You misunderstand Markovich.  It was NOT suggested that they make an entire section devoted to this beauty of a gambit.  It was suggested that GM Prie cover at least a game per month, which I feel is more than reasonable.

If Kramnik can't beat it, the opening must be decent .

NeX iRae

Quote:


As I understand it the point of chesspublishing is to get subscribers and make money, and to get subscribers they have to concentrate on the openings that the majority of their potential subscribers play. Like it or not, most people do play openings that are suboptimal, and sometimes just downright bad. Basically if you want chesspublishing to devote more space to more standard openings then you have to convince all of us to stop playing the rubbish we do now and start playing properly instead.

Quote:


I think that this is a slightly unfair generalisation. I can certainly think of players that would fit that description but equally I think that it's true that badly played gambit chess is more exciting than badly played positional chess. In Neil McDonald's book on the King's Gambit there is a Short-Piket game where he says that after move 20 Piket was in almost fatal time trouble and Short was trembling uncontrollably, which, at least in terms of excitement, is something that doesn't happen in the Exchange Slav. It may be true that a very well played non-gambit game will in general be of higher quality than a gambit one, but at lower levels it doesn't make much difference, and gambit games are in general more exciting.

Quote:


An 'ayatollah' or a 'labeller' or both? 

Though I agree, that 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 c5! is an excellent way to avoid the BDG, White will have his share of play after 3.d5! and 4.c4 transposing to Benoni lines.

<there is not much point in going beyond analyzing a promising Black response>
I disagree with this, for the reasons aforementioned. If BDG'ers want analyze as far as they can, nobody should object. If enough BDG'ers want a monthly update, I do not object either, even though I am not interested.
<Alternatively, all you BDGers could reform and start learning a real opening.> I do object the underlying bias of this remark.
What I want to make clear, is that we should not expect to find the absolute truth in opening theory - that is not even desirable. So the goal of this forum is not a final verdict on the BDG or any other opening, but learning from analyzing and exchanging ideas.
<I am willing to respect your opinion if you will respect mine> This should be not too hard, as we seem to agree on the BDG.

First of all: I do not trust the BDG either. But that is not the point of this Forum. Like some others, GS confuses the process with the result.
Why should everyone agree? If BDG aficionados think their pet opening the greatest of all, let them. It is up to others, to show the deficiencies of this opening. The exchanging of ideas might be fruitful for everyone.
Vieto and others have pointed out, that 8.Ng5 is critical in the Von Hennig-Milner Barry Gambit, also wrongly named Ziegler Defense.
Schiller has made a case of the Euwe Defense with Nc6.
The Bogolubow Defense is another attempt to refute the BDG.
That the outcome of the debate is unclear - we should be only glad.

7.Ne5 is a mistake, the correct way to play this variation is 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5! , a great novelty found by Emanuel Rajmund    8...Bg6 9.Ne2! with the idea Nf4 and sac on e6  8)

Check the whole variation here : http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/ec_ena_alch.htm

Intersection!

There have been so many threads on the BDG recently that I do not know in which one to 'chase' you or Teyko

See the 2.f3 one then, but do note I said "We shall check this quite soon" and not "In the next update".
In fact, it all depends on your participation for May, as I have just started to analyse my previously gathered material now.

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  

   

About the Muzio, it struck my mind some time after but you are just to fast Wönderer
When I do not check what I say with Fritz, I sometimes make inaccuracies like this one or imagining that 'ø' is swedish when it is apparently only 'nordic' 

In fact, I had not carefully read what you wrote and I was not pretending to answer to anything, just flaunting my etymological knowledge

Time to show my erudition 
Apparently the meaning of the word "gambit" has changed over the ages.  Coming from the greek with a K initial, some horse joint, then "gamba" in low latin as the horse pastern, become the human leg in italian ("jambe" in french. You find back the same root in the english "gambol", and not "gamble". Though, refering to gambits... ) to do somebody a "gambetto" means to trip him up.
Apparently, at the time of Greco, it just meant some strategical trick implying a material sacrifice; hence the Muzio Gambit for the bishop's sac on f4, when you would rather refer to the "X variation of the King's gambit" for the rest. 
So it seems that Wønderer was just putting himself in the etymological context when he alluded to the Rxc3 in the Dragon.

Too many things to reply to...and so little time.

But at least count me as one, Topnotch! And the digestion was so pleasant -You know I like to quote people - that I posted the extract right away onto the main french chess forum, here:
http://www.france-echecs.com/index.php?mode=showComment&art=20040421193649143

The thread is quite interesting and, since you, Teyko, declined my offer to discuss about the Hubsch, and since I am a perfectionnist, as you may have already noticed, I was obliged to have this debate, in order to prepare the next update, with other passionate people, in french though.
Anyway, many of our chess players speak english, I suppose there exists reciprocity

By the way Topnotch, one question pierces my mind : To write so well, did Yermolinsky take english literature lessons with you ?

TopNotch, thanks for your clear explanation. You must have read "Richtig Opfern" - in English "The art of sacrifice" very carefully, as my hero was the very first to write this theory of sacrificing down.
So the whole question is: how much compensation does one get for the material sacrifice?
But this question is the same for both the opening and the middlegame stage. So Wonderer was right to compare the exchange sac in the Dragon with gambits.
In this context it is interesting, to realize that Bent Larsen 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 xxx 3.d4?! (Larsen) called a cheap trick, which could be compared with gambit play ...
And no one less than Robert James Fischer was hardly more positive on the Dragon than you on the BDG ...
I can only finish with repeating that one of the entertaining features of chess, is that people disagree on opening theory.
For the sake of clarity: I do not trust the BDG.

Please please please do not mention The Dragon and BDG in the same breath....The former is a recognised and respected opening system used at the highest level with success while the latter is - how can I put this delicately - GARBAGE   

On a more serious note I wonder how many of you digested the extract I posted by Alex Yermolinsky. Clearly some of you are unable to distinguish between  Gambit play and tactical play, so let me try to elucidate:

Simply stated a gambit is the sacrifice of a small amount of material in the opening, usually a pawn or two with the idea of gaining Time Space or Force as compensation for the invested material.

Tactical play on the other hand is a bit more complex in that while a gambit may lead to tactical play, tactical play is not necessarily initiated by a gambit. For example, one of you I think it was Wanderer,  compared the exchange Sac in the dragon to that of a gambit. Such reasoning is simply incorrect on many levels, allow me to explain:

A) The exchange sacrifice in the dragon is primarily a middlegame device, which black may or may not employ depending on circumstances. Gambits refer mainly to Openings and the early sacrifice of pawns, in most cases for gain of time. Some schools of thought state three tempi gained is worth a pawn in the opening, but this is quite a subjective rule.

B) The exchange sacrifice and similar such positional sacrifices rely primarily on structural compensation i.e the wrecking of the opponents pawn structure and sometimes Kings position, as opposed to Time Space or force.

Every player has to decide for himself the viability of his or her repertoire, Gambit or otherwise, and it is necessary to be objective.

Before I go further let me clarify another point. I never said all gambits are bad. On the contrary some gambits are quite promising, especially those where the taker of the gambit has to make a concession to keep his material, and herein lies the key point. 

Gambits such as the BDG do not force black to make any real concessions to keep his material, and for this precise reason is why it is suspect. For instance in The Catalan Opening white routinely gambits the c-pawn, and black if he decides to accept the challenge must permanently weaken his queenside with b5.  Many Master games have shown that the Queenside weakening associated with b5 provides white with enough compensation for his pawn.....In other words he gets a lasting initiative due to black's permanently weakened Queenside.

What about the BDG, what is white's compensation:

A) It isn't 'SPACE' since black is hardly cramped and has an equal share of the board.

B) It isnt 'Force' since you aren't winning any material, rather the contrary

C) That leaves 'TIME' and sure enough white does gain time in the BDG but time in chess is not a permanent advantage and usually needs to be combined with some other element such as listed in A) and B) above to be effective. In the absence of real compensation a 'Time' advantage usually evaporates the opponent consolidates his extra pawn and wins the endgame.       

For those of you who are not sure what I mean by 'TIME'
I offer the following definition:

Time in chess refers to how fast you develop your pieces in relation to your opponent i.e If you have developed 4 pieces to your opponents one, that is considered a gain in time.

Moving on, Gambits that do not force concrete concessions on the opponent and rely mainly on Time as compensation are not to be trusted.

I realise that as I write this I probably will fail to convince many of you as to the truth of what I say. People once set in their ways usually resist change unless something drastic happens to alter their philosophy.

No doubt Gambit Openings are an important part of a players tactical chess development. Beginners by playing and studying gambits begin to aquire a tactical awareness for the game and soon learn that the numeric value of the pieces such as 1 point for a pawn and 9 points for a Queen are not static values but vary dramatically dependant on the dynamics of the pieces and position. 

The danger comes for the aspiring player when he fails to recognise that there is more to Opening play than gambits. As GM John Emms put it, there comes a time when every chessplayer needs to put aside his Baby Openings and play Adult chess  

Do not get me wrong, as a surprise weapon some of these suspect gambits could prove dangerous as Teyko pointed out with his e.g of GM Mikhail Gurevich declining the BDG pawn. However if you make them your bread and butter, then you do yourself a disservice. Furthermore surprised GM's and IM's often decline suspect gambits against weaker opposition with the intention of avoiding complications and relying instead on superior technique to win. See the following e.g where white, a strong IM refused to take up the challenge against another crappy gambit and instead chose to tranpose into a harmless line of the exchange Caro Kann and won anyway .....Are we to conclude by Sznapik's refusal of the gambit  that it was good, or was it more a case of a surprised IM making a practical decision over the board. You decide:

[Event "Novi Sad ol (Men)"]
[Site "Novi Sad"]
[Date "1990.11.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Sznapik,Aleksander"]
[Black "Karadag,Cem"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B13"]
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 c6 3.d4 cxd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4 Bg4 7.Qb3 Qb6 8.Nd2 Qxb3 9.axb3 Nd7 10.Ngf3 f6 11.Bb5 Kf7 12.0-0 g5 13.Bg3 h5 14.h3 Bf5 15.Rfe1 Bh6 16.Nf1 a6 17.Be2 e6 18.b4 b5 19.N3d2 Bg6 20.Nb3 Rhe8 21.Na5 Nxa5 22.Rxa5 Nb6 23.Rea1 Na4 24.Nd2 h4 
25.Bh2 Rec8 26.Nb3 Bf8 27.Nc5 Bxc5 28.bxc5 Bc2 29.Bd6 Bb3 30.Ra3 Bc2 31.b4 Ke8 32.Kf1 Kd8 
33.Ke1 Be4 34.f3 Bg6 35.Kd2 Be8 36.Bd3 Bc6 37.Kc2 Kd7 38.R3xa4 bxa4 39.Bxa6 Rg8 40.Kb2 f5 41.Be5 Ke7 42.Bc7 g4 43.fxg4 fxg4 44.b5 Rxa6 45.bxa6 gxh3 46.gxh3 Kd7 47.Be5 Rg2+ 48.Kb1 Rg1+ 49.Kc2 Rg2+ 50.Kd3 Ra2 51.a7 Ba8 52.Ra6 Ra1 53.c6+ Bxc6 54.Rxc6  1-0

Alrighty then, time to bring this long post to an end by saying by all means have fun experimenting with your gambits but do not limit yourself to them.

Till next time remember the three elements by which all Gambit Openings are measured TIME, SPACE and FORCE. A thorough understanding of these three will serve you well in all your future chess battles.

Top                   

While yes as pointed out by many people 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 Nf6 4. e5  is a "good-old" Alapin Sicilian usually reached after 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4, but I'd rather learn a really good line against the Smith-Morra so that rather than ending up in a rather boring line that I don't normally play anyway (I prefer 2...d5 against the Alapin), I find that if you know the theory you can really annoy a Smith-Morra player.

Grandmasters seem to 1) prefer gambits in closed opening, Volga/Benko, Catalan with d5xc4, KID Sämisch with c7-c5, even the Ruy is a closed opening really despite 1.e4 e5, at least the main lines. and 2) give up the material a few moves later when development is almost finished or at least very predictable.

I wouldn't give TopNotch too much credit though, if you claim all gambits are bad you're bound to be right some time... 
Personally, I wouldn't want either side of a BDG or a Latvian, as I don't believe they are sound enough to play - but on the other hand, I'm far too lazy to study them enough to say they're refuted! (Especially since I don't play either 1.d4 *d5* or 1.e4 e5 *2.Nf3*) 


Finally, I must say that this whole thread is quite strange. If I was a member I would certainly object to a steady BDG coloumn, as would certainly every other member who wasn't a BDG fan.

Anyway, a further problem with the steady BDG idea, would be to find a GM who actually found it worth looking into and writing about. Otherwise, every issue would have a BDG section a la Nigel Davies 

(For example: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 [2.e4? (You should play 2.c4 or 2.Nf3.)] 2...g6 3.Nc3 d5! etc)


If the monthly update of each section dealt with the last month's important new games for that section, instead of just one opening article per month, I might be tempted to subscribe to a couple of the sections...

Found a transcript on the net, of TopNotch discussing with his trainer...   

http://www.chesscafe.com/mcgrew/mcgrew.htm

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>

One whole update is not good enough for us BDG Nuts!!!      8)  (Especially when all coverage is of the Lemberger...)

I think the initial suggestion of one game per month (not much at all) is a valid one and I would certainly appreciate it.  Just because most people may believe the gambit to be bad doesn't mean players will stop playing it!   

One game per month is a great idea.    That leaves room for about 5-9 other games, depending on how much more GM Prie adds to the update.   

NeX iRae

As I play this opening from neither side of the board, I can't say it would really bother me. However, I think it would take away from other openings if a whole section EACH MONTH were devoted to the BDG, especially when, as you yourself said, it is not that popular on this site (or, for that matter, in OTB chess). Therefore, my suggestion would be that if you and others interested in the lines of the BDG (from either side), then perhaps you could come up with a list of lines that you feel need further attention/analysis and that way Eric Prie could perhaps analyze them all in one months update so that it would not take too much attention away from other, more popular openings. 

In addition, perhaps you or ChessPublishing.com could see if it would be possible to enlist someone like Tim Sawyer, or another expert on the BDG to do a "freelance assignment" for ChessPub and perhaps do an update that would be released over a period of 1-3 months under the "D-pawn specials" section and would exclusively cover the BDG. While I know this would certainly cost ChessPublishing money to hire in such an expert, there are enough BDG fanatics out there that such a project could be used to publicize ChessPublishing.com and get more people to subscribe.

Those are my thoughts and while I certainly think one line per month is a bit over the top, I do certainly think the BDG deserves some coverage.