Concerning Alambrado's post from a while ago, I think Eric's intention is to cover the basics of the serious d-Pawn Specials theory first (unfortunately, Aaron was a bit lax in this respect as he tended to annotate short games of little theoretical value between weak players!), and once he is happy with this he will move to a more traditional format, just looking at the latest important games/novelties.
Anyway, I find his stuff really useful!

In my opinion 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 is somewhat underestimated. 5.g4 Bg6 5.g5 Nd5 6.Nxe4 might be the only way to maintain equality, when White's initiative compensates for the rotten pawn structure.
Just another reason to distrust the BDG.

Interesting, but what about my 11...Nd6 in the 'Hubsch' thread ? 

Quote:



According to Lane, "In tournament play, [5...Bf5] is one of the
most popular replies." It also seems to be the favorite choice
among GMs and strong masters who have to face the
BDG/Huebsch.  Perhaps the strongest over-the-board player who
regularly essays the Blackmar- Diemer  is Charles Diebert, who has
played - and defeated -  some of the best players in the US, many
of whom have tried 5...Bf5.   
   
Tom Purser in "Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World" identifies the
stem line as 6 g4 (White can also try 6 c3 as in Diebert-Blocker,
1983 Columbus, Ohio which resulted in a White win) 6...Bg6
and follow the game Diebert-Rohde 1985 Philadelphia, which
ended in a win for the GM, although White had good chances
throughout and may have even missed an opportunity for victory.
Black can deviate early, however, with 6...Bd7, which did not work
out especially well for GM Benjamin, who lost with it against
Diebert in a 1986 Columbus, Ohio tournament. Continuing with
Diebert-Rohde:  7 Ne2 (Another idea pointed out by Purser is 7 h4,
which led to a quick White win in the 1977 game Welling-Cobben)
e5 8 Be3 Qd6 9 c3 Nd7 10 h4 h5 11 Ng3 Nb6  12 Bb3 exd4 13
Bxd4 c5 14 gxh5 Bxh5 15 Nxh5 cxd4 16 Qg4 Qe5 17 0-0-0 Qxh5
18 Qxe4+ Be7 19 Rde1 Qc5 20 Rh3 Rd8 21 Rf3 Rf8 22 Rf5 Qd6
23 Re5 Rd7 24 c4 d3 25 Re3 Kd8 26 c5 Qc7 27 Kd1 d2 28 Rc3
Bf6 29 cxb6 Qxe5 30 Qxe5 (According to Diebert, 30 bxa7! Qa5
31 Qa4! Qxa4 32 Bxa4 Ke7 33 Re3+ would've given him
compensation for his pawn-minus.) 30...Bxe5 31 bxa7 Ke7 0-1.
Despite Rohde's victory in this game, Black's results with 5...Bf5
have been less than encouraging.
 
Sometimes the popular choices are not necessarily the best choices. 
Such is the situation here. Black can certainly improve upon 5...e6
or 5...Bf5. One reply that appears better than its reputation is 5...g6.
Invariably, the game Diebert-Hayes, 1986 Columbus, Ohio
(Cardinal Open) is cited as the main line (suggested by both Lane
and Sawyer), which saw White win after 5 Bc4 g6 6 f3 Bg7 7 c3
exf3 8 Nxf3 0-0 9 0-0 c5 10 Ng5 e6 11 dxc5 Qc7 12 Qd6 Qxd6 13
cxd6 Bd7 14 Ne4 Bc6 15 Nf6+ Bxf6 16 Rxf6 Rd8 17 Bh6 Nd7 18
Rf4 Ne5 19 Rd1 b5 20 Bb3 a5 21a4 bxa4 22 Bxa4 Bxa4 23 Rxa4
f6 24 Be3 Ra6 25 Bc5 Rc6 26 Rxa5 Nc4 27 Rb5 Nxb2 28 Rb1
Na4 29 Rb8 Rcc8 30 Rxc8 Rxc8 31 Ba7 Nxc3 32 d7.

The apparently controversial smiley has become somewhat of my trademark  

A couple of points need to be made, I was never derogatory ad hominem to anyone in the Kings Gambit thread, my comments were directed at the Kings Gambit itself. For some reason Wonderer seems to have an emotional attachment to the KG, and took my general comments about its downside personally.

In fact if one really examines the threads carefully you will see that if anyone has been attacked it has been me. However my back is broad, and truth be told I appreciate such passion in my fellow posters, although I do agree with you Semprun that Wonderer's comments are over the top. The snide remarks inferring that the njscf.org website and the analysis contained therein was somehow inferior was in particularly bad taste, however I believe that most people have bypassed that little tirade of Wonderer's and judged the offered analysis on its merit. [ For those interested in that analysis see the Hubsch thread].

Regarding Short's flirtations with the Kings Gambit one must be careful what conclusions one draws from this, as Short is notorious for surprising opponents with off-beat openings. However the operative word here is surprise, for instance, Nigel has wheeled out the Budapest against none other than Karpov in a candidates match, which many considered positional suicide against someone of Karpov's calibre. Nigel has also recently experimented with the Evans gambit and believe it or not he even did the unthinkable by employing the BDG quite recently by transposition against the very strong GM Bareev. 

These outings by a strong GM with less than reliable openings, only serves to prove that the element of SURPRISE is not to be underestimated in a game of chess.

Nevertheless openings like the BDG and others of that ilk can be compared to Junk Food - ' Quite delicious and harmless if eaten occasionally but very bad for your health if eaten every day' - Aspiring players would do well to supplement there diet with healthier openings, in that way they will grow up to be big and strong.  

On that note, bon appetit and au revoir

Top          

I'd actually like to hear what BDG fans believe white should play against something as simple as 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5, with the idea that e.g. 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nd6 7.Bf4 e6 8.Bxd6 Bxd6 9.Qxb7 Nd7 and black has a most pleasant position or 5.g4 Bg6 6.h4 h6. That seems to be a fairly easy way of playing as black and doesn't require black to know much theory at all. Suggestions for white?!

Hello all  

Wonderer I am sorry if my grin offends you, but if you have a problem with me take it out on me, there is no need to be so hostile to other forum members.

That said, using your chess logic, most sacrifices arising in the middlegame could be categorised as gambits. I have already explained in a previous post what I think the fundamental difference is, so there is no need for me to repeat. However if you disagree, that's ok.

For the record I do not think the Kings Gambit is refuted. Refuted is a strong term that chessplayers love to throw around whenever an Opening system or line goes through a bad patch, I often use the term myself but mostly tongue in cheek. However while I do not believe the Kings Gambit is refuted, I really do not think it is a very good opening for the simple reason that white risks too much, and with the white pieces I do not believe that such drastic risks are necessary. But to each his own.

Regarding my so called 'Troll' activities on the Kings Gambit forum as you put it, as I recall the title of the thread was 'Death of The King's Gambit' and so my posts were kind of in the spirit of that since the title of the thread is fairly close to what I believe to be true.  

Have some fun Wonderer, life is short, try not to take yourself so seriously.

As the song goes 'Don't worry be happy'.

Top