Quote:


Ok, I have to take a little offense (very little actually, but why can't people be a little more diplomatic even if they know they're right    ) to that because I feel I have looked at it quite a lot but still think 8...h6 is a pretty good move.  But I do agree that they are far from clear so maybe I'm only a little bit of a fool.  As a "BDG enthusiast" I hope you you're right.

Sugartort wrote on 04/28/06 at 20:08:41:


   This is a bit ridiculous statement. Let´s see. In var. 1 white has other possibilities. I didn´t spend to much time on this line as I think it is not theoretically important one. 
   In var. 2 you are again talking only about line with Nb5 (I guess) which gives perfect practical compensation. After 8.g4 Qxd4?! white has simply enough OTB compensation. Qxd4 is a move which is worth attention only when playing corresp. chess (but I suppose you have been not talking or discussing positions from this viewpoint). From practical point of view, this move is bad, unlike you have really analysed one of the many continuation in more depth (but this did no one from a group of so-called BDG critics or opponents yet. They can offer only very flat opposition, often based on overgeneralisation).
   
  Var. 3. Geez! 8..h6? is a bad move. Of course I won´t be playing something like 9.Be3?! because I don´t need to cover d4 pawn, when taken compare it with 8.g4 Qxd4 where black plays one a bit useless move more. After 8.g4 h6 white has to play 8.Bd3 or 8.Bf4. And this positions are far from your clear-cut assesement. Only fool can evaluate this position as solid etc. It shows only that the person didn´t look at the position at all or very little.

Position is very unclear and hell, cannot be evaluated as "a solid middlegame with queenside castlings, in true Rubinstein spirit, after 8...h6". This is completele ridiculous. This can be accepted only when white player falls asleep during the game, then yes, position is very solid and safe.

Heh, this discussion is going on, and I can easily see why :
1) this acronym B.D.G. is irresistible, it sounds like a political group of activists ;
2) the move 2.e4 has a anarchistic value of "trespassing all interdictions". It's on the verge of being illegal.
Alas, chess is not as funny as your ideas!

Hubert "the Black" N. Decker is not happy with the position after Bg4xf3, because he wants "a clear Black advantage". Fine, but if so, why play Bg4xf3 in the first place, whose philosophy is "You have nothing, I'm solid" ?

It's not necessary to refute every legal White 8th move : they don't represent different plans. g4, Be3 can be played on move 9, 10, 11... The white knight Sevenviolets says "White has many possibilities", but it seems that it is Black who chooses what he wants, be it :
1) an unbalanced ending Queen vs Minors for Anderssons, after 8...e6 & 10...Nb4 ;
2) sacrificing the exchange for initiative, for Kasparovs, after 8. g4 Qd4:
3) a solid middlegame with queenside castlings, in true Rubinstein spirit, after 8...h6

Actually White avoids 2) by protecting d4 on move 8, but you get my point. Moreover Black's play is everywhere easier than White's (already pointed out): he just develops, while *White* has to "rack his brains" to find resources like g6 !?, Qh5 !?!, Nb5 ?!!? etc. to stay alive.

The plan Bg4xf3 is therefore fine for a cautious player. It doesn't go for the throat (like me), but still demands creativity from White to stay in the game, creative follow-up to the creative 2nd move! A player like Uberdeker is likely to collect many points with it if White doesn't jump on draw opportunities.
 

This was not a quote without analysis, He gave one of his game under it, but I don't know if it is an improvement over Wahls's analysis. Iam sure Leisebein knows more about the BDG than Wahls or maybe anybody in this world. I can say that he have excellent results against the Vienna defense, but until I don't know which line Wahls give(and I don't know if I can get it for free), I can't give analysis by the White side.

If I don't have his analysis, how can I improve them?
I know that P.Leisebein, BDG corr expert has showed that Wahls analysis were not that good...

Peter Leisebein said somewhere : Quote:

Sacapawn: This line is the Vienna defense of the BDG.

Now White have choice between 5.g4 Bg6 6.g5 followed by fxe4(gambit) or Nxe4, and 5.fxe4 (was Diemer's choice, this is my choice too, and surely the main move.)

After 5.fxe4, Nxe4 6.Qf3, it's your turn to give your next move (6..Nxc3 or the classical 6..Nd6)

If 6..Nxc3, then 7.bxc3, if 6..Nd6, then 7.Bf4.

CraigEvans wrote:
Quote:


I've looked at both of those moves and they both seem playable to me.  Both are very dangerous but I think that at least an equal path has been found in the 6.Bc4 variation and maybe he can prove more with a new discovery.  The 6.Bf4 isn't as well explored and I'm wouldn't really know what to recommend for Black here.  At first I thought the usual play of Bf4,Qd2,0-0-0 and of course the thematic Bh6 didn't take advantage of having an open f-file but there are actually quite a few variations where it does come into play.  I'd certainly be interested to know if someone can show a good variations for Black in this logical defence.