You make some interesting points there Ben 

However the enjoyment factor that BDGeers and other gambiteers seem to relish would quickly be diminished if their victims were simply directed to this forum.

Here the victims will find salvation, indeed I am sure some already have. Especially if they cut n paste my expose on this whimsical gambit, and use it as template for future encounters.

I have faced many gambiteers over the board, and by and large they are bluffers who rely on deception to score points. What do I mean? simply this, gambiteers often enter complications without any deep analysis of the consequences in the hopes that something will just turn up.

Gambiteers often get away with murder because their opponents often decide on a course of action not based on anlaysis but fear. How many times have you heard this conversation in a post mortem: 

Gambiteer - "So why didn't you take here?" 

Patzer - "I thought about it but then you can attack me". 

Gambiteer - "Yeah, but you can do this and this and you will remain a piece up, and my attack is not enough."

Patzer - "Hey, you are absolutely right, I didn't analyse anything, the attack just looked dangerous to me, so I didn't take."

The above is an all too common scenario, the solution is as follows:

If a sacrificial attack looks scary but you can't find a win for your opponent, accept and make him prove it. If you lose, so what, you would have learned something and if you win you would have taught him a lesson.

What gambiteers fear most of all is not being feared. 

So when facing gambiteers or attacking maniacs be resolute and don't ever let em bluff you.

Top 

For those of you that missed it the first time around, here is a sage piece of writing by a guy that should know one or two things about chess.     
 
The following extract is taken from GM Alex Yermolinsky's excellent book ' The Road to Chess Improvement ': 
 
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.] 
 
Regrettably the above critique has proven to be painfully accurate time and time and time again, not only in the USA but the World over. 

Nevertheless my aim is not to convince hardcore BDGeers of the error of their ways, it is too late for them, as I doubt they would heed Kasparov himself on the matter. 

Instead I seek to influence those impressionable minds who are relatively inexperienced at chess and want to know more than anything else a systematic, reliable and sustainable way to improve their chess skills over the long term.

To those people I can tell you this much, the BDG isn't it.
 
Top            

<As far as I am concerned, the O'Kelly Defense to the BDG is used by cowards who are afraid of gambits.>
This is nonsense of course. One reason is, that 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 immediately transposes to the Von Hennig-Milner Barry Gambit Accepted. Black has avoided the deviation 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3.

Since it would seem that I in part inspired this thread, I thought I should pop in and say a few words

Sorry for not passing through before, but I have been quite busy. I am very pleased that Mr. X has ressurected my post from some time ago. In fact I updated some of the analysis, but never bothered to upload it. 

I did not bother to upload it since I considered the content their good enough, once the word spread, to dampen the enthusiasm of all but the most hardened BDGeers.    

The success of the BDG lay primarily in propaganda, as those who advocated the White side pushed their cause hard and in so doing influenced a lot amateurs to take up the cause. Few strong players ever bothered to really lay out in 'DETAIL' an antidote for this most dubious gambit, and as a result the reputation of the gambit grew and grew as inexperienced black players desperately searced for something to strike back with.

Now the market is flooded with books like Sawyers Handbook and even Gary Lane wrote something on it, probably to cash in on its appeal at amateur level. I simply got fed up of this misguided mass hysteria and in anger set out to redress the balance once and for all.

Without a doubt the O'Kelly is one of the very best ways to counter the BDG, Eric Prie's solution isnt bad either but I believe the O'Kelly is psychologicaly more frustrating for White to face. As word of the O'Kelly continues to filter out and BDGeers are forced to struggle against it more and more over the Board, I expect the gambit's appeal and popularity to fade rapidly! 

Andrew Martin also did something about destroying the BDG, if you look at his reccommendation closely you will see that in fact it actually transposes to one of the mainlines of..... u guessed it.....  the O'Kelly Defense. Now as one reader has brought to my attention, the O'Kelly also features in Kaufman's 'The Chess Advantage in Black and White'.

The word is now well and truly out there, and to be honest and frank, I doubt we will be seeing any books written about the BDG from white's point of view any time soon. Its just too hard a project.

Ironically Andrew Martin once wrote a book advocating the virtues of the BDG. Those virtues being mainly that it was fun to play, I think it is fair to say now that the thrill is gone and its black having all the fun.

On second thoughts, perhaps I am being too harsh on this gambit. I mean after all it is entirely possible that with imaginative and exact play White can equalise.

Good luck with that.

Top 

That Berger-Naumann game is quite interesting.  I'm glad you brought that game to my attention.  I am a little surprised that another high level game has been played in a BDG line like this.  The more I think about it, the more I like Naumann's 9...gxf6.  The f6 pawn serves a useful defensive role and the g8 file can sometimes be used effectively to obtain counterplay.  Surprisingly, the king seems fairly safe on the kingside.  Also, with the bishop on e7, the immediate 10...a5 is very effective, since 11.a3 is met by 11...bxa3 and white must recapture with 12.bxa3.  When the bishop is on f6, the same plan does not work as well, since the rook can recapture on a3 favorably.

Upon first impression looking at the game it seemed to me that the opening turned out very well for black, as he achieved strong counterplay after white went on the offensive with d5.  I looked at your suggested 11.Ba4.  The move blocks the a-pawn and pins the c6-pawn (with idea of a possible d5).  However, after 11...0-0, the bishop seems misplaced to me, while black can develop normally with ...Bb7, ...Nd7(-b6), etc.  Maybe this is necessary if white wants to keep the bishop and redeploy it with move c3.  Anyway, I feel fairly confident in black's counterchances in the 9...gxf6, although I need to look further at its consequences.  So far it is my impression that this is a very dynamic way for black to play that offer excellent opportunities for counterplay.  This is exactly the type of position I am looking for with the move 5...b5.

Actually after 9.Bxf6, 9...Bxf6 is the move I considered best when analyzing 8.fxe4 b4.  I think black has a slight advantage, since he has the bishop pair and white's pawn center may be more of a liability than a strength since he is missing the dark-squared bishop.  I am not looking for an outright refutation, but rather a line that gives black an edge.  After 10.Nce2, I think 10...Bh4!? deserves consideration, as it seems to be disruptive to white's development.  (For example, after 11.g3 Bf6 may be OK for black.)  However, I think the simple 10...Bb7 is best, preparing c5.  I think this position is comfortable for black, where it seems like black gets a favorable c3 sicilian (2...Nf6) type postion.  I'll post some analysis on this postion later.  I think this line is worth analyzing for black, since it seems to give black the long-term advantages associated with the ...e6 and ...b6 lines of the 2...Nf6 c3 sicilian, but without the dangerous initiative for white.

I don't have enough time to make detailed reply at the moment, but I'll make a few brief comments for now. I looked at the 5...b5!? line closer, and found a few ideas that seem to be less complicated for black.  When I have enough time, I'll post my analysis, to summarize what I believe are the key continuations.

I look at your analysis after 7.Bg5 Be7 8.fxe4 Nxe4 with 10...Kxe7.  My initial enthusiasm for this move has declined a bit.  Yes, I think you're right; 13.Qg3 seems to be a strong move.  After this, I think white's compensation is very real.  For instance the line give after 13...Qd6 14.Ne5 Rg8 15.0-0 Bb7, after 16.Rae1 I think white has a strong attack.  For instance, Nxf7 is threatened, e.g. 16...Raf8 17.Nxf7 Qxg3 18.Rxe6+ Kf7 19.Rexf6+ Ke7 20.Rf7+ +-.  Black is under a great deal of pressure here for only a pawn.  So I am beginning to agree with you that 10...Qxe7 is a better move, but I don't think black is better.  In fact, after 11.Qxg7 Qf8 12.Qxf8 Rxf8 13.bxc3 I think white slightly better, as he seems to have an easier time activating his pieces.  So black seems to have some difficulties after 8...Nxe4.

But earlier today I realized that there is no need to enter such complications with 8...Nxe4 (and especially 10...Kxe7).  Black can play 8...b4, and seems to have a very comfortable game, and the lines seem to be less complicated (and also seem to lead to advantage).  For instance, one line I was looking at was 9.e5 bxc3 10.exf6 exf6 11.Bc1 Bb4 12.Kf2 Nd7 13.Nf3 Nb6 with a comfortable game (and a pawn up!).  I'll try to put up a clearer picture of the lines later, but I think this offers a much simpler (and objectively better!) method to play for an advantage after 7.Bg5.  If this method works against 8.fxe4, then this seems to cause white problems after 7.Bg5 as then black would be calling the shots if it is unfavorable to take the pawn on e4.  

If this is the case, then white's best attempt might be 7.a3, when I think the best move is 7...exf3.  Black needs to be careful here, but I think have a found a strong method of development initiating with Nd7-b6 and with a likely ...Nd5 with sufficient preparation.  Black's key method of counterplay would be though preparation of c5 with moves like a6, Qc7, and Bb7.  Here I think the misplaced bishop on b3 allows black sufficient time to carry out this plan.  When I have the time, I'll post a more organized and detail summary of these ideas.  Unfortunately, that might be week or so later, as classes are wrapping up and I have to prepare for finals. 

Yes, you're correct; the defense is not as simple as I initially thought after 12.Nf3.  However, I don't think the root of the problem is so much 10...Kxe7, but rather 11...Kf8 (where I made a rather premature end of evaluation).  The king on f8 simply interferes with black's development.  It's important that black has counterplay even though he is a pawn up, as white still has an attack.  Looking at the position more deeply, I soon realized that e7 is actually not such a bad square for the king, with the absence of the dark square bishops.  Futhermore, it is paramount that black develop quickly to counter white's actions.  In realizing this, I came across the move 11...Nd7!  I believe this move is strong, as black has no reason to fear Qxg7 as he can aim for a favorable endgame with ...Qg8, or in some instances achieve active counterplay with ...Rg8-g2.  I believe that black can aim for counterplay via ...Qa5 (with a likely ...Qxc3), ...Rd8, ...Bb7 and at an opportune moment ...c5.  Yes, the plan may sound a bit risky, but it seems very effective!  For one, it "feels" better than 11...Kf8, and it seems to go with the counterattacking spirit with 5...b5!?  Here's a rough outline of ideas.  See what you think:

BDG O'Kelly  - 5...b5!?, 7.Bg5, 10...Kxe7 [A40]

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 b5!? 6.Bb3 e6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.fxe4 Nxe4 9.Bxe7 Nxc3 10.Qg4!? Kxe7! 11.bxc3 Nd7!? 12.Nf3 

[12.Qxg7 Qg8! 13.Qxg8 Rxg8³ with a favourable endgame] 

12...Nf6 13.Qh4

[13.Qf4 Qa5!; 13.Qxg7 Qg8!?³ (13...Rg8!?) ] 

13...Qa5! 14.0-0 Qxc3 15.Ne5 

[15.Ng5 Rd8 16.Rad1 c5 17.dxc5 (17.d5 c4; 17.Nxh7 Rxd4) 17...Qxc5+ 18.Kh1 Bb7µ] 

15...Rd8 16.Rad1 Bb7µ 17.Rd3 [17.Rf4 c5 18.Rdf1 Rxd4] 17...Qb4 18.Kh1 c5 

Of course the main weak point in black's position is the pinned knight on f6.  However, I think black can secure counterplay fast enough to counter these threats.  An interesting position!