Why Masters don't play the BDG more often. I would have thought that was a no brainer. 

A) At Master level defensive and counter attacking technique is much tougher, and accordingly there is more respect for a pawn, especially a Center one.

B) The BDG does not offer enough compensation in Time or Space for the pawn nor does it force black to make any concession in position by accepting (No doubt this can be debated for years, but not among masters....They already no better).

C) Yes you may upset the occasional FM IM or even GM with the BDG, but conversely you may lose to much lower rated players as well, such is the price of playing ropey Openings such as the BDG.   

D) If you have to make almost perfect moves to have a playable game, then the Opening sucks. Masters prefer to have more options available than walking a tight rope where one slip could prove fatal..........Particularly with white.

E) Everytime a Master loses to a doubtful Gambit it is news, when the Master wins it is not. Amateurs maybe easily fooled and swayed by such sensational reporting, but Masters will hardly raise an eyebrow.

F) Masters have concluded that it is possible to play aggressive chess without giving away pawns in the Opening willy nilly, for vague attacking chances. Pawns are valuable assets, and Amateurs for some reason always tend to under value them. 

G) When practicing BDGeers break into the Master and Grandmaster ranks and are successful against their peers, then perhaps Master opinion will change, but I would'nt hold your breath.

The BDG will continue to appeal to Amateurs looking for an attacking Opening with repetitive attacking themes that can be used against everything. For amateurs it does not matter whether it is sound or not, so long as they can beat an impress their buddies at the local club thats good enough for them. Masters require a higher standard.

Specialising in dubious Openings because the attacking scheme is one dimensional and easy to execute, and expecting sustainable growth, improvement and positive results from such an approach is plain absurd not to mention lazy.

No doubt you may find one or two eccentric Masters that will indulge in things such as the BDG, but these will always be in the minority. Most of the time such players will win games not because of any inherit value of the Opening but moreso due to their own individual gifts, Mike Basman of Grob fame springs to mind.

For the average player looking for a systematic way to improve, avoid the temptation of a quick fix. Learn how to form plans, implement ideas, force weaknesses and exploit them etc.

On the road to Chess Mastery it is the journey rather than the destination that is truly the most rewarding and enlightening.

Do not short change yourself.

Top       

HGman--lol. That will never get old. 

Fluffy--he did the same thing to me in the BDG:ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN THE EUWE DEFENSE thread. I gave my oppinion and he attacked me with insults (though I didn't exactly behave like a gentleman afterwards   lol). 

By the way-MNB your post was hilarious and right on the mark. Keep up the good work lol.

again, typical. Zilbermints takes personal offense and resorts to name calling. I thought you were seeking opinions? Now you are calling me names because I don't want to get into it with you. typical cult looney. I didn't come here to play in a silly thematic match with a bs opening. I don't recall attacking you personally Lev. You asked for opinions and got them, then you lash out and call me a coward? what an f'ing a hole.

Quote:


First, I am no god, just a human being like everyone other  on this earth.

Second, "fluffy" 's response is entirely predictable: talk the talk, but afraid to walk the walk. Else why would he decline the opportunity to prove his arguments over the chess board? Where is his analyses that shows the BDG is not, as he says, a sound opening? I do not see any.
All I see is a coward scampering away from a challenge.

If you check the BDG:ZILBERMINTS GAMBIT IN THE EUWE DEFENSE thread, you will see a game, R. Buss-V. Kramnik, simultaneous, Zurich 1999. That game went 4...e3?!, the cowardly Langeheineicke Defense.  Result: draw after 51 moves.

As for not getting the BDG ever time you play 1 d4, it is perfectly natural! The same could be said of not getting
the Dutch Defense or the Benoni, 1 d4 f5, or 1 d4 c5, 
ever time 1 d4 is played.  You cannot expect your opponent to allow you a BDG every time as White.
Heck, after 1 d4, some will even play 1...g6 .

Any other questions?

Next time I will post some White wins with the BDG over masters.

if i had my way, threads on the BDG should be banned! 

Aha, I already wondered who was the other one, who voted for the Zodiac sign.
Diebert himself, despite of all his successes, has declared a few times that the BDG is highly dubious. The reason he plays it, is that he thinks it is fun and feels comfortable in the resulting positions. That is reason enough of course, but does not prove anything about the theoretical correctness of the BDG.

Quote:


You put masters on such a high pedestal, thinking they must gods. Explain to me then, why Patrik Schoupal is playing GM Erik Prie here? Explain why U.S. National Masters Charles Diebert scored a lot of wins with the BDG against masters in the 1980s and 1990s? 

"Higher chess logic", indeed!! Does this apply to Spassky, who loves to play the King's Gambit?

"Waste of time" ? By your own definition, anything that is unorthodox would be a waste of masters' time.

  Okay... How about you play me on the Internet Chess Club, Game/ 1 hour?  Let us see how brave you are under all these fancy words! Or are you just a fluffy, too scared to take up the challenge?

  The game result will be posted here.

ONE CONDITION: NO COMPUTER ANALYSES WHILE WE PLAY!!