Quote:



1.d4 d5  2. e4 dxe4  3. Nc3 Nf6  4. f3 exf3  5. Nxf3 Bf5  6. Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 8.Qf3 c6  9. g5 Nh5 10.Be3 Nd7 and if 11. Nxg6 then 11...hxg6

Sorry, while I was happy that Patrik was willing to play three, I really don't want to play even two games here at once.  However if you like, I will be happy after this game to take the Black side of 10. Nxg6 hxg6  11. Bd3.   

Or perhaps Bonsai, whose game here is finished, would like to take you up on that!

To be honest Markovich, 

I have always kept tabs on the rest of the guys and the games that have developed. I have shared correspondence with Patrik and Arkein about both of their games and told them that I will be happy to share my databases, personal analysis and engines if need be. 

I patrik's game with MnB, he has played beautifully and I really have only wanted to ask questions about the positions and thematic ideas after the result. 

In your game against Arkein I plan on being much more involved as I believe there are two or more lines that test your convictions on Nh5, and I think it serves the critical advancement of BDG theory to win your position.

As for my time, I was lecturing at SIUC from March to May and could not fully devote myself to chess, and I did not have a computer in my hotel room, which is why I probably did the work I was paid to do.

At that time, we were still discussing the Zeigler variation and I think Patrik has set himself apart in regards to his Alchemy system. I think he has seriously advanced the realms of theory in the sense that Ng5 is a serious attempt at the full point in the c6 systems. 

Arkein seems to be just as industrious in his attempts to find the truth and support the Blackmar Diemar Gambit in all its greatness. 

And I while I believe that you can play the blackmar diemar gambit against anyone in the world and come out with at least a draw, I have recently seen the need to expand my chess knowledge to include a variety of systems. Namely the french and the sicilians as I want to play the Scotch. 

The amount of work is huge, so I figured let them play their games and only intervene if asked or if the positions demand it. 

When I first started these conversations a year ago, it was me against the world. No one believed the gambit was feasible and (you: Markovich) and (GM Eric Prie) were some of my harshest critics. I actually appreciate that as it forced me to dig deep and increase my playing strength: as you know computers don't understand the Blackmar Diemar Gambit without you feeding it the moves and analyzing your combinations yourself. 

This was the case in Erics game, as I would come up with my own variations and as a human really see an unclear position. Fritz and Shredder could not help me, so I was a little insecure about playing my own moves against a "GM". 

I am saying this to say I have always been involved and interested in the advance of BDG theory. And hopefully when Eric plays me in the Hubsch I will create another novelty worth my name. 

In my opinion the BDG might be renamed as the BDTG, so how could I forget?
Thanks for your invitation to discuss the KID, but I have to reject for two reasons:
1. I do not play and have never played the KID with eiter colour.
2. My knowledge on this opening is very superficial.
So in stead of my usual well thought nonsense, you would get ill-based nonsense.
I have told you before, that you are free to ask questions and annotate before the end of the games. Concerning why Rf8 and not o-o, see the analysis of Markovich. I find it hard to believe indeed, that the manoeuvre Qd1-e1-e2 is not refuted.

It all started with Teyko, who persevered that the BDG is playable on the highest level.

Quote:


I am happy to see White's h-pawn on h2 and not h3 since if 10. Bd3 Qxd4  11. Nxg6 fxg6  12. Be3 Qh4+  13. Kd2 Nd7, next 14. Qg4 is (as you point out) unplayable.  White therefore can't discomfort Black's knight in this variation, which preserves its ambition of going to f4.   

Thank you Jorge for your posted game, it illustre that my analysis about 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Nf6 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Ne4 8.gxf5 Qh4+ 9.Ke2 Nc6 10.Nxc6 Nxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qe4+ 12.Kf2 Qxh1 13.Na5
is better for White. 

You are the welcome if you wanna contribute to the analysis

Just to give some analysis about Black's other move than 9..Nh5 to show what is about playable for Black.

A. 9..Nd5, 10.Bd3 Nd7 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.0-0 Qe7 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.c4 White have the better chances to not say +/- with the most accurate play.

B. 9..Bh5 I can play Qf2 or Qf4, I think I would choose Qf2 and now : 10..Ng4 11.Nxg4 Bxg4 12.Bd3

C. 9..Ng8 (a bit ugly at first sight but keep an attack to d4 ) and here : 10.Bd3 Qxd4 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Bf4 Bb4 13.0-0-0 Bxc3 14.Bxg6!!
But 12..Bc5! is maybe the best continuation and can follow 13.Rf1 e5 14.Bg3 Qe3+ 15.Qxe3 Bxe3 16.Ne4 with about equality.

D. 9..Nfd7 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Bd3 Be7 12.0-0(Rf1!?)
and now 12..Rf8 or 12..0-0 are  quite good for white, mostly after 12..0-0 where White will play h4 and have a very nice attack on the kingside. But it would take too much place to put my analysis on 12..Rf8 and 12..0-0 but I can say that 12..Rf8 can hope for equality.

E. 9..Qxd4?! seems stupid at first sight but have some compensation after 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.gxf6 Qh4+ 12.Qf2 gxf6 and is like +/= so, tha'ts not that bad for Black but I dont think too much people like to play in this way(but this move has been played a few times!)

I will need 1-2 days more before deciding wich move to play against your 9..Nh5 where the next white's move is important for the BDG theory because this is about an unknown territory but I know with my new analysis that Black have no more than equality.

"After the sacrifices : 7..Ne4 8.gxf5 and white have surely an advantage, for example ..Qh4 9.Ke2 Qf2"
9...Nc6 is the modern way to play the Gunderam Counter Gambit.