bc1) 12...0-0! (12...Bf5 13.Qg3 h6? 14.Nxe6!, or 12...Nxf4? 13.Qxf4 0-0 14.Nxe6!) 13.Qg3 (13.Be5 Ne3? 14.Nxf7!! Rxf7 15.Rxf7, but 13...Nd7! or 13...Bf5 are good for Black; 13.Rae1 Bxc2? 14.Be5! Bf5 15.Qg3 g6 16.Nxh7!; 13...Nd7 etc.) 13...Nxf4 (13...Bxc2? 14.Be5! Bg6 15.Bxg7! Kxg7 16.Rxf7+ +-) 14.Rxf4 Nd7 (14...Bxc2? 15.Nxf7 Rxf7 16.Bxe6 +-) 15.Raf1 Nf6, but again there is no full compensation for the pawn.  

@Markovitch: if you see the hour of posting you will see I posted 3 min after you, so my post was intended to Uruk.

@Uruk: 7.g4 Be6 8.g5 Nd5, yes that's probably the best move, and I see that Rybka likes the Black side more, that's mean that White's position is harder to play to keep the balance. 9.Ne4 Nd7 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 11.Nc5 Qd6 has been played. That game alone is not sufficient to judge the whole line, but ok I might add that line in my not so big list of possible =/+.

So do we agree that on 4...c6 White has a drawing path (5.Ne4),
whereas on 4...ef! 5.Nf3 Bf5 we don't really see one.

I see also no reason to prefer ...c6 on the fifth.

Greetings,

Pardon the off-the-current-point-in-this-topic comment...

I was puzzled by the fact that all seem to assume that one has to accept the gambit (I hope Gambit doesn't read this...!).

On facing this opening, I normally transpose to a Sicilian - 1. d4 d5 2. e4, and now 2... c5.

I'm not sure how BDGers take to being denied their normal game - I'd be interested to hear what you all think.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

@Dragan Alas, I don't know how it can be a Sicilian. But that line is almost +/-, not the best thing Black can get here...

1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5?! I see 3 responses. 3.dxc5, 3.exd5 and 3.Nc3!? dxe4 4.d5 with a reversed Albin. But I like the simple 3.dxc5 and usually Black play like this here: 3..d4 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.c3 Nc6 6.Bb5 and White should stay a pawn up with the pair of bishop and queens exchanged.

I like Uruk's 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 Be6 8.g5 Nd5. This is similar to the sound and solid line 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 c6 6.Ne5 Be6. Comparing teaches us that White basically has given up a pawn to gain some space (pawn g5) and for a halfopen f-file. That does not look enough to me.

Aye, and I can't find any improvements for White in this line.  Thus, unless someone else can, either 5...Bf5 is better for Black (though not winning: =+ and -/+ are two different assessments) or 6.Bd3!? may be the best way forward.  Black can indeed try 6...Bg6 in this position, when a sample continuation is 7.Qe2 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0, or perhaps 9.Bxg6 hxg6 10.0-0-0.  

Again thanks to Stefan Buecker for inspiring this idea via his suggestion of 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 and then the surprising 7.Bd3.  If that is one of White's better moves in this position then surely the continuation 5...Bf5 6.Bd3 can't be bad.

Whether White has enough here is debatable, but I certainly prefer White's chances relative to Uruk's line, which looks like a solid =+.

I would find it surprising indeed if White's compensation were sufficient after 1. d4 d5 2. e4 de 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 ef 5. Nxf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Bd3.  Actually I would find it surprising if it were even close to being sufficient.

I have an article published in BDG World #79, August-October 1997, but cannot attach it here. It is called "Defeating the Ziegler, O'Kelly, Teichmann Defenses and Caro-Kann Transpositions with a3!"

Anyone interested? I will email you the four-page article. Here the maximum attachment size is 50 KB. My article is much larger than that.

I am not interested because I can't believe a move like a3 can work here. I don't see the idea of the move. Just a waste of tempo it seems to be for me.

Uruk, I believe that 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 Be6 8.g5 Nd5 9.Ne4 is playable for White but may be =/+, anyway that's not the funniest line to play as White here. But 6..c6 and 7..Be6, a good idea, is really rarely played. It's maybe played 1 game /1000 even in the 5..Bf5 6.Ne5 line. If that was 1 game/2 I would have stopped the BDG quickly (not because I think I am lost but because I have to fight to equalize without much fun here) but that's still not the case. And there is not much alternatives for White at this point. 6.Ne5 c6 7.Bc4 e6 is a transposition into a well-known line, =/+ as well. So there is only 6.Bd3, an interesting move (I once faced that idea where I was Black in a corr game, and I didn't manage to win after my ..Bxd3). But I think 6..Bg6 to be more precise than 6..Bxd3. 6.Ne5 always has been my favourite move, and the type of play of 6.Ne5 e6 was one of my favourite line of the whole BDG, so I am not sure I would like to play 6.Bd3 now.

My conclusion: I may continue to play the BDG until people will begin to play the boring lines more often, but for the moment I have still fun and quite good winning percent.

Waste of tempo, you say? Well, 5...c6 is a waste of tempo too!

5..c6 is not a waste of tempo, that's a part of Black's plan, in their construction of the fortress. But a3 is not thematic in the BDG...

The move ...c6 helps Black to cover the d5 square, which is important as d4-d5 is a dangerous pawn push in some lines of the BDG.  In addition, it covers against any dangerous Qf3 ideas with double attacks on b7 and f7, and takes the sting out of many g4/Bg2 lines (as we've just seen).  Also, delaying ...e6 makes Bc1-g5 less strong.

So there are, in fact, perfectly good tactical and positional reasons for Black playing an early ...c6 here.

Indeed, the only lines where I'm not sure that White has a pawn's worth of compensation are the ones with an early ...c6, namely 4...c6 (if White isn't happy with equality after 5.Nxe4), 5...c6, and 5...Bf5 with the idea 6.Ne5 c6.   If you like your g2-g4 lines, then I think the idea still works against 5...Bg4- 6.h3 Bh5 (or 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4!?) 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5.

ArKheiN wrote on 02/27/09 at 14:47:16:

But a3 is not thematic in the BDG...

Maybe not. I will be the first to say I am not a big fan of Lev's waffling but I have read some of his detailed analyses on various chess subjects and the puffery a side, his analysis was pretty good. I don't know really but maybe a3 in the circumstances he mentioned might be worth a look?
:-/

(1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3) 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5. The Alchemy Variation. 8...Bg6! 9.Ne2! Bd6 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4 Nd5 A few replies ago, MNb had kindly informed me about the site http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/IntroEN2.htm , which gives an excellent overview over the state of the art of Alchemy. That site gives 12.Bc1 as the best continuation for White, but White's compensation appears dubious. - The move which I'd clearly prefer is 12.h4!.

[fen]rn1qk2r/pp3ppp/2p1p1b1/3n2N1/2BP1B1P/8/PPP3P1/R2Q1RK1[/fen]
Apparently a relevant position for the Alchemy Variation 8.Ng5. Now the main threat is 13.Bxd5 Qxd5 14.h5 Bf5 15.g4, and of course the motifs 13.Bd3 or 13. h5 also play a role. Black might try:

12...h6

(a) 12...h5? 13. Bd3! and White is better.
(b) 12...0-0 13.Bxd5 followed by 14.h5 and 15.h6 looks interesting. For the moment, let's call it unclear.
(c) 12...Nxf4 13.Rxf4 Qe7 14.Qg4 should not be underestimated, for example 14...Nd7 15.Re1 Qb4 16.Qe2 Qd6 17.Qf2 0-0 18.h5! Bxh5 19.Qh4 Bg6 20.Rxf7! Rxf7 21.Rxe6 Qb4 22.Rxg6 =.

13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Qg4 Bf5 15.Qxg7.

White's attack may be sufficient for a draw, for example:

15...Rh7 16.Qg8+ (Qg3) 16...Kd7 17.Qg3 Nxf4 18.Rxf4 Na6 19.Rxf5 exf5 20.Be6+.

[fen]r2q4/pp1k3r/n1p1B2p/5p2/3P3P6Q1/PPP3P1/R5K1[/fen]
The resulting endings remind me of a Muzio Gambit. Black is better, so this should not be your choice in a corr. game. But for an OTB game, and considering the fact that Black has to find a few good moves, before he enters the second diagram, the "Alchemy" may well be White's best try against 4...c6. It isn't clear that Black can force a win.

I remembered about something: 5..Bf5 6.Ne5 c6!? 7.g4 Be6!? has been suggested by Bonsai in the forum somes years ago, and Patrik Shoupal defended the White side. Again a copy and past from Rajmund's page: http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/gunde.htm

Gunderam var. with 6...c6 [D00]

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 (Gunderam variant) 6.Ne5 c6!? Diagram


Advise pursuit on ChessPublishing forum. [Classical and mainly used pursuit is 6...e6 7.g4 , where White has indeed some activity.] 7.g4 [7.Bc4 e6 8.g4  (8.0-0 Bg6 9.Bg5 Be7! see ) 8...Nfd7! -/+ (8...Bg6 9.Bg5!?)  7...Be6 This stand-by cost position Black, with pawn in addition, is numerous adversary BDG enough preferred. 8.g5 Nd5 [8...Nfd7 9.Nd3 g6 10.Bg2 Bg7 11.Be3 0–0 12.0–0 Qb6 unclear (Leisebein - peber, remoteschach.de, 2005)] 9.Ne4 Nd7 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 11.Nc5 Qd6 12.Bg2 Nf4 13.Be4 Bd5 14.Qf3 Ng6 15.0–0 b6 16.c4 Ne5 17.Qf4 Nxc4 18.Bxd5 Qxd5 19.Na6 e5 20.Nc7+ Kd8 21.Qxf7 Qxf7 22.Rxf7 Nd6 23.Ne6+ Ke8 24.Rc7 Nb5 25.Rb7 Nd6 26.Rc7 Nb5 27.Rb7 Nd6 = (Schoupal - Bonsai, 1/2:1/2, ChessPublishing.com, forum, 2005)

Who is able to find promising ways for white?

8.Bc4!?N Perhaps the only way how to obtain black fort...

Etc.

EDIT: I have found that old thread about 6..c6 7.g4 Be6 with the game Sevenviolets(Shoupal) vs Bonsai.

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1117050810/0

Hadron wrote on 02/27/09 at 21:57:05:

ArKheiN wrote on 02/27/09 at 14:47:16: But a3 is not thematic in the BDG... Maybe not. I will be the first to say I am not a big fan of Lev's waffling but I have read some of his detailed analyses on various chess subjects and the puffery a side, his analysis was pretty good. I don't know really but maybe a3 in the circumstances he mentioned might be worth a look? :-/

Why, thank you! Yes, it is not a standard move in the BDG. But whoever said I made standard moves? My moves are all unorthodox!
So how about reading the article?

I must note I'm a bit puzzled with the annotations out there.
...c6 + ...Be6 is standard for this structure (Alekhin, Caro...)

Proper annotations should be:

6.Ne5?!
Misplacing the knight. It is only subject to exchange there,
as demonstrated in the Candidates Final Sokolov-Karpov.

6...c6 7.g4?!
Tal's plan of harassing the bishop with g4-h4 works only after ...e6

7...Be6
The bishop is forced on its optimal square. The knight is far from g5...

Here is an effortless draw:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068564

And a decade earlier, a famous game;
pay attention to the waiting move 8.c3 !!
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1058000

Could it be that BDG players lack general chess knowedge?

Gambit wrote on 02/28/09 at 06:24:31:

Hadron wrote on 02/27/09 at 21:57:05: ArKheiN wrote on 02/27/09 at 14:47:16: But a3 is not thematic in the BDG... Maybe not. I will be the first to say I am not a big fan of Lev's waffling but I have read some of his detailed analyses on various chess subjects and the puffery a side, his analysis was pretty good. I don't know really but maybe a3 in the circumstances he mentioned might be worth a look? :-/ Why, thank you! Yes, it is not a standard move in the BDG. But whoever said I made standard moves? My moves are all unorthodox! So how about reading the article?

Sure, why not...
HTH
>:(

I have written it before and I write it again: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Nxe4 is very poor. Of course Black will not help White with 5...Nxe4?!, even though that move is playable. After 5...Bf5 Black has a superior Caro-Kann. No conductor of the white pieces plays f2-f3 voluntarily after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 or 4...Nf6. According to my database Black wins about half of the games.

Big deal. So you have a Caro-Kann. It's not like White can't equalize here after 1. d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Nxe4 Bf5 6 Ng3.
Sounds like the White players did not play their openings properly if they lost from a simple position like this.

I think the positions after 5.Nxe4 Nxe4 6.fxe4 e5 7.Nf3 exd4 are quite nice for White, and even after 5...Bf5 and 5...Nbd7 I would be equally happy to take either colour.  (I prefer 5...Bf5 6.Nxf6+ to 6.Ng3).  5.f3 in the Caro-Kann does have some points, it helps support g2-g4 and increases White's control over the e4-square.  Correspondingly White will generally aim to castle on the queenside.

Gambit, what do you suggest after 5.Nxe4 e5?  I doubt that White has better than to go into a very barren ending.

SWJediknight wrote on 03/01/09 at 11:45:24:

I think the positions after 5.Nxe4 Nxe4 6.fxe4 e5 7.Nf3 exd4 are quite nice for White

7...exd4 8.Bc4 Bb4+ 9.c3! dxc3 10.Bxf7+ was Diemer's trick. In my correspondence with Volker Hergert I recommended instead 7...Be6, which leads to a situation similar to 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 Be6!, with the difference that Ng8 and Nb1 are exchanged. I claimed that this exchange rather favored Black. Some participants of the thematic corr. tournament later organized by Hergert preferred 5...Bf5, the move recommended by Hergert. Hergert's book "Die O'Kelly-Verteidigung im Blackmar-Diemer-Gambit" (Düsseldorf 1993) has the games of that tournament. The general conclusion was that 4...c6 5.Nxe4 was equal, that alternatively 5.fxe4 e5 6.Nf3 exd4 7.Qxd4 = could be played, and that other 5th moves seemed to be worse.

These "equal" lines are not what a BDG player is hoping for, and to claim that the BDG doesn't lose is not so sensational by itself. Both 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.c3 and 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 (Ignaz von Popiel) offer reasonable chances, but they are not popular. The real task (in my view) is to find a sound way in the spirit of the BDG, preferrably including an attack on the open files f and e.

Sometimes you have to settle for equality when no attack is possible. Unless you want to maneuver around?

There is a third alternative: not to play the BDG at all. Are you saying that in the Alchemy you prefer maneuver (12.Bc1) to attack (12.h4)?

No, I was responding to SWJK's post.

My problem is that I could potentially end up with this position via one of my main responses to the Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3, and in practice my opponents have invariably replied with 4...exf3, 4...e5 or 4...e3, but there is always 4...Nf6 transposing.  (Many players play 4.Bc4 instead, but then 4...Nf6 5.f3 transposes).

Having seen the line 5.Nxe4 e5 (5.fxe4 e5 is similar) I am inclined to agree with Stefan Buecker- I'm happy to take a dynamically equal position, but not a sterile one (hence why I only took up the Goring Gambit when I found ways for White to generate dynamic equal play against 4...d5).  Thus it would be fruitful to search for the soundest way to continue in gambit style.

So if the Alchemy Variation is dubious for White, what are we left with?  I think if 5.Bg5, then I take the point that Black can argue that 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 Bg4 gives an improved version of the ...Bg4 lines as White's bishop does not normally go to g5.  However, White may be able to get some play with the continuation 7.Qd2 e6 8.Bd3 (or 7.Bd3 e6 8.Qd2) Nbd7 9.Ne5.  I don't think developing the bishop to c4 works as well; after 7...e6 8.Qd2 (8.Qe2 Bb4 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Bd2 =+) 8...Nbd7 and I see no way forward.

5.Be3 is rather passive (simply 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 looks good) so that leaves Gambit's suggestion of 5.Bf4.  Then if 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 Bg4, White can consider 7.Qd2 Nbd7 8.Bd3 e6 9.Ne5 with similar play, but the bishop may be better placed on f4 than on g5.  Or simply 9.0-0-0.

I'm not convinced that any of these lines objectively give White enough, but they might be no worse than the Alchemy line.

@Stefan Buecker: 12.h4 is very interesting after 11...Nd5.
But I don't see any reason for Black to delay castling. After 11...0-0! 12.h4?! is met by 12...h6! Now a sac gives nothing. White has to go back with the Knight and Black is better. Any other thoughts?

Taking a look at the Alchemy line (which upon closer inspection is more interesting than I first thought), indeed what does White have after 11...0-0?  The sacrifices on e6 don't work (though after 12.Bxe6 Black has to find 12...h6!) After 12.Qd2 Nbd7 White has some compensation but it looks doubtful whether it's enough.

How about the immediate sacrifice on e6?  I haven't seen any references to it in that article or in this thread so far.  (8.Ng5 Bg6) 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nxe6 leaves Black a piece up for a pawn, but Black will be forced to forgo castling rights.  After 10...Qd7, White can try 11.Qe2 Kf7, though here Black can retreat the king to the fairly safe g8-square.  Alternatively 11.Bg5 Kf7 (11...Qxe6 12.Re1 Ne4 13.Qf3 Nxg5 14.Qg4 leaves Black with a rook and two pieces for the queen, but White maintains an attack; 13...Kd7 will leave Black's king exposed on the queenside) 12.d5 Be7 13.Qf3 is likely to net a second pawn for the piece, with unclear attacking chances.  Fritz doesn't think White has full compensation, but Black's position will be difficult to play at least.

The other sacrifice- 9.Nxe6 fxe6 10.Bxe6- is less impressive in view of 10...Bd6 11.Re1 Qc7 when White doesn't have enough for the piece, and the king will eventually escape to the kingside.

@OldGrizzly: The line 11...Nd5 12.Bc1 was said to be the main line, and 11...Nd5 seemed plausible at first. I had hoped that after 11...0-0 White might get new ideas (better than 11...Nd5 12.Bc1, when the retreat of the bishop costs time). Something like 11...0-0 12.Qd2 Nd5 13.Bg3, perhaps, or 12.Nf3 Nd5 13.Bg5. But I didn't check anything, and now your proposal 11...0-0! looks just strong.  


SWJediknight wrote on 03/02/09 at 20:01:44:

How about the immediate sacrifice on e6?  I haven't seen any references to it in that article or in this thread so far.  (8.Ng5 Bg6) 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nxe6 leaves Black a piece up for a pawn, but Black will be forced to forgo castling rights.  After 10...Qd7 [...] 11.Bg5 Kf7 (11...Qxe6 12.Re1 Ne4 13.Qf3 Nxg5 14.Qg4 leaves Black with a rook and two pieces for the queen, but White maintains an attack; 13...Kd7 will leave Black's king exposed on the queenside) 12.d5 Be7 13.Qf3 is likely to net a second pawn for the piece, with unclear attacking chances.  Fritz doesn't think White has full compensation, but Black's position will be difficult to play at least.

An inspiring idea! I've had (8.Ng5 Bg6) 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nxe6 Qd7 11.Bg5 Qxe6 12.Re1 Ne4 on the board, but didn't really believe in it. However, you are right that the attack deserves attention. For example: 13.Qf3 Nxg5 14.Qg4 Kd7 15.Rxe6 Nxe6 16.Re1 Bf7 17.Qf5 Bg8

[fen]rn3bbr/pp1k2pp/2p1n3/5Q2/3P4/2N5/PPP3PP/4R1K1[/fen]18.Kh1!! (stronger than the immediate 18.d5, which later allows the freeing Bc5+) 18...Na6 (another weird line: 18...g6 19.Qf3! followed by d5, =) 19.d5 cxd5 20.Qxd5+ Kc8 21.Rxe6 Nc7 22.Re8+ Nxe8 23.Qf5+ Kc7 24.Qxf8 Rd8 25.Nb5+ Kb8 26.h3 Rc8 27.Qf2 b6 28.Qf4+ Nc7 (28...Kb7 29.Qe4+) 29.Nxc7 Rxc7 30.Qf8+ Kb7 (30...Rc8 31.Qf4+ =) 31.Qf3+ Rc6 32.Qg4 Rc7 33.Qe4+ etc. draw.

Many side-lines remain to be checked, e. g. 13...Qf7 (maybe better than 13...Kd7). In any case the variation seems to be a lot of fun.

Apparently 10...Qd6 settles the situation:
(a) On 11.Qe2 both possible replies 11...Kf7 and 11...Kd7 look reliable.
(b) 11.Bg5 Nbd7! (11...Qxe6 transposes to 10...Qd7, and 11...Kf7 allows 12.Bxf6 Qxe6 13.Be7+! or 12...gxf6 13.Ne4!) and Black seems to be safe, e. g. 12.Re1 (12.d5 cxd5 [or Kf7] 13.Nxd5 Kf7 etc.) 12...Kf7 13.Bf4 Qb4, and I don't see a good continuation (14.Qe2 Kg8 15.a3 Qa5).
(c) 11.Re1 is relatively best, but still insufficient: 11...Kf7 12.Bf4 (12.Bg5 is line b) 12...Qd7 13.Nc7 Bd6 (Na6!?, but the text is simple and good) 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Nxa8 Nbd7 followed by Rxa8. Black is better.

Ok. This one we put quickly enough in the scrap heap, but it was to be expected.

Why was it to be expected? Actually after 10...Qd7 Black may be in trouble. And 10...Qd6 looks risky at first sight, because it invites Bf4.

I didn't mean this particular variation but the gambit in general.

White is White but it would have been spectacular to see him burn his own center and get out alive.

Uruk wrote on 03/04/09 at 21:12:41:

I didn't mean this particular variation but the gambit in general. White is White but it would have been spectacular to see him burn his own center and get out alive.

Really, Uruk? How about you and I play a couple of games, with Game/90 time control, on the Internet Chess Club? No, make it 40/2, SD/60. See what you know about playing  the black side of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit?

You have something that could overturn the verdict?
Just say it.

Unless it's 6.a3.
In that case the move's brute force is self-explanatory.

Uruk wrote on 03/09/09 at 00:03:48:

You have something that could overturn the verdict? Just say it. Unless it's 6.a3. In that case the move's brute force is self-explanatory.

Uruk, what variation in the BDG are you talking about? The Gunderam Defense, 5...Bf5? The Teichmann, 5...Bg4? The Euwe, 5...e6? The Bogoljubow, 5...g6? Or the Vienna, 4...Bf5?

I have not seen you show one iota of analyses after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 that demonstrates your viewpoint. What is more, you refuse to play a honest over-the-board match, under tournament conditions, on Internet Chess Club.

Why is that, Uruk?

Again, I challenge you to an over-the-board match on the Internet Chess Club, 40 moves/2 hours, SD/60. Or if you prefer, Game/90 minutes.

I dont have an account on ICC. I challenge you to play on Playchess instead. And how about 5 min?

sssthepro wrote on 03/09/09 at 09:37:41:

I dont have an account on ICC. I challenge you to play on Playchess instead. And how about 5 min?

That sounds good to me. What is your handle?

I msged you

Gambit wrote on 03/09/09 at 03:13:51:

[quote author=uruk link=1231025114/150#159 date=1236557028] Again, I challenge you to an over-the-board match on the Internet Chess Club, 40 moves/2 hours, SD/60. Or if you prefer, Game/90 minutes.

Oh no!  The peace of the veldt is once again shattered by the bellow of the dread Zilbermint!

Dude, sssthepro challenged me to a honest match, and I accepted. Which is more than I can say for the cowardly Uruk, who chickened out of a challenge.

Gambit wrote on 03/09/09 at 03:13:51:

I have not seen you show one iota of analyses after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 that demonstrates your viewpoint.

Unsurprising, if you have read nothing of this thread.

We (some fans of the gambit & I) came to the conclusion that 1.d4 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 ef3 5.Nf3 Bf5 6.Bc4 e6 is unsufficient for White.
And 6.Ne5 is simply unmotivated.


Gambit wrote on 03/09/09 at 03:13:51:

Again, I challenge you to an over-the-board match on the Internet Chess Club, 40 moves/2 hours, SD/60. Or if you prefer, Game/90 minutes.

The debate has been here, public, for 12 pages. Don't run away.

Gambit wrote on 03/09/09 at 03:13:51:

I have not seen you show one iota of analyses after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 that demonstrates your viewpoint.

And what exactly was your contribution on 4...c6 and 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 again? Nothing more than the boring macho-talk about silicons and ICC-challenges.

I have plenty of contributions against the cowardly ...c6 lines. In fact, I wrote an article about defeating ...c6 lines, back in 1997. I would love to attach it here, but the file is too big.

Also, I have defeated my share of ...c6 players in OTB games.

Macho talk, my backside! What else to call cowardly lines that are not in the spirit of the great Romantic spirit of the 19th century? What else to call cowards like Uruk who chicken out of honest challenges?

You are a true inheritor of EJ Diemer. Back in 1943 he already wrote "stuff" about "the Maginot spirit", which essentially means the same as your cowardice nonsense.

Nice that you wrote an article more than 10 years ago. But on this site you wrote zero on 4...c6 and 5...c6 except three remarks:

1) 6.a3! end of the line. It seems even too much work for you to give us a few main lines.
2) not the Alchemy. End of argumentation.
3) rather Ne5 than Ng5. End of analysis and argumentation.

Very impressive contributions, really. I would almost say - cowardly.


Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 05:58:16:

Macho talk, my backside!

Another fine example of macho talk.


Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 05:58:16:

What else to call cowardly lines that are not in the spirit of the great Romantic spirit of the 19th century? What else to call cowards like Uruk who chicken out of honest challenges?

For this attitude I refer to my post in your confederacy-chess thread. Here it suffices that EJ Diemer used similar "logic" in that 1943 article.

Excuse me, Mr. Coward, but my responses have a point.

First, you guys seem to frigging worship the computer to the point where the chess engine gives you the answers. Not I.

Second, I have no idea what Diemer wrote in 1943. Care to translate the article and post it here?

Third, I suggested, and others agreed, that after 4...c6 5 Nxe4 was best. Then 5...Nxe4 6 fxe4 e5 7 Bc4 is what Diemer used to play.
But that has been discussed here.

Fourth, after 5...Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 7 g4 Bg6 8 g5 Nd5 9 Qf3 White has the edge.

Fifth, I'll try to post the 1997 article if I can.

If you had read some of this you would know that
5...Bf5 6.Ne5?! e6?! justifies White's last nervous move.

Black starts the Caro formation by 6...c6 so that 7.g4 is senseless and the Ne5 does nothing at all.

Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25:

Excuse me, Mr. Coward, but my responses have a point.

Not that I - and with me a few others - have noticed. FYI: Coward is not the English translation for Nieuweboer. As that one is probably too long, just call me Mr. MNb.


Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25:

First, you guys seem to frigging worship the computer

Not as much as you seem to worship your backside, which pops up in your posts in and out of season. And we already know that silicon analysis scares you the pants off. No need to remind us.


Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25:

Second, I have no idea what Diemer wrote in 1943. Care to translate the article and post it here?

No, but I might in your Confederacy thread. If you learn some manners.


Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25:

Third, I suggested, and others agreed, that after 4...c6 5 Nxe4 was best. Then 5...Nxe4 6 fxe4 e5 7 Bc4 is what Diemer used to play. But that has been discussed here.

And also has been discussed that 5...Bf5 is superior. Again fully in the spirit of Diemer you don't care to give Black's best.


Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25:

Fourth, after 5...Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 7 g4 Bg6 8 g5 Nd5 9 Qf3 White has the edge.

See Third.


Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25:

Fifth, I'll try to post the 1997 article if I can.

Now that would be nice. Not the whole article, I am not going to waste my time going over dozens of irrelevant lines, just a couple of main lines.

MNb wrote on 03/10/09 at 21:21:01:

Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25: Excuse me, Mr. Coward, but my responses have a point. Not that I - and with me a few others - have noticed. FYI: Coward is not the English translation for Nieuweboer. As that one is probably too long, just call me Mr. MNb. Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25: First, you guys seem to frigging worship the computer Not as much as you seem to worship your backside, which pops up in your posts in and out of season. And we already know that silicon analysis scares you the pants off. No need to remind us. Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25: Second, I have no idea what Diemer wrote in 1943. Care to translate the article and post it here? No, but I might in your Confederacy thread. If you learn some manners. Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25: Third, I suggested, and others agreed, that after 4...c6 5 Nxe4 was best. Then 5...Nxe4 6 fxe4 e5 7 Bc4 is what Diemer used to play. But that has been discussed here. And also has been discussed that 5...Bf5 is superior. Again fully in the spirit of Diemer you don't care to give Black's best. Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25: Fourth, after 5...Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 7 g4 Bg6 8 g5 Nd5 9 Qf3 White has the edge. See Third. Gambit wrote on 03/10/09 at 12:56:25: Fifth, I'll try to post the 1997 article if I can. Now that would be nice. Not the whole article, I am not going to waste my time going over dozens of irrelevant lines, just a couple of main lines.

I'm not interested in computer analyses because as I stated earlier, men should use their own heads, not the computer! Simple as that.

As for 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6 5 Nxe5 Bf5 6 Ng3 seems okay for White. Unless you mean 4...ef3 5 Nxf3 Bf5 instead?

No, you worship the computer and kiss my backside. Your own backside is sitting on a cactus, by which a broken chess engine stands. Too much analyses!!  ;D

And, OK, I will see what I can do to repost the 1997 article.

Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 00:27:53:

Unless you mean 4...ef3 5 Nxf3 Bf5 instead?

Yeah, White's losing there. See above. And move on.

Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 00:27:53:

I'm not interested in computer analyses because as I stated earlier, men should use their own heads, not the computer! Simple as that.

Dictator.


Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 00:27:53:

As for 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6 5 Nxe4 Bf5 6 Ng3 seems okay for White.

6...Bg6.

Would you play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 and now the cowardly 6.f3?! voluntarily? Still after 6...Nf6 it is exactly the same position. What you essentially admit here is that the BDG is inferior to the normal 3.Nc3 vs. the Caro-Kann. Not that the majority of sensible chessplayers will be surprised.


Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 00:27:53:

No, you worship the computer and kiss my backside. Your own backside is sitting on a cactus, by which a broken chess engine stands. Too much analyses!!  ;D

Just to make sure I checked. No, my computers are on a desk, not on an altar. Last person I gave a kiss was my girlfriend, not you and certainly not the more distasteful parts of your body. I wonder though why you are so focused on these. Any shrink around? Beneath my backside is a chair and my engines work fine. Thank you for your concern.


Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 00:27:53:

And, OK, I will see what I can do to repost the 1997 article.

Yes, that will make me forgive you your superfluous comments in the thread on the Sicilian Wing Gambit ao.

Not as much as you seem to worship your backside, which pops up in your posts in and out of season. And we already know that silicon analysis scares you the pants off. No need to remind us.

Since we are talking about backsides, MNb, you were the one who wrote the above, correct? My pants are still on, thank you for asking.
In fact, I recently bought an expensive suit, with pants and jacket.
So there.

You say I am a dictator? Bull. Merde, as the French say. No, I hold to the view that a man should use his brains more often to think, and depend less on computers for assistance when it comes to chess analyses!

I will post more analyses later, as it is 12:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, and I have a midterm in 12 hours.

But what's wrong with 5...Bf5 6 g4 Bg6 7 Ne5 e6 8 g5 Nd5 9 Qf3 ? Nothing!

Most players I have played never played 5...c6 against the BDG. And that is my point, right there: Only seasoned players will play 5...c6, people who know something against the BDG.  Where I live, I have seen experts, masters, IMs, GMs, play anything but 5...c6 against the BDG.

I have seen the following played:

5...Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 6 g4 Bg6 7 g5 Nd5 (7...Nfd7, 7...Nh5, 7...Ng8) 8 Qf3 c6 9 Bd3

 5...Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 (6...Bh5 7 g4 Bg6 8 Ne5 e6 9 g5 Nd5 10 Qf3 c6 11 Bd3)   7 Qxf3 c6
 5...e6

 5...g6

just to name a few.

And after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 I see the following:

 4...e3?! Langeheinecke Defense, usually played by cowards;
 4...Bf5 Vienna Defense;
 4...c5  Brombacher Counter-Gambit;
 4...g6  Albrecht Defense;
 4...Nc6  Lamb Defense;
 4...Nd5  every once in a while.
 4...e5?! Elbert Counter-Gambit;

Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 04:36:57:

Not as much as you seem to worship your backside, which pops up in your posts in and out of season. And we already know that silicon analysis scares you the pants off. No need to remind us. Since we are talking about backsides, MNb, you were the one who wrote the above, correct? My pants are still on, thank you for asking. In fact, I recently bought an expensive suit, with pants and jacket. So there.

This logic provides the ultimate proof that the BDG is the best opening White can play - for people like you. I will not begin with the tedious task to quote all your posts that contain the b-word.


Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 04:36:57:

You say I am a dictator? Bull. Merde, as the French say. No, I hold to the view that a man should use his brains more often to think, and depend less on computers for assistance when it comes to chess analyses!

The logic of all dictators: proscribing others what to do. Fortunately you don't have the means.

I don't care what you have seen played and what not. I have seen a few more openings played, on all thinkable levels; information value again about zero.

I don't proscribe what people think, MNb, moron. Rather, I say what   I think. And,  besides the BDG, I have played quite a few other openings...

Uruk wrote on 03/11/09 at 01:40:01:

Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 00:27:53: Unless you mean 4...ef3 5 Nxf3 Bf5 instead? Yeah, White's losing there. See above. And move on.

=+ and -+ are not the same thing.

More like -/+ but anyway, better ways to spend your white time than try to grovel for a draw here.

And the positions are not fascinating either.
Analyse a =+ Noteboom or Botvinnik, I get it, but a Caro with a pawn less... yawn.

Uruk, I may defend the White side here again in a "forum game" if you want, even if I agree that your line is not the most funny and promising line to face as White. It would just be to show that White is not so bad here.

Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 13:14:15:

I don't proscribe what people think, MNb, moron.

"People should do this or do that" is proscribing. And you are looking for trouble, pal. Next time you deliberately use abusive language a complaint will go to the moderator and the administrator. Calling me a moron is a grave insult to all those having an IQ considerably lower than average.

Dictator that your are.

MNb wrote on 03/12/09 at 02:14:08:

Gambit wrote on 03/11/09 at 13:14:15: I don't proscribe what people think, MNb, moron. "People should do this or do that" is proscribing. And you are looking for trouble, pal. Next time you deliberately use abusive language a complaint will go to the moderator and the administrator. Calling me a moron is a grave insult to all those having an IQ considerably lower than average. Dictator that your are.

Exactly how you measure IQ? Care to tell?

Pal, you have to realize that what I said is my opinion. Certainly people are going to use computers for analyses. However, when it comes to OTB chess, it is not possible to use computers for that is cheating. Or haven't you heard about an incident where one opponent was being accused of using computer assistance? Kramnik-Topalov 2008 comes to mind. Also, World Open, Philadelphia, 1995.

So who is being a dictator? I am just trying to have an even and honest, level playing field. If you or anyone else want to play me, fine. OTB chess, tournament conditions, no computer analyses.

But if you don't, that's fine by me.

When I play in OTB tournaments, no one uses computer assistance.

Gambit wrote on 03/12/09 at 03:11:42:

Exactly how you measure IQ? Care to tell?

Study psychology.


Gambit wrote on 03/12/09 at 03:11:42:

But if you don't, that's fine by me.

Everything I have omitted are facts I never disputed. But note LDZ write something else here than in a few previous posts. Good to read that people don't have to do this or do that according to him.

SWJediknight wrote on 02/25/09 at 18:53:07:

Instead, 5.Bc4 is the usual response but I doubt that it gives full compensation.  5...exf3 (5...b5!?- Bacrot) 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Bg5 (7.Ne5 e6 8.0-0 Bg6! =+) 7...e6 8.Qe2 works fine against 8...Be7 (9.0-0-0 and 10.Rhf1) but I can't find anything convincing against 8...Bb4!.  Perhaps White might be able to find something after 9.a3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0.

After 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5, your variation may be an acceptable emergency solution. I agree with you that 7.Bg5 e6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.0-0-0! gives White sufficient compensation. Unfortunately your second remark seems also right: 8...Bb4! is better. Instead of your 9.a3 I'd rather try 9.0-0 (obviously White would have preferred to castle long, but at least now he saves a tempo: a2-a3) 9...0-0! (9...Be7!? 10.Rae1 0-0 11.Ne5! unclear; 9...Nbd7 10.Ne5 0-0 11.Nxf7) 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Ne4. An interesting position, e. g. 11...Bg6 12.c3 Be7 13.a4 a5 14.g4 Nd7 15.Nh4 Bxe4! 16.Qxe4 f5 17.Nxf5, but this may not be entirely correct, and there are several alternatives for Black.

Nothing of the above deserves a diagram, I fear.
Is there a clear refutation, by the way, of 7.g4!?? in the BDG folios?

[fen]rn1qkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/5b2/2BP2P1/2N2N2/PPP4P/R1BQK2R[/fen]
Black may reply: 7...Nxg4 (7...Bxg4 8.Bxf7+; 7...Bg6 8.h4) 8.Nh4, and now:

(a) 8...e6 9.Nxf5 exf5 10.0-0 Nf6 11.Rxf5 etc.

(b) 8...Bd7 9.Ne4 b5 10.Qe2 e5 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Qf3+ Nf6 13.0-0 exd4 14.Qb3+ Ke7 15.Re1.

(c) 8...g6 9.Nxf5 gxf5 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Ne3 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.Qh5+ Kg8 (13...Ke6 14.d5+) 14.Qg6+ Bg7 15.Qe6+ Kh7 16.Rg1 Rg8 17.Qxe3 Qxd4 18.Qxd4 Bxd4 19.Rxg8 Kxg8 20.0-0-0.

(d) 8...Bc8 9.Ne4 Nf6 10.Rf1 Nbd7 11.Qe2 e6 12.Bg5 Qa5+ 13.Bd2 Qh5 14.Nxf6+ Nxf6 15.Nf3 Bd7 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 17.Rde1

[fen]2kr1b1r/pp1b1ppp/2p1pn2/7q/2BP4/5N2/PPPBQ2P/2K1RR2[/fen]
For the two sacrificed pawns, White has full compensation.

Indeed, a close inspection of the last position suggests White does have two pawns' worth of compensation.  I think both sides can improve, for instance I doubt White has enough compensation after 16...Nd5, but 10.Nxf6+ immediately (instead of 10.Rf1) may improve for White, forcing Black to retake with a pawn.  White continues Be3, Rg1, Qh5 and 0-0-0 while Black's development remains chaotic.  It's worth noting that 8...Bc8 is not a move Black would be likely to find OTB!

In the 8...g6 line, a scan though (admittedly with much assistance from Fritz!) reveals that Black's best chance may well be 13...Ke6 14.d5+ Kd7, though the position is certainly chaotic.  Perhaps instead 10.h3 Nf6 11.Be3 with similar play to the last note but the doubled pawn on f5 rather than f6.

The other lines, as far as I can see, give White good play for the two-pawn deficit.

Regardless, 7.g4!? is an inspired idea- it definitely looks worth a punt at fast time limits at least.

Hadron wrote on 02/28/09 at 10:26:45:

Gambit wrote on 02/28/09 at 06:24:31: Hadron wrote on 02/27/09 at 21:57:05: ArKheiN wrote on 02/27/09 at 14:47:16: But a3 is not thematic in the BDG... Maybe not. I will be the first to say I am not a big fan of Lev's waffling but I have read some of his detailed analyses on various chess subjects and the puffery a side, his analysis was pretty good. I don't know really but maybe a3 in the circumstances he mentioned might be worth a look? :-/ Why, thank you! Yes, it is not a standard move in the BDG. But whoever said I made standard moves? My moves are all unorthodox! So how about reading the article? Sure, why not... HTH >:(

I didn't think so.....
HTH
>:(

SWJediknight wrote on 03/12/09 at 20:23:53:

I think both sides can improve, for instance I doubt White has enough compensation after 16...Nd5, but 10.Nxf6+ immediately (instead of 10.Rf1) may improve for White [...]

Thanks! "Both sides can improve" was more than I expected in a first reaction on 7.g4. Your idea 16...Nd5 followed by f6 and soon Qh5-e8 in fact improves Black's coordination. Instead of 16.0-0-0, perhaps 16.Rg1 h6 17.0-0-0 is a slight improvement, e. g. 17...0-0-0 (now 17...Nd5 18.Qf2 is less convincing) 18.Rdf1 Be8 19.Kb1.

In line (c) 8...g6, after 13...Ke6 14.d5+ Kd7 I thought that White could hold: 15.Bf2 (15.Rd1 Nxd1 16.Qxf5+ Kc7 17.Qe5+ Kc8 18.Kxd1 Rh7 19.Qf5+ e6 20.Qxh7 Qxh4) 15...Nxc2+ (15...Nxd5 16.Bd4 Rg8 17.Nxd5 cxd5 18.Qf7 Rg5 19.h4 Rg2 20.0-0-0 Kc8 21.Bc5 e6 22.Bxf8 Qd7 23.Be7 Nc6 24.Qf8+), and here either 16.Ke2 Qe8 17.Qxf5+ e6 or 16.Kd2 Nxa1 17.Qxf5+ Kc7 18.Qe5+ Qd6 19.Qxh8. White seems to have reasonable chances for a draw, although Black certainly has an advantage. - Your idea 10.h3 Nf6 is an interesting alternative, here 11.Bg5!? e6 12.d5 may be worth a look.

Some questions: what about
A1) 7.g4 Nxg4 8.Nh4 g6 9.Nxf5 gxf5 10.h3 Nf6 11.Bg5 Nbd7!? 12.Qe2 Rg8 (e6 13.d5!?) 13.h4 h6;
A2) 10.Bg5 (iso 10.h3) Rg8!? idea 11.Bh4 Ne3 and 12.Bxf7+ does not work anymore;
B) 7.Bg5 e6 8.Qe2 Bb4 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Ne4 Qh6 eg 12.c3 Bxe4 13.Qxe4 Bd6 ?

I don't know if it's been mentioned in this forum or not, at least I haven't noticed it yet, but Sawyers KEYBOOK III is now being sold in bookup format for $25 at bookup.com.  Unfortunately there is no information on anything new it may contain.

HTH, I tried sending you the article, but it came back. Something wrong with your email address.

MNb wrote on 03/13/09 at 03:02:49:

Some questions: what about A1) 7.g4 Nxg4 8.Nh4 g6 9.Nxf5 gxf5 10.h3 Nf6 11.Bg5 Nbd7!? 12.Qe2 Rg8 (e6 13.d5!?) 13.h4 h6; A2) 10.Bg5 (iso 10.h3) Rg8!? idea 11.Bh4 Ne3 and 12.Bxf7+ does not work anymore; B) 7.Bg5 e6 8.Qe2 Bb4 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Ne4 Qh6 eg 12.c3 Bxe4 13.Qxe4 Bd6 ?

Many thanks. To begin with your last line, in "B" White can try 12.a3 Bxe4 13.axb4!? Bxf3 14.Rxf3 Nd7 15.b5, unclear. The alternative 12.Ne5 is also unpleasant for Black.

In A1, White seems to have have sufficient compensation after 14.Bxf6 Nxf6 15.0-0-0.

In A2, to reach my original analysis, White can perhaps change the move order: 9.Bg5 (iso 9.Nxf5). Here Rg8 is useless, while 9...h6 10.Nxf5 hxg5?! (10...gxf5 returns to my analysis) 11.Qxg4 gxf5 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.Qxf5+ Ke8 14.d5 Qd7 15.Qg6+ Kd8 16.0-0-0 Kc8 17.Rhf1 looks good for White.

In the case of 9.Nxf5 gxf5 10.Bg5 Rg8, I had intended 11.Qd2, but then 11...Rxg5 12.Qxg5 Qxd4 13.Qxf5 e6 14.Bxe6 Qe3+ 15.Kf1 Qxe6 16.Re1 Ne3+ 17.Rxe3 Qxe3 18.Qc8+ Ke7 19.Rg1 Bh6 20.Qxb7+ Nd7 21.Qxa8 Qf3+ 22.Ke1 Be3 23.Ne2 Qd5 -+ resp. 23.Rf5 Bd2+ -+ must be a refutation.

In "Beating the Anti-king's Indians Gallagher give a line for black using the Euwe Defence. I have a very complex secret line which I have not yet had the chance to try.

However while checking Gallagher's analysis tonight a much more simple way of defusing his line.

1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5.
Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nbd7 up to here given by Gallager and now the surprise move 10. Nb5 If he wants black can swap queens. Qxd2+ 11. Kxd2 O-O 12. b4  in the final position material is even but the position is not drawish in my opinion. I have some experience in playing positions where both players have massive pawn majorities but where there are lots of pieces on the board. They tend to be difficult.

What do other people think?

12...b6 13 cb6 Bb4+ 14 c3 Bc5 15 ba7 Ba7 16 Na7 Ra7 leaves the White king exposed.

Davidflude, I have already said something about that line from Gallagher (with something like this 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. O-O Qxc5+ 10. Kh1 Nbd7 11. Qe1 a6 12. Qh4 Qb4 13. Ne4), and I believe it's refuted by a strong White play, I have won some corr games in a very convincing style here.

flaviddude wrote on 03/15/09 at 13:09:05:

In "Beating the Anti-king's Indians Gallagher give a line for black using the Euwe Defence. I have a very complex secret line which I have not yet had the chance to try. However while checking Gallagher's analysis tonight a much more simple way of defusing his line. 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nbd7 up to here given by Gallager and now the surprise move 10. Nb5 If he wants black can swap queens. Qxd2+ 11. Kxd2 O-O 12. b4  in the final position material is even but the position is not drawish in my opinion. I have some experience in playing positions where both players have massive pawn majorities but where there are lots of pieces on the board. They tend to be difficult. What do other people think?

What I think is that this is not very relevant because of 7...Nc6. And no, I don't trust LDZ's 8.0-0 for a second. White should try 7.Qd2, on which you have done excellent analysis.

MNb wrote on 03/15/09 at 20:53:13:

flaviddude wrote on 03/15/09 at 13:09:05: In "Beating the Anti-king's Indians Gallagher give a line for black using the Euwe Defence. I have a very complex secret line which I have not yet had the chance to try. However while checking Gallagher's analysis tonight a much more simple way of defusing his line. 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nbd7 up to here given by Gallager and now the surprise move 10. Nb5 If he wants black can swap queens. Qxd2+ 11. Kxd2 O-O 12. b4  in the final position material is even but the position is not drawish in my opinion. I have some experience in playing positions where both players have massive pawn majorities but where there are lots of pieces on the board. They tend to be difficult. What do other people think? What I think is that this is not very relevant because of 7...Nc6. And no, I don't trust LDZ's 8.0-0 for a second. White should try 7.Qd2, on which you have done excellent analysis.

Whoops. I agree with you. The 7...Nc6 line is not pleasant for white after 7.Bd3 whereas black's results have been rubbish after 7.Qd2 Nc6. So I shall stay with 7.Qd2  

Huh? What do you mean, David Flude? It is difficult to understand which variation you are talking about. What is the move order?

MNb:

You clearly do not know the theory of 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1. Of course you can ask a computer. However, whenever I play 8 00  my opponents cannot ask a computer! ;D

As White in that position, I would definitely go for 7.Qd2.  After all, after 7.Bd3 Nc6 White's best move is probably 8.Qd2 anyway, but then Nb4 harrasses the Bd3.

8.0-0 is a good try for blitz but should not give enough compensation for the two pawns sacrificed with accurate play.  Black has many ways to emerge with an =+ out of it.  Okay, if it works for you, then by all means keep playing it and winning with it- but objectively speaking there's little doubt that the 7.Qd2 lines are better, giving up only one pawn for adequate compensation.

SWJK:

The key words are "accurate play". What makes you think that Black is going to figure out the maze of variations without the assistance of a computer, and with a clock ticking away at his side? I use the Zilbermints Gambit in blitz, tournament games, and what limited correspondence I do play.

Of course you have to know the theory! It is like the Danish Gambit, where White sacrifices 2 pawns for development. And certainly, if White does not know the theory, he can lose.

But hey, knowing the theory is true of any opening, any gambit.

Gambit wrote on 03/16/09 at 05:26:58:

MNb: You clearly do not know the theory of 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1. Of course you can ask a computer. However, whenever I play 8 00  my opponents cannot ask a computer! ;D

Gambit:

I know what you gave us plus the comments of various contributors. That was enough to put me off.
Your next post on your invention confirms my decision: you play 8.0-0 as a sophisticated form of hope chess.
At the other hand I think 7.Qd2 is correct, even against silicon assisted play.
Thanks for admitting that you are not interested in playing good moves.

To answer Gambit's next post:


Gambit wrote on 03/17/09 at 05:47:47:

The key words are "accurate play". What makes you think that Black is going to figure out the maze of variations without the assistance of a computer, and with a clock ticking away at his side?

Here you say that you assume that Black will not play accurately. In other words: you speculate that Black will err. That is the definition of hope chess (key words: {what makes you think?"}

The baloney is yours.

MNb:

I admitted nothing of the sort! You said that I did not want to play solid moves. And what is this crap about "hope chess"? By your logic, any two-pawn gambit (Milner-Barry in the French Defense, Ryder Gambit in the BDG, Danish Gambit, King's Gambit, Evans Gambit, etc) is hope chess? Baloney!

You just admitted that you'd rather use a computer to do all the analyses for you. That's laziness! Whatever happened to using your own brains rather than a bunch of silicon circuits?

Gambit,
All your points show is that, like I said, 8.0-0 is a good blitz weapon.  But the main point of this forum is to discuss the objective merits, plus the practical merits at the various different time controls, not just blitz.

I maintain that it is not a good choice in slow games at high levels, because Black has many ways to get an =+.  And even at my modest level (1700-1800) I would not risk it in a serious game, especially as the 7.Qd2 lines are perfectly adequate and offer just as many chances for Black to go wrong.

Most BDG players are glad when Black plays the Euwe Defence 5...e6. It was a surprise that Gallagher in "Beating the Anti-KI" recommended the Euwe, when many other lines would have been available that must objectively be stronger. OK, his key idea was that Black should delay his castling, and such an advice, given by a GM, must be very useful for many Black players (much better, at least, than castling early in the Euwe and being smashed after Qe1-h4 etc.). But White has more reliable lines here than in most BDG systems.

I haven't followed the latest developments, but in Kaissiber 8 (1998) 7.Qd2 (strongly favoured by Studier) looked just great, 7.Qe2 c5 8.0-0-0 came into question, and even something weird like 7.Bf2 seemed playable. The line 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.a3 h6 9.Bf4 g5 10.Be5 g4 11.Nd2! (Lane) was about =, here Gallagher's 8.Qd2 Nb4 was also acceptable: 9.0-0-0 Nxd3+ 10.Qxd3 0-0 11.h4 c5 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.dxc5 Qxd3 14.Rxd3 Bxc3 15.Rxc3 f6. =+ according to Gallagher, but I gave 16.Rd1 e5 17.Rd6 Bg4 18.Kd2 =.

Diemer in a letter (quoted in Studier's book): "In a correspondence with Euwe on questions of nomenclature, he wasn't glad that this perhaps weakest defence 5...e6 was named after him." So perhaps a thread on "antidotes to the BDG" should focus on other lines. If the reply 5...e6 were obligatory, many would like to play the BDG.

Yesterday I asked another Lev what he thought about 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5, a position that I still regard as critical for an ambitious BDG repertoire. After one hour Lev Gutman called back and said that the following seemed relatively best: 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4! Bg6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3. He wasn't absolutely sure that the compensation was sufficient, but in our discussion we soon liked the idea, e.g. 10...Qa5 11.h4 Qxg5 12.hxg5 Rxh1+ 13.Ke2 Rxa1 14.gxf6. - I didn't find this line in the BDG books that I checked or in a BDG database of 7000 games, and can't remember a thread in this pub, where this drink had been served. Has anybody here already seen earlier analysis or a game with 10.Qd3?

Now why the heck would Black cooperate like this? Instead of 10...Qa5, how about 10...Be7 ?

Gambit wrote on 03/20/09 at 23:18:21:

Now why the heck would Black cooperate like this? Instead of 10...Qa5, how about 10...Be7 ?

11.0-0-0 Nbd7 12.h4

Still better than Gutmann's line.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 03/19/09 at 18:43:15:

[...], e.g. 10...Qa5 11.h4 Qxg5 [...]

The "e.g." says that we checked other lines, too. In fact, this Qxg5 was my own contribution. Gutman's key idea was to castle long (in contrast to old games with Ne5-xg6 plus 0-0), play h4 and Rh3 (to be able to take back on c3, if necessary) and Rh-f3, to pin Black's pieces to the weak pawn on f7. The Qd3 includes motives of Bxe6 and Qxg6+, but in the long run the queen rather belongs to e2, to exert pressure on the e-file. and assist a later g2-g4 and h4-h5.

If Black just develops and castles long, he might find himself in a position like the following: 10...Qa5 11.h4 Nbd7 (11...Qf5 12.Qe3 Qxc2 13.0-0) 12.0-0-0 0-0-0 13.Qe2 Bb4 14.Rh3 Nb6 15.Bb3 Rd7 16.a3 Bd6?! 17.Rf3 Nbd5 18.Na4! with some compensation for the pawn (18...Nh5 19.g4).
If you prefer 10...Be7 11.0-0-0 Nbd7 12.h4, okay, but now Black has to develop an idea how he can avoid the "Gutman position". Should he play 12...b5 13.Bb3 a5 14.a4 b4 15.Ne4 or 12...Nd5 13.Bxe7 Nxe7 14.Ne4?
Any concrete variations?

Hey, Stefan,

Do you have any German games with the Englund gambit? Specifically, the line that goes 1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5 Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Ra1 Qa3 8 Rb3 Qa5 9 a3 Bxc3 10 Rxc3!

You attribute 10 Rxc3!  to Dr. Egon Meyer, correct?

I consider this line, rather than 10 Bxc3?! to be critical for the Englund Gambit. The reason is that the Rook puts pressure on c7, while the Bishop does not.

Please respond. I am writing an article about this line. If you have the space, I'll send in a Reader's Letter to Kaissiber.

Gambit wrote on 03/22/09 at 16:42:37:

Hey, Stefan, [...] Specifically, the line that goes 1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5 Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Ra1 Qa3 8 Rb3 Qa5 9 a3 Bxc3 10 Rxc3! You attribute 10 Rxc3!  to Dr. Egon Meyer, correct? I consider this line, rather than 10 Bxc3?! to be critical for the Englund Gambit. The reason is that the Rook puts pressure on c7, while the Bishop does not. [...]

Don't you have a thread on the Englund? In a blitz game I once faced 10 Rxc3 (I don't know about Dr. Egon Meyer??) and won with 10...Qa4. And no, I don't think this line is critical for the Englund. As we are off-topic anyway, didn't you want to rescue the Portuguese?

Yes, I will do that once I check the analyses later this week.

Great article by Stefan Buecker that references this thread at http://www.chesscafe.com/kaissiber/kaissiber.htm.  I didn't know that White had a better move than 6.Bc4 after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 (making the O'kelly with 4...c6 the better move order).  Only 6.Ne5 was mentioned in the article but I thought this was supposed to be met by 6...Nbd7.  Perhaps someone could explain to me what White should do and mention any other good sixth moves for White.  Hopefully all of this will be covered in the forthcoming book by IMWisnewski.

I agree with you that the O'Kelly is the better move order. I have downloaded Stefan's article from Chess Cafe and transferred it to my archives.

I butchered the Ne5 line in a fixed openings tournament. Alas the game is on the Opening Master database.  I shall do some work on this variation and post it here.

flaviddude wrote on 04/14/09 at 10:25:06:

I agree with you that the O'Kelly is the better move order. I have downloaded Stefan's article from Chess Cafe and transferred it to my archives. I butchered the Ne5 line in a fixed openings tournament. Alas the game is on the Opening Master database.  I shall do some work on this variation and post it here.

I have extracted games from my database which I have attached as a PGN file so that everyone has something to work from.

My initial thought are that after Nb-d7 white should play Qf3

---

After 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Qf3, I was worried about 7...Qb6 which is featured in a few of the games that Davidflude was kind enough to give us.  I'm not sure what White's best is after 7...Qb6.  8.Nd3 is pretty interesting and so is 8.Bc4 but I'm not sure about anything at this point.

Buecker's article on ChessCafe is very interesting indeed. However, what if, after 7.Bg5, black replies not with 7...e6, but with 7...Nbd7! ?

This seems to knock the Nh4 plan on the head (Bg4!) and now white's pieces will have some trouble getting to optimal squares (Bg5 prevents Alchemy, Nbd7 stops Ne5). I'm not sure of how critical 7...Nbd7 is in this line, as I'm not sure of what white's standard response is (Qd2 maybe? Maybe Qe2 and O-O-O is an improvement? Still, I opened my f-file to get a rook on it immediately on castling, so I'm not overly impressed with this at the moment).

Another issue is with 7.g4!??! - Buecker quickly dismisses 7...Bg6 as not critical with 8.h4. However, since he is intending to follow up 7...Nxg4 with 8.Nh4, I'm interested to see what he proposes for white given 7...Bg6 8.h4 Nxg4, where black's extra move (Bg6) defends the weak f7 point (albeit temporarily depriving the Ng4 of support) whereas white's extra h4... well... leaves white's kingside somewhat missing in action. The best I've found for white so far is 9.Ng5 (utilising the undefended Ng4 to further his own attack, but after 9...h5! 10.Rf1 e6, black looks to be surviving with his extra loot. Perhaps 10.Bf4 is an improvement, preventing Qd6 ideas and holding up ...e5 (if black is trying to organise this), but still on 10...Nbd7 the Bf4 is now blocking the f-file, and perhaps play will continue with something like 11.Rf1 e6 12.Qe2 (12.Bxe6/Nxe6 ideas do not seem to work due to the pin on the e-file) Qe7 and black can look to go queenside if necessary.

However, 13.O-O-O Ndf6 might allow 14.Nxe6! rather insanely... and 13....Ngf6 14.Nxe6 seems to also provide an attack after 14...fxe6 15.Bxe6 Bf7 16.d5!, though whether it's a sound attack is a different matter. Therefore black probably has to commit to long castling immediately with 13.O-O-O O-O-O 14.Rde1 (Rybka's suggestion, I rather wanted to keep this rook on the d-file for future d5 thrusts) Qb4, with a rather complex position.

Is this the sort of thing Mr Buecker had in mind perhaps? Or does he have something stronger for white after 8...Nxg4? My sole idea in interpolating Bg6 h4 is to create one extra k-side weakness for white, which can be possibly taken advantage of at some point with Qd6. It also rules out this interesting Nh4 idea. Black might have (if 9...h5 is too loosening) 9...Nh6 as an alternative, but I will leave this for the time being to allow someone else some space to explore.

The idea of 7.g4 is certainly interesting, however - from my analysis so far I have more confidence in this than I have in the Ne5 lines. However, after 7...Nxg4 8.Nh4, I feel that Buecker is a little over-dismissive of some black tries.

8...e6 9.Nxf5 exf5 10.O-O Qh4! is far less cooperative - though I think white can get at least equal play after 11.Bf4, it is certainly more complex than 10...Nf6 and allows white some chances to go wrong.

8...Bd7 is certainly not optimal, but after 9.Ne4 Nf6! (not the weakening ...b5) 10.Qe2 (10.Nxf6+ exf6 appears to achieve little apart from exchanging a set of pieces) e6 11.Nf3 (Of course there are other possibilities, but the Nh4 is white's worst piece so I have played a la Buecker) Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Na6!? and while black's position is passive and his Bd7 is not great, he is two pawns up, and can hope to play Nc7-d5. White has free piece play but is it worth two pawns?

In the 'main line' 8...g6 (probably strongest), white has an interesting try in 9.Rg1, discouraging black from Bg7 tries. Since black is unlikely to want to give up his N and B for white's R (though, with the two pawns, this is most likely okay for him), 9...Nf6 seems most logical, whereupon 10.Nxf5 gxf5 11.Be3 might give some compensaton, though again I'm not sure if it is enough.

The problem with 9.Bg5 seems to be 9...h6!, which looks to only give white drawing chances, and he has to play accurately even for them (albeit black can also go wrong, but it seems more likely that white's attack will dissipate). Also, in the 9...Qd6 line, after 10.Qd2 b5 11.Bb3 a5 12.Bf4 e5! 13.h3 ef 14.hg Bxg4 15.Ne4 Qe7 16.Qxf4 f5 17.Kf1, black has the cute 17...Nd7?! with the nice point 18.Nxg6?! hg! 19.Rxh8 fe! and now 20.Qxg4 is met by Qf6+ winning the rook back. However, white might have 18.Ng5 here, with 18...Be2+ 19.Kf2 Bh6 20.Bf7+ Kd8!? 21.Ne6+ Qxe6 22. Bxe6 Bxf4 23.Nxg6 becoming a total mess with perpetuals abounding - I'm nowhere near a strong enough player to work out whether black can actuall find his way through this maze, but I suspect that 18.Ng5 creates enough problems to put a hole in 17...Nd7?!, at least in a practical sense.

On the other hand, following 17...fxe4 18.Qxg4 Kd8 19.Ke2 Bh6 20.Raf1 Rf8 21.Ng2 Rxf1 22.Rxf1 Qg5, white might be able to force a draw with 23.Rf8+ Kc7 24.Rf7+, for example 24...Kb6 25.Qc8!! Qxg2+ 26.Ke1 Qg1+ 27.Ke2 - any attempt to deviate from the perpetual fails, e.g. 27...Qxd4 28.Qb7+ Kc5 29.Qxa8 and, with the Nb8 unable to escape, black has nothing better to now acquiesce to the perpetual. 25.Qxe4 tries for more, but after 25...a4 26.Be6 Ra7! 27.Rxa7 Kxa7 28.Bg8, the opposite-coloured bishops are not enough to aid either colour's attack and this looks more or less drawish. Still, 23.Qxg5 also leads to a pretty stale position.

So, 9...h6 has to be the critical move in this variation, and black will have to see whether he can win the resulting position after the quite forcing lines there. Or else he has to look at 8...Bc8/8...Bd7 and try to make those passive positions work.

Of course, the probalem for white is that the elusive forced win that we know to be there after 4.f3 is still not found.    :-?

It is a pleasure to receive such a response - many thanks.


CraigEvans wrote on 04/15/09 at 11:21:47:

[...] after 7.Bg5, black replies not with 7...e6, but with 7...Nbd7!? This seems to knock the Nh4 plan on the head (Bg4!) and now white's pieces will have some trouble getting to optimal squares (Bg5 prevents Alchemy, Nbd7 stops Ne5). I'm not sure of how critical 7...Nbd7 is in this line, as I'm not sure of what white's standard response is (Qd2 maybe? Maybe Qe2 and O-O-O is an improvement? Still, I opened my f-file to get a rook on it immediately on castling, so I'm not overly impressed with this at the moment).

I had studied SWJediknight's suggestion of 7.Bg5 e6 8.Qe2, when I agreed with him that after 8...Be7 White has full compensation, but the real problem was 8...Bb4!. In this context, 7....Nbd7 seemed to be a bit slow: 8.Qe2 with compensation, e. g. 8...e6 9.0-0-0 Bb4 (now a bit late) 10.d5! Qe7 11.Nd4 Bxc3 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Nxf5 Bxb2+ 14.Kxb2 exf5 15.Qxe7+ Kxe7 16.Rhe1+ Kf8 17.Bf4 Nb6 18.Ba6 and White can be satisfied with the position.  


CraigEvans wrote on 04/15/09 at 11:21:47:

Another issue is with 7.g4!??! - Buecker quickly dismisses 7...Bg6 as not critical with 8.h4. However, since he is intending to follow up 7...Nxg4 with 8.Nh4, I'm interested to see what he proposes for white given 7...Bg6 8.h4 Nxg4, where black's extra move (Bg6) defends the weak f7 point (albeit temporarily depriving the Ng4 of support) whereas white's extra h4... well... leaves white's kingside somewhat missing in action. The best I've found for white so far is 9.Ng5 [...]

My analysis went (7...Bg6 8.h4 Nxg4) 9.h5 Bf5 10.Qe2 e6 11.Bd2 Nf6 (11...Bxc2 12.Ng5 Nh6 13.Nxe6 unclear) 12.0-0-0 when I had the impression that both 12...b5 13.Bb3 a5 14.a4 b4 15.Nb1 and 12...Nbd7 13.d5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 gave White sufficient compensation (where goes the black king?). The investment of two pawns may appear too much (in the first line, can Black continue Qc7, Kd8-c8-b7 and have a solid shelter for his majesty?), but I'd still say that in a BDG White's main goal is to take Black into the wilderness, and these positions should at least be playable.


CraigEvans wrote on 04/15/09 at 11:21:47:

[7...Nxg4 8.Nh4] 8...e6 9.Nxf5 exf5 10.O-O Qh4! is far less cooperative - though I think white can get at least equal play after 11.Bf4, it is certainly more complex than 10...Nf6 and allows white some chances to go wrong.

There is an alternative in (10...Qh4) 11.Qe2+ Be7 12.Rxf5 0-0 and now either 13.Bf4 or 13.Bd2, when White is better.


Quote:

8...Bd7 is certainly not optimal, but after 9.Ne4 Nf6! (not the weakening ...b5) 10.Qe2 (10.Nxf6+ exf6 appears to achieve little apart from exchanging a set of pieces) e6 11.Nf3 (Of course there are other possibilities, but the Nh4 is white's worst piece so I have played a la Buecker) Nxe4 12.Qxe4 Na6!? and while black's position is passive and his Bd7 is not great, he is two pawns up, and can hope to play Nc7-d5. White has free piece play but is it worth two pawns?

Yes, 9...b5 is a mistake, and 9...Nf6 is certainly better. Can White try 10.Rf1 (in analogy to 8...Bc8 9.Ne4 Nf6 10.Rf1)? Then 10...Qc8 11.Ng5 e6 12.Qe2 looks interesting, while 10...e6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Qh5 gives White some lasting pressure.  


Quote:

In the 'main line' 8...g6 (probably strongest), white has an interesting try in 9.Rg1, discouraging black from Bg7 tries. Since black is unlikely to want to give up his N and B for white's R (though, with the two pawns, this is most likely okay for him), 9...Nf6 seems most logical, whereupon 10.Nxf5 gxf5 11.Be3 might give some compensaton, though again I'm not sure if it is enough.

A highly interesting proposal. I was perhaps too focussed on the move Bg5, maybe your idea is stronger, when the bishop could sometimes better go to e3 or f4.


Quote:

Also, in the 9...Qd6 line, after 10.Qd2 b5 11.Bb3 a5 12.Bf4 e5! 13.h3 ef 14.hg Bxg4 15.Ne4 Qe7 16.Qxf4 f5 17.Kf1, black has the cute 17...Nd7?! [...].

The PC gives 18.Ng5 as =, 18.Re1 0-0-0 19.Ng5 as +=.


Quote:

On the other hand, following 17...fxe4 18.Qxg4 Kd8 19.Ke2 Bh6 20.Raf1 Rf8 21.Ng2 Rxf1 22.Rxf1 Qg5, white might be able to force a draw with 23.Rf8+ Kc7 24.Rf7+, for example 24...Kb6 25.Qc8!! Qxg2+ 26.Ke1 Qg1+ 27.Ke2 - any attempt to deviate from the perpetual fails, e.g. 27...Qxd4 28.Qb7+ Kc5 29.Qxa8 and, with the Nb8 unable to escape, black has nothing better to now acquiesce to the perpetual. 25.Qxe4 tries for more, but after 25...a4 26.Be6 Ra7! 27.Rxa7 Kxa7 28.Bg8, the opposite-coloured bishops are not enough to aid either colour's attack and this looks more or less drawish. Still, 23.Qxg5 also leads to a pretty stale position.

23.Rf8+ Kc7 24.Rf7+ Kb6 25.Qc8! = is nice. My 23. Qxg5+ tried to achieve some advantage, but that variation 23...Bxg5 24.Bg8 h5 15.Bh7 Nd7 26.Bxg6 h4 27.Rf7 Kc7 28.Bf5 Rd8 29.Rg7 Bf6 30.Rh7 Bxd4 31.Nf4 Kd6 32.Ne6 Nf8 33.Nxd8 Nxh7 34.Bxh7 Bf6 35.Nb7+ Kd5 36.Bf5 was too long anyway, and so I called it "about equal" after 24.Bg8 in the article.


Quote:

So, 9...h6 has to be the critical move in this variation, and black will have to see whether he can win the resulting position after the quite forcing lines there. Or else he has to look at 8...Bc8/8...Bd7 and try to make those passive positions work.

Maybe your 9.Rg1 cures the problem, we'll see.


Quote:

Of course, the probalem for white is that the elusive forced win that we know to be there after 4.f3 is still not found.    :-?

By coincidence, the first reaction on my article came from a BDG fan who wasn't entirely happy:

"Unfortunately [...] the bottomline seems to be that none of white's 7th moves are sufficient - unless you're a grandmaster that is able to play a positional game with a pawn down :-(  "

No problem at all - with the work you do on this forum, on ChessCafe and in Kaissiber in actually looking at interesting lines (rather than looking for the latest TN on move 47 of the Chigorin Ruy), it seems the least I can do to join in!

With the 7...Nbd7 8.Qe2 line - I agree completely that Bb4 will now be too slow and 10.d5! is a nice shot. Black has to buckle up for the long haul with the solid 9...Be7 I think - white has a lead in development and some pressure in the position, but it is very hard to see any real weakness in the black position (though 10.Bxf6 might give black a little headache in working out how to capture, with Ne5 and d5 as possible threats.

After 9.h5 Bf5 10.Qe2 e6 11.Bd2, I agree that 11...Bxc2 is not great (in addition to your 12.Ng5, white can consider 12.d5 with huge counterplay). 11...Nd7 was my first try, but 12.Nh4! looks rather strong there. Sticking with 11...Nf6 though, 12.O-O-O Nbd7 13.d5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Rc8!? might be interesting, 16.Nd4 Nc5 and now Rybka gives 17.Qb5+ Qd7 18.Qxd7+ Kxd7 19.Nxf5 exd5 - seems that white will get one of his pawns back and have pressure for the other, but I'm hoping white has something more convincing here.

Yep, can't fault your analysis of 10...Qh4 11.Qe2+, much stronger than the immediate Bf4 - black might be able to hang on but I'd be happy as white there.

Again, after 8...Bd7 9.Ne4 Nf6, 10.Rf1 again looks most accurate. 10...e6 would be my preference for black, but after 12.Qh5 it is quite hard to find any constructive moves for black... the retrograde 12...Bc8 might be strongest, which just concludes the original point that 8...Bc8 is stronger. Still, black again can possibly still hold after 12...Bc8 13.Be3 Nd7.

Regarding the Qxg5 line, I agree that it's the only way to play for more than a draw, whereas mine is a bona fide drawing line.... but I think playing for a win in that position is stretching resourcefulness. I'm not sure 9.Rg1 is a big cure, there are still a lot of questions, not least whether the compensation in the simple 9...Nf6 10.Nxf5 gxf5 11.Be3 is enough. Rybka likes 11...Ng4 12.Rxg4 fxg4 13.Qxg4 here, leaving white an exchange and pawn down for definite compensation (but it needs to be a lot of compensation to be enough). 11...e6 is likely to be a bigger problem, however, since 12.Qe2 Bb4 leaves white struggling to justify his material deficit, unless I'm missing something.

After 7.Bg5 Nbd7 8.Qe2 e6 White can try 9.d5!? cxd5 10.Nxd5 Be7 11.Nxe7 Qxe7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.g4 (or 13.Nh4) Bg6 (13...Bxg4? 14.Rhg1 +=) 14.Nh4 Rac8 15.Nxg6 hxg6 16.h4 Qb4 17.Bb3 Nc5 18.Bxf6 gxf6 19.h5 g5 20.c3 Nxb3+ 21.axb3 Qf4+ 22.Kb1 =+, and I'd not be surprised if further improvements for White could be found.  


Quote:

After 9.h5 Bf5 10.Qe2 e6 11.Bd2 [...]11...Nf6 12.O-O-O Nbd7 13.d5 cxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bxd5 Rc8!? might be interesting, 16.Nd4 Nc5 and now Rybka gives 17.Qb5+ Qd7 18.Qxd7+ Kxd7 19.Nxf5 exd5 - seems that white will get one of his pawns back and have pressure for the other, but I'm hoping white has something more convincing here.

For Black's extra pawn after 20.Be3 b6 21.Rxd5+ Kc6 22.c4 Ne6 23.Nd4+ Nxd4 24.Bxd4, White has enough pressure. More important, I'd consider such a line only as an example for White's chances. For example, 17.Bc4 (instead of 17.Qb5+) Qxd4 18.Bg5 looks perfectly playable, too.

For those BDG fans that haven't heard, Chessbase magazine 129 has an article on the BDG by Ftacnik.

Here is their promo on it.

"This gambit is still justified at specific level of play, because it is not easy for Black to neutralise White's initiative nor to make the most of his extra pawn."

Is the BDG finally getting some respect? Or is Chessbase just fishing for BDG fanatics money? No doubt nay-sayers like Mnb will emphasize the "justified at specific level" part.

I bought CB magazine 129 just to see their article on the BDG. What a total waiste of money that was! It was about as elementary as you can possibly get and useful to those who have absolutely zero knowledge of the BDG. The author claims he's looking at the opening with what he calls "fresh eyes", which he clarifies to mean he knew nothing about it before he wrote the article. The article was a con-job to snatch money from idiot BDGers like me.

Typical for ftacnik at chessbase. Always produced simplistic dross.

Insufficient QC at chessbase with regard to their annotations. See also Gallagher taking the machete to a hapless Tsesarsky in his KID book.

to dmp4373 : So the folks at Chessbase  r i g h t l y assumed that people that are generous with pawns are also openhanded with money.
High time for a psych-* investigation ! (No worries : it's fysically impossible to put them all in an asylum, and besides : they're really harmless !)

nyoke wrote on 05/25/09 at 18:34:58:

to dmp4373 : So the folks at Chessbase  r i g h t l y assumed that people that are generous with pawns are also openhanded with money. High time for a psych-* investigation ! (No worries : it's fysically impossible to put them all in an asylum, and besides : they're really harmless !)

Chessbase competes with NIC for the high end market of serious chess players. Customers expect a high level of quality analysis and in this case they didn't get it. The Chessbase magazine article on the BDG was more like something you'd find in the scholastic section of Chess Life geared for beginners. And yes, I was "openhanded" with my money and I'm writing of it to warn other BDG players not to waste their money. Seems reasonable to me.

ArKheiN wrote on 01/09/09 at 23:47:43:

I want to respond to the first post of this thread. Gallagher and others have recommanded the Euwe defense. The Euwe defense with 7.Bd3 (7.Qd2 is probably ok for a dynamical equality) may face some problems against 7..Nc6 without quick castling. But I know that Gallagher and other suggested 7..c5, even computers use that move in their book sometimes. But the way it is played by Black, usually something like this: 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. O-O Qxc5+ 10. Kh1 Nbd7 11. Qe1 a6 12. Qh4 Qb4, is +/- or even winning for White according to my deep analysis. So, I would be happy to face that line in a corr game where I already have 2/2 as a logical result according to my analysis.

Arkhein, I would be very interested in sharing your analysis of this, if at all possible. I play this line myself but have found Rizzitano/Gallagher's analysis too tough to crack myself.

The file (I use chesspositiontrainer)where I have put so many hours of works for 4 years has been damaged, and I don't know if I can recover it. So I won't give the completes lines for the moment, but here are 2 of my games, against the same opponent, he lost the first game, he retried the same line and lost again. I may complete these games with somes samples lines later.

[Corr]
[Date "2007.09.20"]
[Round "1"]
[White "ArKheiN"]
[Black "Mueller-Toepler,Michael"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. O-O Qxc5+ 10. Kh1 Nbd7 11. Qe1 a6 12. Qh4 Qb4 13. Ne4 Qxb2 14. Nfd2 Nxe4 15. Nxe4 f6 16. Rab1 Qe5 17. Bf4 Qd5 18. Rbd1 Qa5 19. Qg4 e5 20. Qxg7 Rf8 21. Be3 Qxa2 22. c4 Qb2 23. Qxh7 Kd8 24. Bb1 b6 25. Bh6 Bb7 26. Bxf8 1-0

[Corr]
[Date "2008.07.01"]
[Round "1"]
[White "ArKheiN"]
[Black "Mueller-Toepler,Michael"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. O-O Qxc5+ 10. Kh1 Nbd7 11. Qe1 a6 12. Qh4 Qb4 13. Ne4 Qxb2 14. Nfd2 Nxe4 15. Nxe4 f6 16. Rab1 Qe5 17. Bf4 Qd5 18. Rbd1 Ne5 19. Qg3 g6 20. Nc3 Qa5 21. Bxe5 Qxe5 22. Qxe5 fxe5 23. Nb5 Bc5 24. Nc7+ Ke7 25. Nxa8 Bd7 26. Rb1 Rxa8 27. Rxb7 Bd4 28. Rfb1 Rd8 29. Rb8 Rxb8 30. Rxb8 Kd6 31. Rd8 Kc7 32. Ra8 Bc6 33. Rh8 e4 34. Rxh7+ Kd6 35. Bxa6 Bd5 36. a4 Kc5 37. Rh6 e3 38. Rxg6 e5 39. c3 Bxc3 40. Kg1 Bc6 41. Kf1 Bxa4 42. Ke2 Be8 43. Rg5 Kd4 44. h4 Bb4 45. h5 Be7 46. Rg8 1-0

So I believe that after 13..Qxb2 14.Nfd2!, White is already very close to win if that's not objectively the case. I think my opponent was too much confident into computer's evaluations where it's evaluation come from something -+ in the beginning, but... it's change to +- after somes moves.

ArKheiN wrote on 07/06/09 at 15:56:56:

The file (I use chesspositiontrainer)where I have put so many hours of works for 4 years has been damaged, and I don't know if I can recover it.

That's hell, isn't it?  My condolences.  The same thing happened to me once with a very nice set of Schliemann notes.

It's happened to my big schliemann's file in chesspositiontrainer too (both files about the same month quite recently), but that was not the same error. The file was very big too, with originals and very deep analysis :( So much days of work lost...

ArKheiN wrote on 07/06/09 at 15:56:56:

The file (I use chesspositiontrainer)where I have put so many hours of works for 4 years has been damaged, and I don't know if I can recover it. So I won't give the completes lines for the moment, but here are 2 of my games, against the same opponent, he lost the first game, he retried the same line and lost again. I may complete these games with somes samples lines later. 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. O-O Qxc5+ 10. Kh1 Nbd7 11. Qe1 a6 12. Qh4 Qb4 13. Ne4 Qxb2

That's true horror.

Black's 13th is not exactly optimal. Don't go pawn hunting with the queen when behind in development is a lesson to be learned over and over again.
More logical is 11...0-0 idea 12...Re8 and 13...Nf8. Note 11...0-0 12.Qh4 Re8 13.Bxh7+ ending up with three pieces for the queen. But I think 11...0-0 12.Qh4 Re8 13.Rae1 gives White sufficient compensation. There are the notorious weaknesses on f7 and g7 plus the two passive pieces on the Queen's Wing.
11...a6 12.Qh4 Qb4 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe4 Nf6 might be playable as well.
Finally there is 11...b6 12.Qh4 (12.Be4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Rb8 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 can't be right) Bb7 13.Rae1 Qb4 and perhaps Black can castle queenside.

Yes MNb, to take the b2 pawn is very risky, but it's critical to prove that White is at least ok, and I managed to show that it's clearly more than ok. You give 11..0-0 but here too, it's castling in the fire. 12.Ne4! is even better than the immediate 12.Qh4 here, with enough pressure for the pawn. Same with 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Qxe4 Nf6, Black may be ok but White has enough play for the pawn. So 11..0-0 or 13..Nxe4 may be playable, but that's at least = for White.

This is all very interesting stuff and requires investigation. Certainly the lines suggested look better for white than the ones suggested by Gallagher.

I recently blotted my copy book.

1.e4 e6
2.d4 d5
3.Nc3 Nf6
4.Bg5 dxe
5.f3  exf
6.Nf3 h6
7.Bxf6 Qxf6 (gxf6 is necessary)
Now white has a winning move that is not even mentioned in some books on the BDG. See if you can spot it. I showed this position to several strong over the board players who never even considered the move.

Is it 8.Bb5 c6 9.0-0, with the idea of 9...cb5 10.Ne5 Qh4 11.Nb5 Na6 12.Rf7?

Yes, this is the move, Bb5+0-0 and the attack on f7 is strong enough. As other Black's early deviation, I believe 6..c5 to be ok.

Hmpf, if DF had posted his riddle a few hours earlier I would have been the first to give the answer.  :(

Challenging White's centre with ...c7-c5 is always an important option. If Black can deny e5 to White's King's Knight the attacking plan is seriously hampered. That knight is worse on d4 as the Sicilian piecesacs don't fit in White's plan. The idea ...c7-c5 can be tried at various stages. It is neglected in quite a few monographs on the BDG.
Fortunately Sawyer does give several examples of 6.Bg5 c5. As always they are unreliable.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 c5 7.Bxf6 (Euwe's recommendation 7.d5 deserves attention) Qxf6 (gxf6 8.d5 and e5 9.Bc4 Nbd7 10.d6 and here we have again one of those wacky Diemer games; White seems to be OK here) 8.Bb5+ Bd7 (Nd7 9.0-0) 9.0-0 cxd4 10.Ne4 Qd8 (better than Qf4 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.Nfg5 Diemer) 11.Ne5 Bxb5 12.Nxf7 Qd5 (Qb6!? but Qd7 13.Qh5) and unless I miss something White does not obtain full compensation.

Yes, the same idea against 6..c5 with 7.Bxf6/Bb5+/0-0 is not as strong here. I would probably play 7.d5!?. I didn't know Euwe recommanded that, I tought about that move myself when I saw that 7.Bxf6 was not that strong here.

I would really have been surprised if you had known Euwe's recommendation. My source - alas it's lost - is an article from the Losbladige (yes, in Dutch) from the 1950's.

Notice to BDG players: GM Boris Alterman gas started a new BLACKMAR DIEMER GAMBIT video series at the Internet Chess Club (ICC)

Hello Stefan, What do you think of this line I used against Sawyer? We were testing an idea I had. Good Chess! Keith

[Event "Training Game #1"]
[Site "Email"]
[Date "2007.03.26"]
[White "Hayward, Keith"]
[Black "Sawyer, Tim"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D00"]
1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. O-O e6 8. Ng5 Bg6 9. Ne2 Be7 10. Nf4 Bf5 11. Bxe6 Bxe6 12. Nfxe6 fxe6 13. Nxe6 Qd7 14. Nxg7+ Kd8 15. Nf5 Rg8 16. Bf4 Bf8 17. Qd3 Qf7 18. Rae1 Nbd7 19. Re2 a5 20. c4 Ra6 21. Rfe1 a4 22. Re6 Ra5 23. Bg3 Rg4 24. Qf3 Re4 25. R6xe4 Nxe4 26. Bh4+ Kc7 27. c5 Ndxc5 28. dxc5 Bxc5+ 29. Kh1 Bb4 30. Rf1 1/2-1/2

Hello Keith,
a nice game, until you spoiled your advantage in move 24. Once I liked 9.Ne2 (I think it was Peter Leisebein's invention) very much, e.g. 9...c5 10.Be3 Nc6 11.Nf4 cxd4 12.Bf2! with similar threats to sacrifice on e6, as in your game. But the official refutation is 9...Bd6, which I learned on chesspub in another thread.

I was going over a game (#16) on Leisebein's site in which he employs his favorite Harikiri-Variante (Seidal-Hall Attack).

Leisebein - Rohde 2000
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4 Qxd4 9.Be3 Qd6

Leisebein gives 9... Qd6 an exclamation mark and comments on it. My German is terrible despite having spent 4 years there as a young soldier some 30+ years ago. I think he says that 9... Qd6! is the one move that inhibits White's initiative. If someone wants to look it up and provide an exact translation, that would be great. Anyway, 9... Qd6 stops White from playing an immediate 0-0-0 and continuing on with his rapid-fire development.

10.g5 Nfd7

Again, Leisebein gives an exclamation mark because 10... Nd5 would allow 11.0-0-0 and 10... Nfd7 doesn't.

11.Bd2

When I saw this move I cringed and thought, 'This can't be good. If White has to move this bishop again to get castled, then he has done something wrong or the whole line may not be any good.'

I believe I have found something better. It's the tactical shot 11.Nb5!

a) 11... cxb5 12.Qxb7 e6 (12... Qg3+ 13.Kd2 e6 14.Qxa8 Qe5 with a clear advantage for White) 13.Bxb5! (Forsaking the rook in favor of a bind.) 13... Qd5 14.Qxd5 exd5 15.0-0-0 a6 16.Ba4 and now

 a1) 16... d4 17.Bxd4 Be7 18.Rhe1 Kd8 19.h4 f6 20.Re6 fxg5 21.Be5 Kc8 22.Rxe7 Nxe5 23.Rxe5 gxh4

 a2) 16... Kd8 17.Rxd5 Kc7 18.Rf1 f6 19.Bf4+ Kc8 20.Rf3 Nc5 21.Rc3 Kb7 22.gxf6 g5 23.Rdxc5 Bxc5 24.Bxb8 Raxb8 25.Rxc5

 a3) 16... h6 17.Rhe1 Kd8 17.Rxd5 hxg5 18.Bxd7 Nxd7 20.Bb6+ Kc8 21.Re8+ Kb7 22.Rxd7+ Kc6 23.Rxa8 Kxd7 24.Kd1 Rh6 25.Rxf8 Rxb6 26.Rxf7+ Ke8 27.Rxg7 Rxb2 28.Rxg5 Rxa2

In each case White comes out with a clear edge.

b) 11... Qb4+ 12.c3 Qxb2 13.Rd1 cxb5 14.Qxb7 f5 15.Qxa8 Qxc3+ 16.Kf2 f4 17.Bxf4 e5 18.Qe4 Bc5+ 19.Kg2 0-0 20.Bg3 a6 21.Bd3 g6 22.Qd5+ Kg7 23.Rhe1 Bd4 24.Bb5! and White is winning.

The engine I used is Rybka 3.0. If 9... Qd6 is truely busted then Black shouldn't grab the second pawn with 8... Qxd4 because 9... Qb4 allows White to work up a fierce attack.

I think you've proved that 10...Nfd7 doesn't deserve an exclamation mark, but 10...Nd5 looks OK to me.

dmp4373, I am sorry to tell you that, but you haven't found anything new. I have found 11.Nb5 years ago (and there have been some discussions in the forum about that move), with the conclusion that 11..cxb5 is the only move. I did not find a big advantage here as White, Black is close to be equal but I would say it's +/=. That's not the Teichmann defense that make me afraid of playing the BDG anyway.

AlanG, 10..Nd5 may be ok, but that's all. Unfortunately I have lost most of my analysis and I don't remember what were my conclusion here for Black but I know I was ok with White here.

ArKheiN wrote on 09/26/09 at 20:42:53:

dmp4373, I am sorry to tell you that, but you haven't found anything new. I have found 11.Nb5 years ago (and there have been some discussions in the forum about that move), with the conclusion that 11..cxb5 is the only move. I did not find a big advantage here as White, Black is close to be equal but I would say it's +/=. That's not the Teichmann defense that make me afraid of playing the BDG anyway.

Good gosh, I've re-inventing the wheel!  :) 

[Event "ICCF email"]
[Site "ICCF email"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Lane,Alex"]
[Black "Salomone,Nestor"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "D00"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4 Qxd4 9.Be3 Qd6 10.Nb5 Qd8 11.g5 Nd5 12.Bc4 a6 13.Nc3 e6 14.Rf1 Qc7 15.0-0-0 Bb4 16.Ne4 b5 17.Bd3 Nxe3 18.Qxe3 Nd7 19.Qd4 Bf8 20.Be2 Ne5 21.Bh5 c5 22.Qf2 Rd8 23.Bxf7+ Qxf7 24.Rxd8+ Kxd8
25.Qxf7 Nxf7 26.Rxf7 Be7 27.Rxg7 Ke8 28.Nf6+ Kf8 29.Nh5 Rg8 30.Rxg8+ Kxg8 31.h4 h6 32.gxh6 Bxh4 33.Kd2 Bg5+ 34.Kd3 Bxh6 35.Nf6+ Kf7 36.Ne4 c4+ 37.Kd4 Bg7+ 38.Kc5 Bxb2 39.Kb6 Kg6 40.Kxa6 Kf5 41.Nf2 Bd4 42.Nd1 b4 43.Kb5 b3 44.axb3 cxb3 45.cxb3 e5 46.Kc4 Kf4 47.Kd3 Kf5 1/2

ArKheiN wrote on 09/26/09 at 20:42:53:

That's not the Teichmann defense that make me afraid of playing the BDG anyway.

Would it be the early ...c6 lines, by any chance? They are the only ones that worry me when I choose to essay the BDG.

Still, I haven't learnt any theory - I've always felt that if I'm going to catch my opponent off-guard with a silly opening, it's only fair that both of us have to make it up as we go along.  ;D

Yes, lines with ..c6 with or without early ..exf3 is the most critical test for me. I always said that proving compensation here  against a good Black play is not always easy.

GM Kislinsky,A (2501) - FM Slugin,S (2425)
Zvenigorodskaya Open A
Zvenigorod RUS (5), 27.09.2008
BDG, Teichmann Defense

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Bf4 e6 9.Ne5



This line, with Bf4, is quite rare in the Blackmar-Diemer. The position is more likely to occur in a line in the Trompowsky, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 d5 4.f3 Nf6 5.e4 dxe4 6.Nc3 exf3 7.Nxf3 Bg4 8.h3 Bh5 9.g4 Bg6 10.Ne5 e6, reaching the above position, but with an important difference: Black has lost a tempo with an extra Knight move. It's now White's move. One such game continued 11.Qf3 c6 12.0-0-0 Be7 13.h4 Nd5 14.h5 Nxf4 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Nf7 Kxf7 17.Qxf4+ Ke8 18.Qe4 Bg5+ 19.Kb1 Qe7 20.Bc4 Kd7 21.Rde1 e5 22.dxe5 Kc7 23.e6 Na6 24.Qe5+ Kc8 25.Bxa6 bxa6 26.Rd1 Bf6 27.Qa5 Qb7 28.Rd7 Qb6 29.Qxb6 axb6 30.Ne4 Be5 31.Ng5 Re8 32.Rhd1 h5 33.Nf7 Bc7 34.Rxc7+ Kxc7 35.Rd7+ Kb8 36.Nd6 Ra7 37.Nxe8 hxg4 38.Rd8+ Kb7 39.Nd6+ Kc7 40.Rd7+ Kb8 41.Rxa7 1-0, Indbryn-Royset, NOR-chT Tromsoe,1998
9...Nd5 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.Kf2 Nc6 12.Bg2 Qxd4+ 13.Qxd4+/- Nxd4 14.c3 Nb5

14...Bc5!? 15.cxd4 Bxd4+ 16.Kg3 0-0-0+/-
15.Bxb7+- Bc5+ 16.Kf3 Rb8 17.Bc6+ Ke7 18.a4 Nd6




19.Nd7?

The game turns here. Better is 19.b4 Bxb4 20.Nxg6+ hxg6 21.cxb4 Rxb4 22.Rac1+/-
19...Be4+ 20.Bxe4 Kxd7 21.b4 Nxe4 22.Kxe4 Bd6 23.Rhd1 Ke7 24.Be3 a6 25.Kd3 f6 26.Kc4 h5 27.g5 f5 28.Bd4 e5 29.Re1 Ke6 30.Ra2 e4 31.Bxg7 Rhg8 32.Bf6 Be5 33.b5 Bxf6-+




34.gxf6 Kxf6 35.Kc5 Rge8 36.c4 Re6 37.Rd2 axb5 38.cxb5 f4 39.Rd4 Kf5 40.Rd7 e3 41.Rf7+ Ke4 42.Rf1




42...Re5+

Black should win with 42...e2 43.R7xf4+ Kd3-+
43.Kc4 e2 44.R7xf4+ Ke3 45.R4f3+ Kd2 46.Rd3+ Kc2 47.Rc3+ Kb2 48.Re1




48...Rbe8

48...Rd8 49.Rcc1 Re4+ 50.Kc5 Rxa4-+
49.Rcc1-/+ Re3 50.a5 Rxh3 51.a6 Ra3 52.Kb4 Re4+ 53.Kc5 Re6 54.Rc4 Rf3 55.Kd5 Re7 56.a7 Ra3 57.Re4 Rxe4 58.Kxe4 Kc3 59.Rxe2 Kc4 60.Rc2+ Kxb5 61.Rxc7 Kb6 62.Rh7 Rxa7 1/2-1/2


Source: Tom Purser's BDG Pages online site

A year before White did manage to defeat Black with the Spanish Four Knights. Should say something.

MNb wrote on 10/11/09 at 03:58:42:

A year before White did manage to defeat Black with the Spanish Four Knights. Should say something.

What does that have to do with anything? First people complain that the players I noted earlier (Diebert, Rao) were not 2400+. Now, when I come up with a game of 2400+ strength, you say something about Spanish Four Knights.

What's your point, man?

Gambit wrote on 10/12/09 at 05:10:52:

MNb wrote on 10/11/09 at 03:58:42: A year before White did manage to defeat Black with the Spanish Four Knights. Should say something. What does that have to do with anything? First people complain that the players I noted earlier (Diebert, Rao) were not 2400+. Now, when I come up with a game of 2400+ strength, you say something about Spanish Four Knights. What's your point, man?

In a 90+30 game against an >2400 player where you have the white pieces, the Spanish Four Knights will give you much better chances of winning than the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.

How do you play the Blackmar-Diemer against 1 ... g6 ? :) 8-)

1...g6 makes 2.e4 look a whole lot better.

Gambit wrote on 10/12/09 at 05:10:52:

What's your point, man?

According to you the BDG is capable of beating strong opponents, like ELO 2400+. Until now you have failed to give even one example. It seems that you have forgotten what you write yourself. Possibly playing lame openings too much has affected your mental skills. You becoming rude without a proper reason is another symptom.
That's my point.

I wager if he offered up some opinions without naming everything after himself things would be less frictional.

I always felt Chess nomenclature was best left to the vagaries of of time, chance, and fashion, and not strictly the domain of the over enthusiastic ego of which most civil people work to keep balanced by some non-toxic mixture of humility and decorum.

My own antidote to the fearsome BDG has always been to just play 2. ....e6 and this has worked well enough.

Mine is 1...e6 at the moment. Of course LDZ will argue that after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 White still can play in BDG-style, eg 3.Be3, 3.c4 dxe4 4.f3 and 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3.

Really, doesn't the practice of strong players speak for itself?  If the BDG were very good for the win at that level, some of them would be playing it.  Players of our class (I speak at least for myself) look a little funny saying, "Strong players should play this; I know it's good."

Having said that, I think the BDG is viable in a practical sense for play below the 2300-2400 level.  I think it's a terrible waste of a chance to play 2.c4, but it's viable.  Diebert's practice demonstrates that.  Below 2000 or so, I think it's actually fairly good for someone's chess education to play this way, at least sometimes.

I wish we could have more theory in our discussions of this system, because =+, which I believe to be the truth of it, hasn't exactly been proven yet.  Or has it?

I don't think =+ has yet been proven, but I think there is scope for Black to prove it after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6, or 5...Bf5, or 5...g6.  Theory in those lines progresses by Black attempting to demonstrate a =+ and White retorting by attempting to demonstrate enough compensation.

Objectively speaking Black cannot prove any advantage after 4...c6 because of 5.Nxe4, though that kind of equality is not what the typical BDG player is after, so practically speaking it can be used to encourage White to enter the line 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5.  I think White's compensation is sufficient after 5...e6 or 5...Bg4.

It's easy to prove against 5.Qxf3: 5...Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 and White doesn't have enough for two pawns.

I have no arguments with Markovich's points above.

5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 Qh4+!? looks good too. The idea is to improve on 6...Qb4 7.0-0-0 c6 when 8.Qg3 gives sufficient play. So 6...Qh4+!? 7.g3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 c6 and again White does not have enough.
Wisnewski might provide some new fuel to the debate on the BDG when his book is released.

=+ cannot ever be proven for the excellent reason it's a subjective assessment.
It's a game theory symbol meaning "a human has some practical reasons to prefer Black".

From the Nalimov point of view, the BDG may be just a draw, just like say the Anti-Moscow.

But for game theory an opening where Black can choose between easy equality (say 3...e5) and play for more fully deserves =+.

If Black "deserves" a =+, only because in the BDG he has a considerable number of defences, you'll find that in each of these lines White enjoys a large number of dynamic options. So White "deserves" a +=. It's the same situation as in the King's Gambit. For 150 years it is repeated, again and again, that Black has soo many options, and this fact alone should put the KG out of business. "Refutations" are typically only lines where dynamic compensation is underestimated.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/14/09 at 06:45:25:

in each of these lines White enjoys a large number of dynamic options.

After 5...c6 that is quite an exaggeration.
For me =+ means that White still fosters a hope to draw, but should not be surprised if it was a forced mate in 50+ moves. So =+ is not subjective, it means that we cannot be sure yet.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/14/09 at 06:45:25:

If Black "deserves" a =+, only because in the BDG he has a considerable number of defences, you'll find that in each of these lines White enjoys a large number of dynamic options. So White "deserves" a +=. It's the same situation as in the King's Gambit. For 150 years it is repeated, again and again, that Black has soo many options, and this fact alone should put the KG out of business. "Refutations" are typically only lines where dynamic compensation is underestimated.

Hmm.  Well I respect your opinion, but if either of these systems really deserved +=, we would see it more at the top.  

But this comparison with the KG is interesting.  Since the BDG appears at the top much less than even the KG, it would appear that the strongest players don't share, in some aggregate sense, the view that the BDG is as good as the KG.

I don't know if it means very much, but my personal view is that the KG is the better motivated system from a positional viewpoint, proposing as it does the exchange of a center pawn for a wing pawn.

My impression has always been that "=+" implied that with best play White should get slightly the worse of a draw, while "-/+" implied that White is clearly worse but might draw.  In practice "=+" may also mean "Black has slightly better chances of winning than White at the highest levels".  In practice, though, White can score highly at lower levels even in a position that is verging on -/+ if it is easier for Black to go wrong than for White.

Regarding openings where Black has a choice of equality or playing for more, I can't agree that they "deserve an =+".  At most, "Black is at least equal and possibly more" might be a fair assessment, but the true assessment is only =+ if Black gets =+ by playing for more.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that White is more certain of having enough compensation for dynamic equality with best play in the KG than in the BDG, especially in view of the Kieseritzky with 5...Nf6 6.Bc4 and the Bishop's Gambit.   But I am yet to find anything conclusive to suggest =+ even in the BDG- we discussed lines like 5...c6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Nh4!? and 5...Bf5 6.Bd3!? (an idea borrowed from the Soller Gambit) earlier for example.

It would be sufficient to prove a stale equality to shelve all these gambits. To claim =+ without concrete variations is (a) overkill and (b) meaningless. I am not an arvid fan of the BDG, but afaik it is rarely boring. Whether I'd play it myself is another question.


Uruk wrote on 10/14/09 at 05:53:37:

But for game theory an opening where Black can choose between easy equality (say 3...e5) and play for more fully deserves =+.

3…e5 was one of the well-known lines which I had recommended against the BDG in Kaissiber #5 (1998), together with the ambitious 3…f5, the sly 3…Bd7!? by Großhans (hoping for 4.f3? e5 instead of the cautious 4.Nxe4) and the O’Kelly Variation 3…Nf6 4.f3 c6, which today, to my own surprise, seems playable again for White.

4.Nxe4 is probably White’s best reply (4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Nxd1 Nc6; here White should be modest and return to symmetry: 6.Nc3 = Bb4 7.Nge2. And if 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.Be3, Black keeps a small advantage after 5…cxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6) 4…exd4 (4…Qxd4 5.Bd3 and White has full compensation, for example 5…f5 6.Nf3 Qb4+ 7.Nc3 e4 8.0-0. Maybe 5…f5 is already a slight error.) 5.Nf3! Nc6 (5…Qe7 6.Bb5+ c6 7.0-0! cxb5 8.Re1 Be6 9.Bf4 comp.) 6.Bb5 Bf5 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.Ng3 Qe7+ 9.Ne2 (9.Kf1 Be6 10.Nxd4 Rd8 11.c3 c5 12.Qa4+ could also be OK) 9…c5 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.Ng3 Be6 and now perhaps 12.c3 or 12.Qd3. In both cases White has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

If that's "easy equality" (Uruk), I don't understand why.

SWJ, I don't quite get your use of the symbols. What is "slightly the worse of a draw"?
To me an ultimately drawn position can be += or even +/- if the defence entails very difficult moves.
These symbols only reflect human fallibility.

Stefan, I don't know much about 3...e5 but I'd think 4...Nc6 is more precise
as there are additional possibilities after 5.Nf3 (5.Bb5 Qxd4!)
I'm more interested in (4...ef) 5...c6 though, seeing that 6.Bd3 Bg4 attacks d4.
So 6.Bg5 is on the ring but I have to check what's been written.
Kudos for 3...Bd7, very artistic.

My remark that with a similar logic White could claim a += was meant ironically, and apparently my irony wasn't understood. I see no need to define =+. Both the BDG and the KG may have problems with lines which can lead to equality (the jury is still out), but nothing more serious is in sight. If Uruk claims a =+ without a concrete line, then it's only his personal belief. - I wrote on the c6 line in my ChessCafe article, and Gutman's line offers fair chances for White.  

3...e5 4.Nxe4 Nc6 5.Nf3. It's a normal position, and you can study it for many hours without finding a clear evaluation. That's not what I'd call easy equality.

I assume that after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 e5 4 Nxe4 Black decides to play 4...Nc6 because after 4...ed4 5 Bb5+! followed by 6 Qe2!
White has compensation?

Of course, after 4...Qd4 5 Bd3 Black's Queen is vulnerable to attacks.
So perhaps 4...Nc6 tries to avoid all that?

As for for the Grosshans Defense, 3...Bd7, I never see it in the games played against me. Not once in the 18 years I have played the BDG have I seen the Grosshans Defense!

Regarding the Ryder Gambit Accepted, 5.Qxf3: 5...Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5, I have only played some blitz games with it. However, my experience shows that White sill has decent attacking chances:

Event "W-ch26 sf10 email"]
[Site "ICCF Email"]
[Date "2002.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Lykke,Hans Christian"]
[Black "Kucukali,Arif"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "D00"]
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 8.a3 Bd6
9.Nf3 Qf5 10.h3 e4 11.Nd4 Qxf2+ 12.Kxf2 0-0 13.g4 Be5 14.g5 Nh5 15.Nxe4 f5 16.Nc3 Nd7
17.Rd1 Kh8 18.Bg2 a6 19.Bf3 Ng3 20.Rhe1 Ne4+ 21.Bxe4 fxe4+ 22.Kg2 b6 23.Nd5 Bb7 24.Ne6 Bxd5
25.Rxd5 Rf7 26.Nd4 Bxd4 27.Rxd4 Re7 28.Rf1 Kg8 29.b3 Nc5 30.Re1 Rae8 31.h4 g6 32.Kg3 Ne6
33.Rxe4 Ng7 34.Rxe7 Rxe7 1/2

[Event "Ryder Gambit theme email"]
[Site "SEMI email"]
[Date "2001.09.01"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Sakai,Kiyotaka"]
[Black "Johnsrud,Jeff L"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "D00"]
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 8.a3 Bd6
9.Nf3 Qf5 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.Bd3 Qe6 12.Ng5 Qe8 13.Nce4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 h6 15.Nh7 f5 16.Nxf8 fxe4
17.Rhf1 Bg4 18.Rxd6 cxd6 19.Bxh6 Nd7 20.Qh4 Nxf8 21.Qxg4 Ng6 22.h4 gxh6 23.h5 Kg7 24.hxg6 Qxg6
25.Qd7+ Kh8 26.Qxb7 Rg8 27.Qxa7 Qxg2 28.Rd1 Qg5+ 29.Kb1 e3 30.Re1 Qf4 31.Qxe3 Qxe3 32.Rxe3 Rg1+
33.Ka2 Kg7 34.b4 Kf6 35.Rh3 Rg6 36.Kb3 d5 37.a4 Ke6 38.b5 Kd6 39.Rc3 Rg1 40.Rc6+ Kd7
41.Rxh6 e4 42.Rh3  1-0

White was 2058 ELO, Black, 2400 ELO.

Now, regarding 5...Bf5, 5...g6, I have played against these lines, and done well. In the Bogoljubow Defense, 5...g6, I proposed the move 8 h3!?. The position arises after 5...g6 6 Bc4 Bg7 7 00 00 8 h3.

This line has three (!) names: Orlov's Line; Studier-Zilbermints Attack; Delayed Studier Attack.

IM Georgi Orlov suggested 8 h3 back in 1995, but I did much analyses on it and played many games with it. The Delayed Studier means that the move 8 Qe1, which begins the Studier Attack, is delayed by a move or two.

In my occasional games with the BDG (usually via the move-order 1.e4 d5 2.d4) I always answered 2...dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 with 4.Nxe4 and never encountered a major problem.   I always thought that the main line after 4...exd4 was 5.Bb5+ c6 6.Qe2 as Lev gives above, but 5.Nf3 (which I've also played before) certainly looks very interesting and in some ways reminiscent of the Scotch Gambit (the pawn structure is much the same).

3...f5 was discussed in an earlier thread.  If I remember rightly White was able to obtain approximate equality by playing 4.Bg5 first, before f3, and then steering play into lines of the 4.f3 Staunton.  It's a pretty good line to try though as I guess most Whites will think it looks dubious but then be surprised at how hard it is to refute.

Like I said subjective =+ tells which side you find easier to play. Still you can try to convince others.


Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/14/09 at 20:28:47:

3...e5 4.Nxe4 Nc6 5.Nf3. It's a normal position, and you can study it for many hours without finding a clear evaluation. That's not what I'd call easy equality.

The ending after 5...f5 6.Ng3 e4 7.d5 ef seems equal.
A funny line is 5...Bg4 6.Bb5 Qd5 7.Qe2 Bf3 8.gf 0-0-0 9.Bc6 Qc6 10.de f6   8-)


SWJediknight wrote on 10/14/09 at 13:44:27:

But I am yet to find anything conclusive to suggest =+ even in the BDG- we discussed lines like 5...c6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Nh4!? and 5...Bf5 6.Bd3!? (an idea borrowed from the Soller Gambit) earlier for example.

I assume you mean 5...c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4 although I can never be sure with BDG players.
8...Bg6 9.Ng6 hg 10.Qd3 Qa5 11.h4 Nd7 (Qxg5!?) 12.000 000 13.Qe2 Nb6 I saw in Stefan's column: a standard position.

Compared to 5...Bf5 6.Bd3, the important Black bishop guardian of f7 has been exchanged with the white knight.
So we haven't Ne5 headaches. Whether Black can make progress is an interesting strategical question.

Now let's compare Gutman's with the line 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 e6 9.Bg5!? c6 10.Ng6 hg.

Black's bishop got to g6 in three moves (g4-h5-g6) instead of two (f5-g6) but White played h3+g4 instead of h4.

If White wants to castle long, he'll want to play a further h3-h4 to have Gutman's Rh3 on ...Bb4.
But then it turns out he spent a whole tempo on g4 which he could regret.

So this appears a clever way to avoid long castlings.