Teyko I can assure you GM Summerscale sees no promise in this gambit whatsoever, but rather was merely fullfilling his duties as host of the D Pawn Specials site of which the BDG is a part.

IM Gary Lane also sees no real promise in this gambit but rather as an author chose to cash in on an opening popular among amateur players. Certainly a book promoting the BDG is more likely to reap better financial rewards than say a book on the Queens Indian, simply because the appeal of suspect Openings like the BDG at the amateur level is greater.

I generally mistrust authors who write about and promote Openings they never play, and to my knowledge neither Summerscale nor Lane have ever played the BDG in a serious game and probably never will.

Recently, Kosten like Lane cashed in on the popularity of another suspect opening at amateur level, namely the latvian gambit with a book entitled ' The Latvian Gambit Lives '. Does Kosten really believe in the viability of the Latvian Gambit? Check out the following game and judge for yourself:  

[White "Kosten, A."]
[Black "Ruggeri Laderchi, G."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C40"]
[EventDate "2001.02.15"]
[Source "Mark Crowther"]
[SourceDate "2001.03.12"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4. d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4 6. Nc3 Qg6 7. f3 exf3 8. Qxf3 Nc6 9. Nb5! [A new move discovered after the book came out according to Kosten ]  Bg4 10. Qc3! (Aiming at c7.) 10... Rc8 11. d5 Nce7 12. Ne3 (12. Bd3 Qf6 13. Qxf6 Nxf6 14. h3 Bh5 15. g4 Bg6) 12... Nf6(12... a6 is met by 13. Na7! Ra8 14. Qxc7! Rxa7 there is nothing else 15. Bd3 Qh5 16. Qb8+ Nc8 17. Be2! and wins!) 13. Bd3 Qh5 14. Nxc7+ (14. Nxa7 !? is also feasible, 14... Nfxd5! 15. Qc4 Ra8 16. Nb5 Be6 17. Nxc7+ Nxc7 18.Qxc7 Qa5+ 19. Qxa5 Rxa5 20. Nc4 and white is clearly better) 14... Kd8 15. Nxg4 Forced, but good, White needs the e6-square. 15... Rxc7 ( A) 15... Qxg4 16. Ne6+ Ke8 17. Qd2 Nfxd5 (17... Nexd5 18. O-O) 18. Bb5+ Rc6 19. Nd4 wins the exchange. B) 15... Qh4+ 16. g3 Qxg4 17. Ne6+ Ke8 18. Qb3 Nexd5 19. O-O is also convincing.) 16. Nxf6 Qh4+ 17. g3 with advantage Rxc3 !? (17... Qxf6 18. Qxf6 gxf6 19. c4 was winning for White in Gentinetta,B-Rosso,P/SEMI 1998, White has two bishops, an extra pawn, and the better structure.) 18. gxh4 Rxd3 19. cxd3 gxf6 20. Rg1 To stop the rook from playing. White has a sound extra exchange, and will win with minimum care. 20... Nxd5 21. Bd2 Ke7?!This allows White to use the c-file, but other lines are scarcely better, e.g.(21... h5 22. Ke2 Kd7 23. Raf1 Bh6 24. Bxh6 Rxh6 25. Rg7+) 22. Rc1 Kf7 23. Rc8 Bg7 24. Rxg7+ The simplest, when an exchange up you should always try to trade a pair of rooks. 24... Kxg7 25. Bh6+ Kxh6 26. Rxh8 1-0 Analysis by Tony Kosten.

A good rule of thumb in chess that has served me well over the years is: Pay close attention to what the Masters play and less attention to what they say.

Regards

Top      

The eternal debate continues, and my observation in a previous thread that convincing BDG exponents of the fraility of the system was like convincing kids there was no Santa Claus, has now been further vindicated.  

Let me just leave you guys with an extract from GM Alex Yermolinsky's excellent book ' The Road to Chess Improvement '  which lends further support to Eric's point:

Yermolinsky writes: " A disproportionately large number of class players (i.e. below 2000 USCF) in the United States think they have what you call 'an attacking style'. Usually, it's expressed by pitching a pawn early in off-beat openings such as 1.d4 d5 2.e4?. 

The books written on that subject are very enthusiastic; they keep popping up every year even if the practical material of such study remains thin and mostly refers to obscure games. 

Such conditioning goes a long way towards creating the illusion of 'originality' and 'making your opponent think on his own as early as possible' regardless of the true chess value of what you do on the chessboard. 

A friend of mine who had been brainwashed by these methods of teaching for years, ended up with the weirdest opening repertoire I have ever seen. He would open with 1.e4 with one idea in mind: to sac this pawn as soon as possible. Variations such as 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 and 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.f3 were his dogma - he couldn't even think of anything else. Since he would also complement his opening strategy with similar ideas as Black, naturally the Albin Countergambit had become his main weapon against 1.d4. 

As a result, nearly every game of his saw the same scenario: he would drop a pawn in the opening, then invest more material into 'sustaining' his non-existent initiative, get a couple of fireworks out of it and soon resign. It was painful to watch him struggle with positions that even I would find difficult to play. Instead of putting pressure on his opponent - like the books he bought and studied promised - he was dealing with enormous pressure himself, the pressure of having to find the only moves and ideas that would justify, at least to some extent, his sacrificial strategy. 

It's amazing how the gambit style of play gets widely advertised in books targeted for class players. Nobody thinks that Shirov's style is easy to master, or easier compared with say Kramnik's; but for some reason, imitating it is considered advisable to weaker players. "  End quote.

Very enlightening stuff indeed.

Top              

I think you have to be careful about equality. There are two types, theoretical equality where the position is equal with best play from both sides, and practical equality, where the position is equally easy to play for both sides. Most books are only concerned with theoretical equality, while I believe that players should worry more about practical equality. I play lines of gambits that I know will lead to theoretical equality simply because I know that at the level I play I'm going to score well over 50% because my moves are much easier to find than my opponents.

Dear GM Prie,

though I distrust the BDG, I am afraid that you set your stakes to high. I share your starting point in the debate. The only way to study openings honestly is the scientific approach.
But - and we should be happy with it - chess is complex enough to have room for disagreement. The BDG fanatics never will give up trying to prove that their pet opening is playable. I know what I am talking about, because I have this very attitude when debating my own pet gambits.
And modest amateurs like Teyko and me should do this, as this adds a lot of fun to our favourite brain game.
Sol I am curious about your proof that the Lemberger Defence provides Black more than solid equality.

I hope it is not because of my slack, marred, dimmer english!

I do!
I am only interested in the so called 'truth' in chess and in the best moves from one part and the other to test the validity of one opening. I am ready to debate, but on this ground only. 
To make a parallel with another gambit that I have practiced, you could not ask me to treat only the line 5…Nxe4, even if it may prove objectively the best move,  in the Belgrade gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Nd5 when 5…Be7 gives Black a comfortable equality and when 5…Nb4!, although more complicated, with the idea 6.Nxd4 Nxe4  is already critical for White, according to my analysis. 
Neither could you ask me to get myself interested into the wild 3.Bc4 in the Latvian 1.e4 e5 3.Nf3 f5, or any other third move for White, when 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.Nc4! fxe4 5.Nc3 completely refutates  the whole opening. I have known that for ages, watching once the ten lines of analysis, all the Latvian deserved to the authors, in an old and small Russian book on openings but I would always have found people ready to argue against that . Now that it has been published, black on white, in Khalifman’s last book “1. e4-e5 according to Anand”  the situation is more delicate for them!

I understand that the BDG is a convenient opening for you manage to sacrifice the e4 pawn in almost every cases, except against the Pirc or some other irregular defences and for that reason you are not ready to change it.
But I  also believe that it is an heresy which " has enjoyed rather favourable coverage in the chess world, relative to its objective strength - mostly because all of the literature on it is written by BDGeers". I have found at least one big example of that statement on the Hubsch covered by Gary Lane.
My intimate conviction is that the Lemberger REFUTATES the BDG, not only in the sense of providing Black with dull equality. There is no salvation for White nor in the Hubsch nor in 1.d4 Cf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.f3 because of 3...c5! 
My plan is to 'close' the subject, once and for all, and have it published, hopefully some day, by Chesspublishing under the form of a monography, against all those heavy books biased towards White! But if I am wrong, if I have to accept the gambit and cope with the generated initiative, then you will have your revenge and I,  covered with shame and repentant, shall start to deal with the rest

Important for how many people>