And yes, it seems like 
1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 c6 8. g4 e6 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd3 Nb4 11. O-O Qxd4+ 12. Be3 Qd7 13. Rad1 Qe7 the only move 14. g6 f6 15.Qh5 h6 (15.Be4 Nd7) 16.Be4 Nd7! (f5? 17.Bxf5! is an easy tactics) is good for black. 

But white can continue simply with 14.g6 f6 15. Qh5 h6 16. a3! Nxd3 17. Rxd3 and now white must be much better according to all basic chess principles e.g. f5 18. Rfd1 Na6 19. Kh1 +/-
One funny line is 19..Qc7? 20. Qe2 Qg3 21. Bg5!+-

10..Nb4 is simply very bad move and deserves "?". One cannot make three moves with knight in position where his opponent is attacking yet stubbornly claiming he is still better.

If black cannot take another pawn on move 11, then whole black´s concept is refuted. There is more than rich compensation for one pawn in case of something like 11..Qd7.

I'd say you have described dynamic equality very well Craig.  (or at least my interpretation of it, in that if one side is down material his initiative is sufficient to eventually bring about a drawn ending)   

Quote:


I believe the main-lines of the BDG show more than just a tempo or two gain.  If that was all it gave then it would be much easier to refute.  Of course one would actually have to look at those main-lines to see any of that.  It's true the Uberdeker defence is not a double queen pawn opening but what of the Chigorin Defence?  Anyway, my point was simply that I think it's been clearly shown that "words" alone can't refute or verify the correctness of any opening.  By your own words you should have a clearly won position a few moves from now, but failing that you should be able to demonstrate a relatively easily won ending at some point.  By the way, I personally have only played the BDG once! (and only after I'd looked at a the analysis and games on the forum).  I've been a total disbeliever for years, but I try to keep an open mind regarding chess openings (and other topics as well).  As I've mentioned before, I'm still not convinced of the gambits soundness but just believing (or even knowing) that doesn't help me win chess games.

I suppose my rambling is distracting from the game but this thread wasn't originally intended for that.  Do wish you'd started the game in another thread which certainly would have made it easier to find later.  However, I am glad to see this variation tested.  Only problem is, even if 8.g4 is refuted then we still need refutations of 8.Be3 and 8.Qf2 (perhaps future games).  I'm actually surprised that know one has shown up saying that 5...g6 (after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3) is actually the refutation of the BDG.  Perhaps if 5...Bg4 isn't the answer then we can discuss 5...g6 in another thread.

Dear uberdeker,

My responses: 

A)9..Nd5 10.Bd3 Nb4 and now : 11.0-0. Now if 11..Qxd4+, then 12.Be3, and if 12..Qd7, then 13.Rad1.

B)8.g4 Qxd4 9.Be3

For the moment it's premature to speak about compensations. Let's see it later. I have already analysed theses lines(somes in this forum), and I think White keep the equality despite the pawn(s).

Quote:


Certainly common sense and the comparison with other openings can help one to determine the validity of opening concepts, but I think current modern chess opening play shows this alone doesn't gurantee correct answers.  Look at the many examples given in Watson's now famous books, "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" and the sequel "Chess Strategy in Action".  Strong players are now playing moves that would have horrified past masters.  Look at your own 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nc6 opening.  What used to be the rule in double-queen pawn openings?  I believe it was something like, "don't block the c-pawn".

So is the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit sound?  Most of us still don't think so.  But developments on the forum leave me in doubt.  At the very least the gambit is quite dangerous and underated by the majority of chess players.  So on with the moves!

Yes indeed Mr.Hubert Decker, the BDG is a hotly debated topic here on the forum!  Since you have, relunctantly, accepted the challenge my advice is to give this game some real thought and please feel free to ask your friends (including non-human ones) for suggestions in the games.  Most of us here at the forum are just looking for the truth in chess opening variations (it's not some much about who wins or loses).  We can always go back and make suggestions and improvements for each side later on.  I wanted to write more here (and comment on your very interesting opening of 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nc6!? in the "Daring Defences" section,) but currently I have no internet connection and I've just been informed the library is closing in 15 minutes (drat!).  I'll make it a point to come back tomorrow.  

Gambling man? No, I am not.  I am just being realistic.  Outside this forum, who is going to know how to play as Black in the Zilbermints Gambit to the Euwe Defense?

nexirae wrote on 03/16/06 at 01:37:06:

Dear all,

  This Blackmar thing seems to be a touchy subject here. Once again I am open to any challenges on the ICC. As for our theoretical discussion in the line I somewhat randomly chose to use an example of Black's advantage, well I certainly haven't made a thourough analysis of it. In fact, I never bothered to look at any games or theory and quite frankly I don't think it is necessary. A bit of common sense, positional understanding and tactical awareness are all that Black will need. Variations are a bit besides the point. One look at the position is enough to assert that White's conception is highly dubious.
But if you insist Arkhein, I will answer your loosening 8. g4 with the indifferent 8. ...e6.
I would much rather talk in variations than move by move, but the problem is that I have no idea what White should play! Maybe MNb or some other learned gentleman on this forum would care to take over this theoretical debate which I quite frankly consider to be a waste of time.   

                                                                            Regards,
                                                                                    U.D.

Gambit wrote on 03/15/06 at 23:53:47:


Are you a gambling man, Lev?

Best wishes,
Nex