Quote:


While I appreciate the sentiment, take in mind that I would still play the gambit in a heart beat. I merely said that for my own personal development I have decided to expand my repertoire, I can best explain it like this. 

Out of all the people at my chess club, a 1922 always declines it with the Schmid Benoni because he gets slaughtered in the main lines. A 2000 player plays the Zeigler and spends every week finding new moves to play because of his defeats the week before, a 2190 always declines it with the Weinbasch defense, and the higher players that have accepted it have lost or drawn.
I am not changing because of my results, merely because I want to understand more about chess than just this system. It is still perfectly playable. 

Thanks everyone for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions and sharing your insight with me.

I'm changing my entire opening repertoire to gambits. I've spent years playing the KIA/Stonewall attack/Pirc/KID and want something different - - something more open, aggressive and tactical. I was originally very excited when I discovered the BDG but now my enthusiasm is starting to subside. 

Now, after reading the various threads and "listening" to your comments and explanations, I'm trying to decide if I should rethink my gambit choices before I spend too much time learning the BDG and the various variations (especially since Teyko has changed)    .    Teyko, if you have changed from the BDG that is something to certainly consider!! 

I previously looked into the Danish but I had to also be prepared to face the Sicilian (which I got more often than the Danish) and the other various black responses (french, caro-kann, etc). This is why I was looking for something besides the Danish when I “found” the BDG. I want something where I will have the initiative and I can be the aggressor right from the start of the game. Hmmmm……….Maybe I should just stick to the Danish? Any suggestions?

Thanks again!

What is wrong with trying to prove, that a dubious gambit like the BDG can be refuted? Nothing.
What is wrong with trying to prove, that a dubious gambit like the BDG is still playable? Nothing either.

#1 True, but also true for say the Yugoslav Dragon with Qa5, the Najdorf or any other sharp double edged opening. Sooner or later some opponent will try to outprepare you.

#2 I always read, that it benefits your understanding, if you do analytical work for yourself. So if you have to make your own theory in trouble-variations, that is a good reason to stick to that opening. It has the additional plus, that one might surprise an opponent, who thinks to get an opening advantage thanks to his preparation.

#3 It is my belief, that one must change openings, when there is not faith left. As long as the results are good and you enjoy playing it, I do not see much reason to get rid of an opening. This is independent on the level you play. 

#4 White can choose very sharp variations in the Queen's Gambit. BDG'ers are mostly attacking players; if the BDG or the Danish or the Morra is not trustworthy anymore, there are enough interesting options left.

#5 It is true, though, that even gambit addicts should not develop a one-sided style. There are more ways to conduct a king's attack than giving up a pawn at move 3.

The only choice I regret, is that I did not pick up the Iljin-Zjenevsky 10years earlier. I have had a lot of fun with the Danish, the Morra, the Benkö and the Jänisch-Schliemann and that is what counts for me.

There are a couple of good reasons to change openings.
A. The resulting positions do not suit you. I have tried the Botvinnik system in the English a few times, but it is not my cup of tea.
B. One gets bored of getting the same type of positions every time. That is the reason I abandoned the Benkö. When I returned to it occasionally later, my results were disastrous.
C. One finds a trouble-line and is not able to repair it. That happened to the Albin's.
D. One wants to try another interesting opening. For this reason I played the Noteboom for a short time - until I learned, that the IZ is even more fun.

I really do not like the argument "as long as I have not reached 2200 I can afford to play the BDG, as most opponents are not capable of finding the good defending moves." You must play an opening, because you think it is objectively good and because you enjoy it.

What is wrong with trying to prove, that a dubious gambit like the BDG can be refuted? Nothing.
What is wrong with trying to prove, that a dubious gambit like the BDG is still playable? Nothing either.

#1 True, but also true for say the Yugoslav Dragon with Qa5, the Najdorf or any other sharp double edged opening. Sooner or later some opponent will try to outprepare you.

#2 I always read, that it benefits your understanding, if you do analytical work for yourself. So if you have to make your own theory in trouble-variations, that is a good reason to stick to that opening. It has the additional plus, that one might surprise an opponent, who thinks to get an opening advantage thanks to his preparation.

#3 It is my belief, that one must change openings, when there is not faith left. As long as the results are good and you enjoy playing it, I do not see much reason to get rid of an opening. This is independent on the level you play. 

#4 White can choose very sharp variations in the Queen's Gambit. BDG'ers are mostly attacking players; if the BDG or the Danish or the Morra is not trustworthy anymore, there are enough interesting options left.

#5 It is true, though, that even gambit addicts should not develop a one-sided style. There are more ways to conduct a king's attack than giving up a pawn at move 3.

The only choice I regret, is that I did not pick up the Iljin-Zjenevsky 10years earlier. I have had a lot of fun with the Danish, the Morra, the Benkö and the Jänisch-Schliemann and that is what counts for me.

There are a couple of good reasons to change openings.
A. The resulting positions do not suit you. I have tried the Botvinnik system in the English a few times, but it is not my cup of tea.
B. One gets bored of getting the same type of positions every time. That is the reason I abandoned the Benkö. When I returned to it occasionally later, my results were disastrous.
C. One finds a trouble-line and is not able to repair it. That happened to the Albin's.
D. One wants to try another interesting opening. For this reason I played the Noteboom for a short time - until I learned, that the IZ is even more fun.

I really do not like the argument "as long as I have not reached 2200 I can afford to play the BDG, as most opponents are not capable of finding the good defending moves." You must play an opening, because you think it is objectively good and because you enjoy it.

I would say that the BDG can be a terrific weapon in otb club play at class-c or class-b. I played it from my very first evening in a chess-club, and continued playing nothing but BDG with white until I stopped some 5 years later. I had a terrific score with 80% as white, whenever the game had entered the BDG.

Today I tend to dislike it, and wouldn't recommend it without some disclaimers.

#1: The opening has its trouble-variations, and when your clubmates figure out that you play the BDG they will go look it up(at least the younger ones will). And they will play the problematic variations against you every single time, where you perhaps are a pawn down with questionable compensation.

#2: Because really strong players don't play this opening, you have to make the theory yourself in those trouble-variations. It's somewhat nice to be able to figure out where you went wrong, as you can with more "respectable" openings, that has an abundance of good books written about it, with games between grandmasters and world-champions. 

#3: As you work yourself up towards master-level, your results will decline. It's not like you can say "I'll play this until I'm rated 1900, and then change" (Well... I used to say that). The poor results will show earlier. As 1600 I was the killer of 1300-1600 players, but didn't get much from the opening against those rated higher than me. (I should have changed my white openings earlier!)

#4: Going from a white repertoire with BDG to one with...say... the queens gambit, means that you have to discard EVERYTHING, and start over from scratch. So there you are... rated 1900, playing the queens gambit for the first time, against an opponent rated 1900 who has played it all his life. That sucks.

#5: There are a danger that you will become a bit of a "system player", like those boring dudes who play the Colle all their lives. You will soon pick up some attacking patterns against h7, typical maneuvers, etc., and generally kick some butt with them. But there are a lot of other aspects of chess that you will NOT learn. Thus when you are in unknown waters and can't apply your tricks anymore, you will suck. (Or to say it nicer: You will not become an all-round player
 
These are my warnings against the BDG. I don't regret that I had it on my repertoire, because it taught me about tactics, king safety, and compensation for material, but I regret that I didn't stop playing it sooner.

(BTW: When I face it as black, I transpose to the french)

Thanks Teyko and M.NB. That is what I was looking for. I just wanted to have an idea which variations were most popular in orde to prepare for them and I'll work on other variations as time goes on. 

On a related note I have a general question which may cause a lively discussion:

I've been looking thru previous threads on this forum and it seems to me (a newbie) there is a lot of “ill-will” towards the BDG. It seems there is this overwhelming urge or necessity to tear-down or “prove” the deficiencies of this opening. Granted the BDG may not work if I’m playing anyone at master level or above but then I don’t think I could win against master-level expertise if I were playing the Lopez, Sicilian, Queen’s Gambit or any other opening that is currently in vogue.   

Does this mean the BDG doesn’t have possibilities OTB at the club level where we do not have days to work out moves or computers to assist us? Any opening that causes the opponent to be on the defensive and has many traps and pitfalls should be playable (and even desirable) to the class level community. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything -- I’m just curious why the BDG is given such a bad name. Is it any worse than the Danish? 

If I come out of the opening in an even position is that really such a bad thing? There are variations in the Danish (as an example) where black can achieve equality and maybe even a plus but the tactics are there and the possibilities for mistakes by black are many.  This appears to be the case with the BDG also. In my experience with the Danish I get the attacking games I want more-often than the equal games and in the off-chance that I get an even game with one opponent I will still take the seven or eight games where I get the unbalanced positions so I can use my tactical ability and familiarity with the opening to apply constant pressure (and hopefully create some chaos) and one misstep by black is all it takes for white to win.   

Am I missing something? Is this really such a bad opening and I should stick with the Danish??? What causes the strong feelings against the BDG?

Thanks for your comments.

If you are just starting out, I would recommend that you try to learn systems instead of just finding out which moves are more likely to be played.

The BDG is complicated and takes a sharp tactical eye and nerves of steel. 

The Euwe Variation, the Hubsch and the Tiechmann with Bg4  are what I most encounter.