Still no word on the Alchemy Variation. I hurts and I believe that I may give up the Blackmar Diemar Gambit because it is evident that it is busted.

Come on I am just playing. Just wondered if patrik posted yet.

Quote:


Well in my 7..Be6 we cannot capture the rook obviously but that was not the purpose. The most defensive systems I suggest are based on keeping the pawn while we have a nice position. Well this variation must be cursed as in the three previous posts no one was able to write it correctly   7..Be4?!

Now if in your original post you meant 7..Be6 8.g5 I did not understand it as Nd5 with Be6 has 3/3 different letters  In that case 8..Nd5 9.Ne4 Nbd7 black is ok and can even develop like Qc7, g6, Bg7 or in the usual way

I think you mean 7..Be4?! (my evaluation) and not 7..Nd5?? well 7..Be4?! is dubious cause I see no reason trading our beautiful bishop for that knight. After playing 6..c6 my intention was after 7.g4 Be6, something that after 6..e6 was not possible. I think 7..Be6 is just perfect for this position where white's attack on the king side at this stage does not promise a lot. Notice that if we are forced to exchange our bishop with a knight then we could & should place our bishop on d5, meeting Nxd5 with cxd5. Now in the position that came up we have a semi-closed center where knights are better than bishops and we have every right for a minority attack. I am not sure though if the king-side attack (as a response to the minority attack) would be as strong as usual cause of the lack of the f2 pawn. On one hand, the rook has an immediate access to the attacking area but on the other hand white's king has absolutely no protection, after the typical way of attacking in such situations. Now as 8.g5? (my evaluation also) no matter how hard I tried I wasn't able to find even an idea that would give 8.g5 a reason to be played. 8..Bxh1 9.gxf6 exf6 is excellent for black.

PS I got the variation corrected by the way (Be4 instead of Be5)

This seems to be the best response after 5..Bf5 6.Ne5 as being attacked is not what a BDG player (or general a gambiter) would like in a game. But I would prefer 6..c6 returning to the very solid formation of the Ziegler defense we talked some posts ago.

Actually after checking some ideas and variations on this forum I started changing my mind and I started to believe that the following defense, unfortunately I do not remember who proposed it first, is much more dynamic than the ziegler. After 1.d5 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5!? is far from interesting. After 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 white's lead in development should not be a satisfactory compensation for the pawn.

An example:   
7..c6 8.O-O e6 9.Bg5 Nbd7 10.Rae1 Be7 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Rxe4 Nf6 14.Re5 O-O 15.Ng5 Rfd8 16.c3 h6 17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Qxe4
Rd5

Also 6..Bg6 must be a very good defensive move as I believe that the white bishop is the most dangerous attacking piece. So we can place the bishop on g6, develop a little and when the opposing knight comes on f4 exchange our bishop with the bishop on d3. Bxg6, hxg6 should not be a problem as usual. The main variation that made me really like this variation is:

6.Bc4 Nbd7 7.O-O e6 8. Ne2 Bd6 and black is ready to castle holding the option of either c6 or c5

If 8.Ng5 then 8..Nb6 9.Bb3 Bg6 10.Ne2 c5 11.c3 Bd6

Dear Friends,
      
Alchemy line 8.Ng5 Bxc2?!

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.0–0 e6 8.Ng5 Bxc2 9.Nxf7!! Kxf7 [9...Bxd1 10.Nxd8 Kxd8 11.Rxd1 Nd5 12.Re1+/=] 10.Qe2!? Qd7 [10...Qd6?! 11.Bf4 Qxd4+ 12.Kh1 Bf5 13.Rad1 Qc5 14.Bxb8 Rxb8 15.b4 Qe7 16.Rxf5 b5 17.Bb3+/-; 10...Ke8! 11.Qxe6+ with compensation, but maybe not enough?] 11.Qxc2!? Qxd4+ 12.Be3 Qxe3+ [12...Qxc4 13.Rf4 Qxf4 (13...Qa6 14.Ra4 Qxa4 15.Qxa4+-) 14.Bxf4 Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Nbd7 16.Ne4! Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Nf6 (17...Rhe8 18.Qxh7+-) 18.Qe5 Bb6 19.Bg5 Rhf8 20.Rf1±] 13.Kh1 Ke8 

[a) 13...Be7 14.Rae1 Qc5 15.Qe2+-; 
b) 13...Bd6 14.Rae1 (or 14.Ne4!? an ingenious idea of Michael Tzanidakis 14...Be5 (14...Ke7 15.Nxf6 gxf6 16.Rae1±) 15.Rae1 Qh6 16.g4 with attack) Qh6 15.Bxe6+ Kf8 16.g4 with compensation; 
c) 13...b5 14.Rae1 Qc5 (14...Qxe1 15.Rxe1 bxc4 16.Ne4 Nbd7 17.Ng5++-) 15.Bxe6+ Ke8 16.b4! Qb6 17.Rxf6 gxf6 18.Nd5 Qd4 19.Nc7+ Kd8 20.Nxb5+/-] 

14.Rae1 Qg5 (14...Qc5 15.Rxe6+ Kd8 16.Ne4 Qh5 17.Nxf6 gxf6 18.Qd2+ Kc8 19.Rexf6±) 15.Rxe6+ Kd8 16.Ne4 Qg4 17.Nxf6 gxf6 18.Rexf6 Be7 19.Rf7 Re8 20.Qd2+ +- 

So after 10.Qe2?! black can strike back with Ke8! where the game is roughly equal. 

Much better is simple

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.0–0 e6 8.Ng5 Bxc2 9.Nxf7!! (Mr. Tzanidakis and Mr. Rajmund Emanuel idea, I was really surprised when Mr. Rajmund Emanuel suggested me this move and some two days later Mr. Tzanidakis found the same move too; an evidence of synchronicity of ideas)  Kxf7 10.Qxc2!! and believe or not, black is lost Qxd4+ 11.Be3! Qxe3+ 12.Kh1 and now the game transposes into 10.Qe2?! line, where black missed his only opportunity to survive Ke8! 


Teyko analysed
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 dxe4 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 c6  6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Ne5 e6 8. O-O Bxc2 9. Nxf7 Kxf7 10. Bxe6+!? Interesting possibility, but it doesn´t give enough Kxe6 11. Qxc2 Kd7! (Qxd4? is weak) 12. Bg5 Kc8 13. d5 Bd6 14. Kh1 etc. The main problem of this line is 12..Be7! and black position holds. Or even 13..Qb6+!? 14.Kh1 Be7!  looks promising for black. Yet still there are a lot of lines where white can get his usual () +-  in this double-sacrificing variation.   


Inn2 wrote: „Teyko can you please answer 8... Bg6 (rather than 8... Bxc2) as well?“. 

Yes, now, when we managed with 8..Bxc2 line, there is plenty of space and time to manage also with 8..Bg6 line.   

Tracke wrote: „While 10...Be7 is still simply good for black I agree with Michael Tzanidakis that 8...Bxc2 9.Nxf7! (instead of 9...Qe2?) transposing to the double piece sac is critical and most likely sufficient for white. So Black should play 8.Ng5 Bg6 as Bonsai and Inn2 claimed and we are waiting for your new analysis. Afterwards you may refute O´Kelly ?!“

Yes, we can possibly refute O´Kelly The most critical line now is this 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 dxe4 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 c6  6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Ne5 e6 8. O-O Bg6. Let´s give it a shot! 

And your try 8.Ng5 Bg4?! 9.Nxf7 Qe7 10.Rxf6 Bxd1 11.Rxe6 Kxf7 12.Rxe7++ Kxe7 13.Nxd1 Kd7 =+ is o.k. but better is 13.Bg5+!?N Kd7 14.Rxd1 and engines give small advantage to white though the position is not clear for me. White has lead in development, much more active pieces and a pawn for an exchange. But propably white cannot either win nor lose. Still, 9.Qd3 should be O.K.

Bonsai wrote: „but as Michael points out after 8...Bxc2 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 white doesn't have to sacrifice another piece and can get a really promising position with 10.Qxc2. So I guess BDG supporters now just need to find something against 8...Bg6.“

Yes, exactly!

When I first revived this thread I only focused on 8... Bg6. 

It seems there is still no satisfactory answer to this move after a week. 

Since the alchemy has lost its magic can I say the BDG is busted?