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

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.

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.

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 05:23:48:


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.

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 

Quote:

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.