Keano, that's nonsense. The Four Knights has been known for nearly a century to offer white no advantage:
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bb5 Nd4! equalises comfortably for black.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5!?, the Belgrade, where black can easily achieve equality, but nothing more.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 is the Scotch Four Knights, which again is known to be equal. The fact that white can play for a win notwithstanding, black has equalised here. Ask Kasparov or the local 1200 player, they'll both agree.
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3, Glek's variation, is another try, but 4...Bc5 and 4...d5 both give black equal chances. 

I'm sure there will be a huge influx of GMs and IMs who await your line which gives white an advantage against the Sveshnikov, also. To my knowledge, at this moment in time things look pretty healthy for black here. Also, as MNb pointed out, plenty of GMs would be interested to know how to achieve an edge against the Najdorf, also.

It all comes down to taste. Some people like the dull equality of the Four Knights - hey, black has equal chances, but white can slowly outplay his opponent in a strategical battle. Some people like the wilder unclarity of a King's Gambit - again, objectively, there can be no doubt that black has at least equality, but proving this is another matter.

The BDG belongs, currently, to this latter group of openings. Yes, white's a pawn down. Yes, it's a central pawn. However, currently, it appears that notwithstanding these two facts, he has equal chances in all lines. And all lines offer black plenty of opportunities to go wrong. The only difference is that, with gambits, it offers both sides plenty of opportunities to go wrong.

It seems as if you are now blindly arguing for the sake of it. As such, I will not respond to further nonsense comments unless there are at least variations attached to them. No-one doubts black can get equality - I believe he can do so in the Ruy Lopez, French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann et al. But if white can get to an equal position, with attacking chances, from the BDG, it is a correct opening. If you do not wish to discuss the opening, we respect this. However, to try and stop other people from doing so is both irritating and wrong.

We are (or, at least I am) not here to discuss the concept of equality as black being a good thing. I believe we're here to discover the truth about openings; analyse, learn and hopefully maybe even evolve the theory relating to these openings. It is not all one-sided, either - there are as many people here interested in busting the BDG, as there are "enthusiasts" who defend it. I wish to find an advantage for black against the BDG, not equality. If I could only reach equality as black against the BDG, I would not allow white to play it - to me it is critical that an advantage is found, since I am not happy defending desperately in an "equal" position. If you do not wish to be involved in the work, then I respectfully request that you refrain from posting further two-line diatribes.

Currently, Keano, you need to justify your non-justificiation for claiming our justification of the unjustifiable. 

Until someone can post a line which gives black an advantage, then discussing the BDG is no more or less justified than discussing the Svesknikov or Four Knights, for example. To my knowledge, white cannot find an advantage here, currently, either. 

Why is it, that if openings give up pawns, a certain cross-section of the chess world will condemn with no evidence? 

Keano, if you want to dissuade those who choose to discuss this opening, then your best chance is to find an advantage for black. That is what I am trying to do, along with several others - it's not as easy as it looks. 

To get this conversation away from this talk and back on-topic, what is regarded as white's best continuation after 5...g6, Bogoljubow's Defence? In practice I believe 6.Bc4 and 6.Bf4 are the most common moves, but I've never heard any consensus as to which is preferred.

Best wishes,
Craig

Keano, I'd would have thought even you would have realized we're just trying to make a point here.  Live in your bubble if you want to.

I will even listen carefully, when someone tells me, that Santa Claus is a BDG enthusiast .....
Btw Keano, some very, very strong players had problems to play for an advantage against Kasparov's Najdorf.

I remember once when in a chat room on ICC I stated that the BDG is good.  The response - from about 10 people simultaneously - BDG is trash.  I then proceeded to ask why; not one of them would provide me a reason other than "it looks bad."   

People just refuse to believe that a central pawn sack can be good - oh no not the e4 pawn!  And tons of people try to point out that it's simply a French or Caro less the f-pawn.  If only that were true!   

It's quite pointless to argue with people who don't believe that the BDG gives great chances.  And as TopNotch claimed eons ago, convincing a BDG enthusiast that the gambit is trash is like convincing a child there is no Santa.   

So, why bother responding to people like Keano who won't give any moves, but just parrot over and over that the gambit is garbage?

I'm still not sure we've worked out that Lemberger - but if there's one thing this forum has shown is that the BDG is no worse than secondary openings like the aforementioned Four Knights.   

Nex

Keano, if we are so crazy by speaking about the BDG that much, why do you come here again? If the BDG is so unuseful (and even stupid) for you, we have to say that you are unuseful for the Black side of the BDG as well. I suppose that you always win with White and always draw with Black, or punish "bad opening" and win against them. That's fine for you. There are some openings which I don't like too, but I just don't read them! That doesn't mean I find theses openings bad. You are free to ignore this part of the forum! Of course, you are the welcome if you are there for a real contribution for the white or black side of the BDG

Quote:


7..Nc6 is a dubious move because of 8.Qf3 where according to my analysis, they should end up with a clear advantage. If you want we can analysis another 10th blacks move instead of Nb4. Against h6 we gave 2 main plan for White (Castling queenside and attacking on the kingside, or castling kingside and attacking on the queenside with the idea of b4-b5 because it is too risky to castle kingside because of the weakening with h6) but there is not clear variations for the moment. Somes games in this themes should be good to show practice chances.

But surely, if black cannot prove an advantage against the Blackmar Deimer, then:

a) The BDG has to be considered sound, and
b) The BDG would in fact be no worse than the Vienna, Scotch, Four Knights, etc. etc... where white cannot prove an advantage, but achieves dynamically equal positions where he can rely on his superior strength/knowledge to achieve good results - and possibly further:
c) Since the BDG is clearly more aggressive than the other possibilities above, if white is well prepared and black isn't (or maybe even is), it might actually be a better try in OTB chess.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the above comments, but if no way to a black advantage is found, then these statements may well be true. And if that's the case, the BDG-bashers will be foolhardy not to stop their BDG-bashing comments, since it would be the equivalent of having Four-Knights-Bashers. All this makes me more determined to find a line which gives black an unquestionable advantage.

Incidentally, to my knowledge, white still has no way of proving an advantage against the Sicilian or French, against adequately prepared opponents. I know of no lines after 1.d4 where white can prove an advantage, either. 

A small advantage out of the opening means nothing, in comparison to reaching familiar terrain where you feel comfortable. If black has been dragged into terra incognita, doubly so. Below 2200, anything goes anyway - I played the Albin for the first time in two years in the Welsh Chm., against a player who outgraded me by nearly 200 points and who knew what he was doing. The result - he was probably a little lucky to get a draw. If you are a machine who can play for a tiny advantage or equality and then exploit it, I applaud you - I wish I could. However, I am yet to meet anyone who can do this, and therefore the BDG cannot be laughed at or rejected until someone can find a real advantage against it.

Please note, that I'm not saying you shouldn't be satisfied with equality as black. I'm saying I'm not satisfied with equality against the BDG.

Regards,
Craig