Uggh.

And on the eleventh page, there shall be cowards and chickens.

Yeah, that will be the pitch to the publisher!  ("You call yourself GAMBIT, you bunch of cowards?!"  {a triple pun!})  Though it would probably be a good idea to get the FIDE title out the way first.    By the way, I think you'd be a great co-author!

As for the title, putting "controversial" behind the opening can't hurt.  It's got to be more appropriate for the BDG, than the Saemisch, right?    Also, adding a "Parental Advisory" warning might not be such a bad idea either.  The kids go for that.  

LOL, Smyslov Fan.  I think it's around 2820 now.  BTW, I remember recently someone in these threads comparing the "dynamic" virtues of the BDG with the innovative play of Kasparov.  Heresy!  

Maybe one day I'll write a book on this phenomena.  Perhaps it could be something like the chess equivalent of Underwood Dudley's books!    (mathematics reference)  Of course, I probably fall under the same criticism of Smyslov Fan, even though I fall more on the anti-BDG side.    Ha, especially if the thought crosses my mind about writing a book on the subject!  But if the number of threads on the BDG is any indication, people might actually buy it!    There's got to be enough material here to fill a small book already, and that just scratches the surface!

Markovich, 

I was amazed to see that this thread had broken the 2700 barrier.  It's a shame that there's no parallel between this thread and actually making 2700 elo.  In fact, I agree that the vast energy spent on these lines and the amount of personal commitment to them is so great that the BDG is actually harmful to chess.  It's a sad commentary that what John Nunn was able to dismiss in a few pages in Secrets of Practical Chess will be argued about ad nauseum here.

I tried to point this out in a light-hearted way, but it's a topic that won't die.  Anyone who challenges the religion of BDG will be subjected to ridicule and ostracization by its members.  I don't think we'll be able to save anyone here from its cult.  I say this out of sadness rather than anger because there are some truly gifted thinkers stuck here.

It's a sad commentary on chesspub that there is so much debate here about this weak gambit.  Chess is so deep, and all these people insist that it is so shallow.

They are like Creationists; faith replaces fact.  They are not playing chess; they are playing the BDG.

Thanks, MNb!

Yeah, there are so many ways that GMs offer material that it boggles the mind.  Many casual observers may not even notice that material is hanging because both players act as if nothing's happening and just increase the tension!  In fact, when GMs are playing for a prize and have to win, they often play superficially quiet games which are brimming with sacrifices just under the surface.   

And that's just the material gambits!  It's much tougher to give up positional concessions to get an interesting game, and yet we see that all the time!  Take a look at Watson's two great books, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy & Chess Strategy in Action for some concrete examples of the many sacrifices GMs make on literally a daily basis.

All that tension is wonderful for us but has also prematurely ended the careers of some great players.

Here's to you, Misha Tal, and all the magic you created (without having to resort to BDGs)!!

GM's normally play serious matchs, or to win a price in a tournament when they play a tournament, not only for fun! If I and even you Lev, were GM, playing against other GM often, for a serious match, or to win the first place of a tournament, I am sure we would forgive the BDG for a standard opening, and only play the BDG on Blitz or CC play! Below the GM class, it's still "fully" playable, but we are not GM, and we generally don't play for money, but mostly for fun, so that's not a problem. When you play for money, you think twice before playing a gambit against a very strong opponent!

Quote:


I think that Evans Gambit it's a nice gambit even at GM level! About the Latvian Gambit, it have a bad reputation, mostly at GM level, but I know there are fan of the Latvian Gambit on CC games like Leisebein is with the BDG. King's Gambit is not that much played at high level, but it's still a playable gambit at GM level.

I would had somes good gambits: The Budapest Gambit (unrefuted and very playable I think, at GM level), the From Gambit after 1.f4 (but here White could play a gambit themselve with 2.e4 transposing into the King gambit ) But surely the most respected gambit at the best level is the Marshall gambit in the Ruy Lopez, also played at 2700+ and most of White chicken out with anti-marshall with a4 or h3 (I used your term !!

You might say that if the BDG is playable in CC game, it does mean that it's not refuted yet and playable at GM level (I think that myself from a theorical point of view, but White have to play the best moves, often you can't find it over the board, making the BDG too hard to play on a normal time limit for a tournament or an important match)

And if you are an agressive player, a Gambit is not the only way to attack, the standard openings (for example 1.e4) can be very agressive without having to sacrifice a pawn. If I continue to play the BDG:
1. because it's still a surprise weapon
2. because I don't play against GM or to win the first  price of a big tournament
3. because I am an agressive player, and compensation or not, it's still an agressive repertoire
4. because it's not considered as totally sound by most, so I like to be provocative and I like when my opponent want to show me his "refutation" but at the end, could't refute it.
5. because for the moment I only play it on Blitz and CC where it's a good choice (maybe I will try it on tournament play if I am well prepared; yes it does need a lot of preparation to know the BDG well against Black's different defenses!)
6. oh and the most important, because I have a lot of fun with it, and I have a nice score with it! (still on Blitz and CC, didn't try in tournament yet, but maybe I will do in the future..)