For the record, US master titles are based on a (minimum) rating of 2200.  Last I was aware of the statistics, the FIDE and USCF ratings curves coincided/crossed at that level.  That is, USCF 2200 = FIDE 2200, although on average (over the whole range of ratings) USCF was about 40 points higher than FIDE.

Yet you post one of my 5 minute games? Oh no you don't, Top-Notch. I'm going to post one of my games where I beat a titled player anyway.

Yeah, "lambchopsrulz" is pretty original. As for my game with Mr. Sarwat, I'll return to it later. I probably made a mistake there, somewhere. However, I can post plenty of blitz BDG games where I beat titled players. 

I will have to post these games another time, as I have a doctor's appointment in New York today.

Just thought I would add some balance.  

[Event ICC ]
[Site Internet Chess Club]
[Date 2007.04.16]
[White Zilbermints]
[Black W-Sarwat]
[WhiteElo 2245]
[BlackElo 2274]
[Opening Blackmar gambit]
[ECO D00]
[TimeControl 5Min]
[Result 0-1]
[ICCResult White resigns]

1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 c6
8. g4 e6 9. g5 Nd5 10. Bd3 Bb4 11. O-O O-O 12. Ne4 Nd7 13. h4 e5 14. c3 Be7
15. Qh5 g6 16. Qh6 exd4 17. h5 dxc3 18. hxg6 fxg6 19. Nf6+ N7xf6 20. gxf6
Rxf6 21. Rxf6 Bxf6 22. Bc4 cxb2 23. Bxb2 Bxb2 24. Rf1 Qb6+ 25. Kh1 Qd4 26.
Rf4 Qd1+ 27. Kg2 Be5 28. Rf3 Qc2+ 29. Rf2 Qxc4 {White resigns} 0-1

Looks like the BDG isn't a forced win after all, not even in blitz. 

Toppy

Another thought: if White has to spend a tempo (8.a3) on protecting Bd3 anyway, it may be a good idea to force a concession from Black in return. There are two tries.
The first is 7.Bb5+
a) my first thought was just 7...Nc6 anyway, but 8.0-0 Bd7 9.d5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Qxd5 0-0 12.Rad1 Be6 13.Qe4 looks fine for White; despite Arkhein's remarks White still has a clear lead in development and once again h7 is vulnerable. But why not 8...0-0!? Fritz thinks White is OK after 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Ne5 Bb7, but I am not impressed.
b) 7...c6 8.Bd3 and White chuckles. That may turn into annoyance after 8...Nbd7 9.0-0 c5. Of course 9.Qd2 is possible, but then again: why not 7.Qd2 at once?
c) 7...Bd7 8.Qe2 a6 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.0-0 Nb4 and White's compensation is questionable.

The second idea is 7.Bc4. This is not the optimal square for the bishop, sure, but it is not a bad square either. I have found two otb games with relatively strong players behind the black pieces; in both happened 7...0-0 8.0-0 and both were won by Black.
a) 8...a6 9.Qe2 b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Rad1 Nbd7 12.a3 c5 13.dxc5 Bxc5+ 14.Kh1 Qc7 15.Bxf6 Nxf6 16.Ng5 Be7 17.Rxf6 Bxf6 18.Nxh7 Rfd8 19.Rf1 Qe5 Stoessel-Karr, FRAchT 1999. There is no need to look at this game in detail, as 9.Qe1 is an obvious improvement:
a1) 9...b5 10.Bd3 Bb7 11.Qh4 h6 12.Bxh6 1-0.
a2) 9...Nc6 10.Rd1 b5 11.d5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Bxg5 13.Nb6 Qxd1 14.Qxd1 Be3+ 15.Kh1 Bxb6 16.Bd3 and White is OK (ie a little more than Black is OK).
b) 8...Nc6 9.Qd2 (but once again - 7.Qd2) Na5 10.Bd3 b6 11.Qf4 g6 12.Qh4 Nc6 Herges-Grabarczyk, GER 2005, and White missed 13.Rae1 Nh5 (Bb7 14.Ne5) 14.Ne4 Bxg5 15.Nexg5 Bb7 16.g4 Nf6 17.c3 h5 (ugh) 18.Bxg6 fxg6 19.Nxe6 Qd7 20.Qg5 and White is close to winning. That is not the end of the story though - 8...Nc6 9.Qd2 a6 is much more challenging:
b1) 10.a4 (huh?) b6 11.Rad1 Bb7 12.Qf4 Nb4 13.Qh4 h6 and for once 14.Bxh6 is bad.
b2) 10.Qf4 Nh5 and White has nothing to show for his pawn.
b3) 10.Qf2 h6 (but not b5 11.Bd3 h6 12.Bxh6!) and again White is one tempo short for 11.Bxh6.

I guess you get my point. If White has to play x.Qd2 so often, it is best not to commit his bishop yet and play 7.Qd2 at once.

Quote:


Here we go with the "coward" nonsense again. 9...c6 is not "cowardly", it's a good chess move. This isn't a test of how big black's "cojones" are, it's about winning a game, or finding the truth about a line, whichever you prefer. For me, if I knew my opponent played this junk, I would whip out 9...c6 in a second - I don't care what most people play, I just need to know what I'd play, and how I'd deal with it. The fact remains, whatever the practical chances of the opening are, that it will not stand up to a rigorous scrutiny of this line.

8.a3 is an interesting idea, as I remember we had quite a debate on it before. I must say that I agree with MNb (not for the first time), in that 8.a3 just feels wrong - and both of us are quite experienced gambiteers, so it's not like it's a patzerish observation. Of course, talking in general about these things is just as bad as calling a move "cowardly" because you can't refute it, I will take a look when I arrive home from work. I personally play the BDG from time to time, so I have no reason to "bash" the gambit, I just want to ascertain the truth, which I personally feel to be =/+ or -/+; practical chances aside (I personally enjoyed the earlier reference to this being similar to going all in with a 2-7 in poker), I don't believe white has enough for a pawn against precise play. No doubt, if black is imprecise, then white's play can be deadly - the same can be said about openings like the Danish, Morra, to which I would compare this gambit; no better, no worse. All are probably not 100% sound against correct play.

Gambit wrote on 09/10/07 at 23:14:12:

I did and as always I did not find Black's defense convincing. Not that I know a good one. But I do not play hope chess, so I do not assume that my opponent will castle kingside and allow me to finish him off with a well known sacrifice. You see, my opponents very seldom fall for tricks like that.
I have also looked at

Bocanegro Moreno-Hofstetter, EM/CL/Q18-1 2002
and especially Baptista-Lima, Lisbon 2002.
This is an interesting one, as Black may castle kingside anyway: 8.a3 h6 9.Bf4 0-0 10.Qd2 Ne8!! 11.0-0-0 (as 11.Bxh6 does not work) a6 12.d5 exd5 13.Nxd5 and Black went on to win, though White may have enough compensation here. Black can try 11...Bd6 instead.

Bibs, Khalifman's remark on players harming themselves is only true for titled players, which is about 1% of the chesspopulation.  Your remark on BDG-players not becoming good is essentially a chicken/egg question.
I have paid attention to the Ruy Lopez the last 25 years and I am not a BDG-player, but still will not become good. Neither will you, depending on the standards you set (GM?). So could you next time provide something constructive like a convincing refutation of 8.a3 ? Gambit, Arkhein and I are old enough to decide for ourselves how to waste our chesslives. Thank you.

MNb wrote on 09/10/07 at 22:44:06:


Ideally, yes, that should be the case. However, this is no utopia, and to err is human. Plenty of games available in which Black castled kingside.

Leisebein - Schulz, correspondence, Germany 2004, 1-0/13
Lutz Faber - Peter Gross, corr., Germany 2004, 1-0/23 
Lank - Bilsel, correspondence, BDG thematic, 1998, 1-0/16
Sawyer - Voelker, corr., email, BDG thematic, 1998, 1-0/34
Antonio Costa - Gian De Lorenzo, ICCF corr., 1999, 1-0/37

There are more games, but you get the idea.

There are also games where Black Castles Queenside or keeps the king in the center.

Leisebein - Huber, corr. 2001,    1-0/26
Bosman - Hordjik, Utrecht 2001, 1-0/50

Go ahead and look at these games.