Hey micheal here is what I came up with for the double sac line in the ziegler.

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+ Kxe6 11. Qxc2 Kd7 12. Bg5 Kc8 13. d5 Bd6 14. Kh1 Be5 15. Qf5+ Nbd7 16. Rac1 Re8 17.Ne4 Qc7 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Rfd1 Re5 20. Qxh7 Nf8 21. Qh3+ Kb8 22. dxc6 bxc6 23.Nd6 a5 {The move advocated by Tzanidakis.} 24. Qb3+ Ka7 25. Qf3 Rd8 26. Rxc6 Qxd6 27. Rcxd6 Rxd6 28. Qf2+ Rb6 {This is where Tzanidakis analysis stops.} 29.Rd6 {A great move, because the queen on f2 stops the mate threat.} Reb5 30. b3 Ka6 31. Rxb6+ Rxb6 32. Qf1+ Ka7 33. Qf5 *

(30... Ng6 31. Rd7+ Ka8 32. Qc2 Ne7 33. Qe4+ Kb8 34. Rxe7 Bxe7 35. Qxe7)

(30... Be7 31. Rxb6 Rxb6 32. Qf5 Ra6 33. h4 g6 34. Qc8 )

(30... a4 31. g4 axb3 32. axb3 Rxb3 33. Qa2+ Kb8 34. Rxb6+ Rxb6 35. Qg8 Be7 36. Qxg7)

And after a short break we return to our subject with a question:

Teyko have you found a variation that leads to something more than white striving for a draw in a Queen vs a rook, a bishop and a knight in the variation you proposed 22..bxc6 23.Nd6 a5 24.Qb3+ Ka7 25.Qf3 Rd8 26.Rxc6 Qxd6 27.Rcxd6 Rxd6 28.Qf2+ Rb6 = with perpetual check?

I am really looking forward to your response as you seem to be really into this gambit.

Quote:


Well tracke you obviously have misunderstood me but that's ok with me. If you just want me to sit down and accept that move then this is simply not possible. It's not the move that according to my intuition the position is asking for. Of course you can play a dozen non-blunder moves in your 8th move like 8..Nbd7 I didn't say the opposite. I simply explained from my point of view why I would not trust this move. And if you don't want advices DO NOT POST!!! That's what we are doing here: Posting questions, opinions and answers. Also I never said that this is unplayable. It's just a bit inaccurate in my opinion. And I do not know if you wanted to be rude or not but you managed to do it! Well done, you managed to prove something with your last post!   And from now on I will simply ignore you.

Well my friend let me try to answer your questions one by one

"From a general BDG-point of view 8...Bg6 is ugly, of course, and should be punished. But at the moment I see no immediate chance for white to take advantage out of that."

If you don't mean 8..Bg4, you are mistaken my friend. 8..Bg6 (or even better 7..Bg6, without e6) is beautiful, defensive move. It protects the weak f7-square (I thought that the primary target of BDG was this square afterall), it controls the important diagonal b1-h7 and also, in the case of castling, black king will have one more defender for the weak g7 and h7-squares.

"Maybe there is a 10-move-combination somewhere in some BDG-book and that was my question"

Everysingle combination begins from inaccuracies like those I told you this move includes. So, you can collect the merits and demerits, make a plan and see for yourself if there is something you would call a refutation.

"From a general point of view you can also ask what the Ng5 will do after h6 if sacrifies do not work."

If the knight cannot be sacrificed then it will gladly retreat as it managed to cause two major weaknesses after h6. The g6 square is very weak and also the h6 square is very weak. Not bad huh?

"At the moment Bg4 defends e6 and from h5 it will defend f7"

As I told you, if we don't move the e6 pawn but we play Bg6, we do not need to protect the e6-pawn (as it is not there), eliminating attacking options, and also we protect the f7-square in-one-move Bf5-Bg6 and not in two moves as in the maneuver Bf5-g4-h5, losing time.

"Indeed 8...Bg6 may be stronger, but as my engines evaluates 8...Bg4?!  ~-0,7 on depth 15, I thought that this move shouldn´t be totally missed in our discussion. It´s not "my move" , I only suggest to consider it."

I never trust computers on planning, simply cause they cannot make plans I trust them only for checking blunders and still not completely, only 60%. Wanna check the evaluation after 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. O-O e6 8.
Ng5 Bxc2 9. Nxf7 Kxf7 10. Qxc2 Qxd4+ 11. Be3 Qxe3+ 12. Kh1 Bd6 13. Ne4! I guess it shows something like -2.25 Follow the analysis on my previous post and you'll see what I am saying. Also suggesting to consider a move is always useful but I told you I considered it and I found two problems that the 7..Bg6 or 8..Bg6 doesn't have. But that's just my opinion. You may be a risk-taker 

I don't think that I need to answer further questions. I do not check the variations on a chessboard and I do not enjoy the fact that I may miss something here.

Well I found two problems with that move. The first is that you lose time by moving your bishop on g4. You lose time because white will move his queen to a good square and you will have to move your bishop on h5, in order to protect your weak f7 square. And that won't happen with h3 my fiend You have to protect that square anyway. The other problem is that your bishop temporarily occupies the g4-square where we can place our knight in some variations.
These are just slight inaccuracies, but it is these inaccuracies that you don't want to play against gambits 

8...Bxc2 9.Nxf7! does look rather unpleasant for black. Particularly in the lines suggested by Michael Tzanidakis black certainly is the one that has to hope for a draw (looking at the white attack one even has to wonder whether black really has one or not). That's certainly not what I want when trying to refute the BDG...

As to teyko's line, I feel there have to be one or two points at which black can deviate and maybe get a reasonable (or even advantageous?!) position (e.g. 16...Rf8 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.Rfd1 Qe8!? 19.Ne4 Qh5 20.h3 Qg6 21.Qe6 Nxe4 which does seem to give a perpetual or 14...Qe8 15.Nb5!? Be5 16.Qf5 Nbd7 which might even be advantageous for black), 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.

hey teyko, it´s always nice to hear/read from you 

I do not have any problems countering the BDG, neither mentally nor theoretically nor practically! Regarding my games I have a ~85% score with Black in each blitz, rapid or tournament games. Sometimes my technique fails to convert the extra pawn and sometimes (but seldom) in blitz games I even blundered away a winning advantage and lost. In every drawn or lost game I had a huge opening advantage, so I feel quite confident.

My own choice is the O´Kelly defense (do we need a new thread?), sometimes transposing to Ziegler. This is why I´m interested in this discussion while it´s not critical for my own repertoire.

What you call emotional response is just the following:
I have a true, great and neverending love for mankind and it really makes me angry to see you refusing to improve to higher levels of chess understanding! Apart of playing BDG you might be a good guy?!
There are ways to attack you might not imagine at the moment. Look at some variations of the Closed Spanish (C92-99). Beginners never feel the power of white´s setup but white really intends to attack. And his attack (after developing and controlling the center) is much more an attack than something like the Evans gambit!
And there are many players who start with 1.d4/2.c4 not to pressure on the queen´s side but to attack, no matter if Black goes for Slav, Wolga, Grünfeld, Dutch or something else. Attacking is no question of blundering pawns!

As I have already mentioned in the "misunderstanding"-thread: I see no future for a complete analytical treatise of BDG. It´s impossible to give black a clear-cut route to a winning pawn-ending. And I really do not see a clear-cut way for White to equalize!! While white has no sufficient compensation he surely has some compensation what nobody here will deny. Of course he can pose some problems to black. But, and this is the point: master experience, master evaluations (early & generally) and statistics show that white is simply sufferring.

I didn´t suggest 10...fxe6?! to play it myself, I just wanted to critisize the level of analyzing. It´s just a natural move I totally missed. Also in some "analysis" of rajmund I get the impression that these are model games for White, strongly supported by Black!
Of course 12.Bf4 is strong, I found it myself short after posting. I´m not sure that it wins but admittedly I wouldn´t take the black side in a game.
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 ?!

But remember my words: we will always end up in unclear positions with White a pawn down where White has "some" compensation but tournament practice clearly favours Black!

Best wishes, tracke