I recently registered on this forum and was both pleased and astonished to see the ongoing and, at times, heated debate about the merits of the Belgrade Gambit. As something of a specialist in this gambit, I want to give my own opinion on both the gambit itself and a lot that has been written about it.
I started playing the Belgrade back in 1994. Before then, I had spent a decade trying virtually everything against 1...e5, with mixed results. The Vienna Game, the Ruy Lopez, the Ourosoff Gambit, 3.Bc4, I studied them all and tried them out, all with varying success. For two years I became pre-occupied with the Kings Gambit and even became known as a bit of an expert on this opening, but I began to see many holes in it. When I lost an important game in the line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 h5!? and afterwards couldn't find a good way to answer this move, then saw the game widely published, it was time to give it up.
Then I started looking seriously at the Belgrade and have played it ever since. My results? I have lived in various African countries for the past ten years so I don't play much otb chess, except for meaningless blitz games on the ICC, but in e-mail chess I have played the BG 29 times (nine times with Black), often against 2200+ opposition, scoring 19 wins, 8 draws and 1 loss. My e-mail rating is 2290 in all games, with the Belgrade it works out at about 2400.
The Belgrade introduces a rich diversity of positions, depending on how Black plays. The game can become a tactical slugfest or a complex strategical struggle and often leads to fascinating endgames. I do not believe that White can force a clear advantage in many of the main lines but there is scope to play for a win in every one of them. Ultimately, in the postions which arise, the player with the better understanding is likely to come off better and that, I believe, is how a good chess game should be settled. I lost one game in ths gambit, with White, because my opponent played better than me, not because the opening was wrong, though his choice of defence was very good. Like Bruce Monson, I relish playing the Black side and often win, again because I understand what I am doing.
I play this gambit not because it is a gambit, but because I have found, by long trial and error, that it suits my style of play and gives me better winning chances against 1..e5 than anything else I have tried. There is nothing 'dicey' or 'speculative' about it, because White has clear plans against different replies and there is no need to look for 'cheapos'. As for the fact that 4..Bb4 is a good alternative, that's rather dodging the argument, but White also has good prospects of an advantage anyway.
I think the weatlth of analysis and debate on this site settles the argument anyway! I have enjoyed reading all the contributions and look forward to more.Meanwhile, I'll keep playing the Belgrade with the help of all this extra analysis!
John Toscano
Lome
Togo