Guys, come on. I for one know that when it comes to the Blackmar Diemar gambit we can all play it if we want. My comment was not that the gambit is worse for white, just that in the very best lines, with the best play white is usually stuck with a draw by repetition. 

Now TopNotch, 
As you have further articulated your statement I must say I disagree. You can't dismiss a system as unsound without a solid bust to the position. You and other members have not come up with this. 

Like I said, the only variation this is slightly true for is the line Markovich is speaking of and even there white has some nice chances.

My aim is not to show that this Gambit is not playable at GrandMaster level, as every GM and IM already knows that.

My aim is to show Amateur, non Master players the most promising paths for black, so that you BDGeers will no longer get free points.

Lets be honest, most BDGeers get their points mainly through really co-operative play by black and or one move blunders.

At lower levels of chess, players find it very hard to cope with gambit play in the absence of a detailed well laid out antidote. So in this case a gambit need not be sound, it just needs to provide an initiative.

What annoys me though, is that too often good results with a gambit at lower levels somehow gets translated into that the Gambit is strong, effective and provides good practical chances even against top opposition. Such propaganda is a joke.

In fact those who play this Gambit against competent opposition, more often than not get their B***S kicked. Most of black's losses I have seen in the BDG, can be attributed more to a lack of familiarity with the Opening rather than any inherit strength.

Popularity is a double edged sword, and when bad Openings become popular and hit the mainstream, they become exposed for what they are and fade once again back into obscurity.

The real srtength of the BDG lay in its relative obscurity, with the obscurity lifted its future looks bleak, even at the lower levels of chess.

Make no mistake, so long as BDGeers continue to promote this gambit on this forum, I will be here to provide a reality check.

Get used to it.

Top

I think Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is much more difficult gambit than any other one. Black has so many different (and good) defences that it is very, very difficult for white to use it in OTB chess. Yet, for example in Rapid chess (about 15 minutes for game) I have great results with BDG even against much higher rated opponents. On the other hand, playing classical time limit, my BDG results are disasterous. 
As for "if future of gambit depends on one move.. Ng5". This is not so clear cut. Ziegler defence was picked out some 3 years ago to be examined deeply to give prove of correctness of BDG (or to give opposite). It is very difficult to defend BDG against its opponent when they are still arguing in way like this: "I think Nd5 is better than you Be7. Black is better" ... we give analysis showing Nd5 is not so good... well, two weeks later, the same guy... "Well, but what about Bd6 with an idea ..." ... we put analysis showing it is not so good ... other guy, week later ... Yes, but what about this a this move... well, it seems to have no end. It is very easy to give such arguments based on no analysis, or almost no analysis. Guys are simply yelling Walls is recommended, Nigel Davies is recommended, Gallagher is recommended... but it seems those guys never see even this position on the board. Walls, according to Leisebein, has many holes in his analysis concerning BDG. Ask Jorge Quinnones about Gallagher´s line concerning Euwe. He can give you an idea what´s wrong here. Here, GM Prie hasn´t answered analysis of Lemberger 4.Nge2 Nc6 at all. Yet, he is arguing about 3..e5 "!" I do not fear to play BDG in any of my correspondence chess game. Because I feel white has enough compensation in every line. Till now, I won more than 10 corr. games implementing BDG. Also Jorge has similar results. He is a specialist. My point is that most of attacks against BDG are based simply on poor, flat statements. On the other hand, I know that e.g. Rajmund Emanuel is analysing some lines often more than 10, 20 or more hours. His analysis about Lemberger countergambit line with 4.Nge2 are the most comprehensive account on any BDG line I have ever seen. And I see no one arguing about that line any longer. But it is impossible to give same attention to every BDG line its opponents are arguing about. One has just 24 hours a day. So please, when you are saying BDG is bad, BDG is not correct etc. next time, think about what I have just said.

Quote:


Dear MNB,

I am not saying that I have abandoned the Blackmar Diemar Gambit, but I have come to a realization that in the most critical lines of the gambit, white is a pawn down with dead equal positions, where he can usually for a draw by repetition, or win if black tries for more. This is fine, but why would you want to be in these type of positions a pawn down. 

Why not play with equal material and be in an equal position? This is my problem with some of the most critical aspects of the Blackmar Diemar Gambit. 

Now does this mean the Blackmar Diemar is busted? No! Does this mean it is unplayable? No! Does it mean black is better? Certainly not, but it does mean that white will have to be better prepared more times than not if Black is booked up on the Hubsch, the Gallagher variation of the Euwe, or in the Bogolobov. Hell, I think that the complications in the Gunderam with Nh5!? present the same problem. Black has equalized, but must play accurately to stop the attack, and once the attack has fizzled out, white is fighting for a draw.

I would rather have the same material if this is the case.

And TopNotch,

I am not a rated player, but I have beaten 2300-2495 FM's with this gambit and in other defenses as well. I fail to understand the dogmatic disposition that you have with regard to certain chess theories. I have recently become fascinated with other openings and positions, but none are because I hold them to be intrinsically more valuable than other gambits, or off-beat openings. I just think we should understand that chess, while orthodox in the sense that opening theory has cemented what "is" and "is not" sound, it should not bar us from considering new ideas, and investigating concepts once deemed delapidated and idle. 

Thanks for your time,

Tommy J. Curry

Hello Teyko, I have a question: what is the exact variation with c5 recommanded by Gallagher?
To Topknoght, I didnt see the posted game yet but the 8.Bb5+ is not the main "BDGer "move, but 8.Nxe4 Nxe4
Qf3 and this is the starting position of the "normal" variation, wich is complicate and the assession of the position is still not clear

The following game suggests that strong players seem spoilt for choice and are undecided as to what is the most effecient way to pocket the full point when confronted with this gambit. Enjoy 

[Event "Bermuda op"]
[Site "Bermuda"]
[Date "2005.02.11"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Miller,Bruce"]
[Black GM"Vescovi,Giovanni P"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "D00"]

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Be4 8.Bb5+ c6 9.0-0 Bg6 10.Ba4 Nbd7 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.g5 Qc7 13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Qf3 Rh4 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.h3 Nh5 17.Ne2 0-0-0 18.c4 f6 19.c5 Nxc5 20.Bc2 Nd7 21.Bxg6 Rh8 22.Rac1 fxg5 23.Rc3 g4 24.Qf2 Nhf6 25.Qh2 Qd5 26.Qg2 Rxh3 27.Qxd5 exd5 28.Rxh3 Rxh3 29.Nf4 Re3 30.Bf5 a5 31.Ne6 g6 0-1

No doubt as soon as this is uploaded than I will be regaled with exotic names for this variant and reams of  analysis by Leisebein, Buecker and perhaps from that website with the pretty colors, the name of which escapes me at the moment, in attempt to show that White can get a playable game here too. Who knows, maybe they will succeed, but personally if I wanted a playable game with White it would just be simpler to go 1.a3 rather than venture the BDG.    

Yours unfaithfully 

Top 

The opening moves are 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1
ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN THE EUWE DEFENSE TO THE BDG.