Oh, fair enough, I suppose, but is it really a wise use of resources to keep poor GM Prie tied up with BDG considerations?  I am sure that we could use this strong player's advice better in some other parts of theory, e.g., the Exchange Slav , which better deserves the space taken up here by this problematic gambit.  Your could hire Diebert or Monson or Myers or somebody to keep you posted on the BDG, and set the GM free to work on some parts of theory that would benefit not only our understanding, but also a GM's.

I mean, good grief, neither Nimzo, the ...a6 Slav, the Catalan, nor the Gruenfeld have entire sections devoted to them, and we're being asked if we would mind a whole section devoted to 1. d4 d5  2. e4?

I think that 5...Bf5 after (4...exf3) is very strong.  I played this way and established a winning position against Diebert here in Columbus, back in '87 or so.  Unfortunately I lost on time when my flag surprisingly fell with about 2 minutes of time seemingly left on my clock, and one more move to make the time control!   

It may be that 5...Bg4 is stronger, I don't know.

I would probably ask for a refund of my Chess Publishing gold membership if a separate section of this site were devoted to the BDG.   What, pay a GM to discuss the latest "theory" of this "system?"  With all due respect to the Tromp, which does seem to be playable for a win, it's already awful that all this suboptimal 1. d4 d5 stuff   gets one entire section (and the work of one entire GM) devoted to it.  How does that happen when all the rest of 1.d4 d5 makes do with just one section?   

So what would be next, an entire section devoted to 1. d4 e5?

Gambit Psychosis is a disease of the chess mind whose chief symptom is that chess, if not played in gambit fashion, becomes very dull.  It arises in players who have made just enough progress in their chess educations to understand play as it was at the time of Morphy; its cause is an unconsious fear of having to learn anything more about chess.

1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 c5! 3.d5 is a BENONI transposition BUT this line is very weak for white. There must be reason why f3 has almost never been played in Benoni. Though, it is perhaps white´s best possibility after 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 c5!, it is very weak possibility and an outcome of such play remains very, very inferior for white.   

Hi,
   I really see no reason in analysing 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3? line, because of simple 2..c5! and black is slightly better. Also 2..e6 is well possible and then 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3? e6!? 3.e4 d5 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 is a transposition into French def. But 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3? c5!! is simple and strong. There should be no arguments against it or is there anyone who wants to prove that white can win this position? I would be glad to prove the contrary.

Patrik

MNb, not sure what you mean by "confuses the process with the result."  Sounds kinda profound though.

I guess I was assuming that the topic of this thread was whether there should be a monthly BDG section.  That is, in fact, the title of the thread.  That was the topic I addressed.

To the extent you disagree with my personal opinion on the topic issue, as stated in my post, your post does not reveal the grounds for your disagreement.  But reasonable minds can differ (although not all minds are reasonable), and I am willing to respect your opinion (even though it is somewhat unclear to me what it is) if you will respect mine.

Cheers.

        -Geof

Just thought I would put my two bits in.    Sorry, BDG fans, I have to agree with those who stated in their posts that the BDG is dubious, and there is not much point in going beyond analyzing a promising Black response (which GM Prie has already done, and quite thoroughly too).  (Please refrain from responding to this post by arguing that the BDG is a viable opening, or that strong players occasionally avoid it for practical reasons.  Although the latter may be true it doesn't really signify that much, and the former is probably only true in the sense that there are no immediate clear refutations.  It is not a "promising" opening for White in any strict theoretical sense.  Rather, it is dubious and tricky.)

I am not sure what the point is in having GM Prie analyze various lines of the BDG ad nauseam.  Is it the hope that he might find some way of theoretically resuscitating this dubious line?  If so, then that hope is (at least in my opinion) a very slim one which does not really justify the work involved.  Or is it simply the desire to analyze your favorite, somewhat dubious gambit with a GM?  Well, that would be a perfectly understandable motive but my opinion is that it represents somewhat of a waste, at least for most of us.  I personally think that this site is supposed to be more about serious opening theory, not a random analysis session with GMs on whatever dubious lines takes a particular player's or players' fancy.   

Well, maybe I am being a little harsh here. (I am using the word "dubious" consciously, because I don't think much of the BDG.)  I guess it's possible that there is enough interest that "market forces" dictate that GM Prie spend a significant portion of his updates analyzing a theoretically somewhat insignificant line? Maybe we should have a vote?  I would hope that the vast majority of people would vote to keep this theoretical backwater "in its place," but who knows.   

On the other hand, assuming that there are a lot of BDGers out there and that the vote was favorable to their cause, GM Prie might nevertheless be unwilling (and quite legitimately, in my opinion) to devote too much time to the BDG.  It is one thing to have a GM or IM share their analysis with you of matters of theoretical importance which presumably they already have some interest in.  It is quite another thing entirely to force them to spend their time analyzing inferior variations which they have negligible interest in.  I for one suspect that GM Prie is not getting paid enough to justify him doing the latter.   

Maybe if the BDGers are sufficiently interested and numerous, they could have their own subsite for which they would pay a modest premium. Then it might be sufficiently lucrative to justify some strong player spending tiime analyzing the BDG and responding to queries.   

Alternatively, all you BDGers could reform and start learning a real opening.    

          - Geof

[quote author=teyko  link=1082405632/20#28 date=1083335902]If it is the case that the Blackmar diemar gambit is bogus, then why not post the line that you think renders the gambit futile and juvenile chess.[/quote]

Here is a correspondence game I won several years ago against a strong master. Where would you improve as white?

White (2324) - Black (2214)
CC Match 98P58, 03.1998
[Blackmar-Diemer Gambit]


1.Nc3 d5 2.e4 c6 3.d4 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Ne5 e6 8.0-0 Bg6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.h4 Nbd7 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Qd2 Qb6 13.a4 Ne5 14.Bb3 0-0-0 15.Rf4 Neg4 16.Qd1 Bc5 17.Ne2 e5 18.Rxg4 Nxg4 19.Bxd8 Rxd8 20.a5 Qc7 0-1