Tarta and Velim I am sure would have been quite selective in who they would  punt a BDG against. Are  you talking about Simuls? if so, they certainly don't count.

Diebert as far as I know was or is an NM (National Master) that dedicated his life to this weird and wonderful gambit. Despite his unswerving efforts though, the Gambit remains as dubious as it ever was. Here is one of his lesser known outings against a worthy oppponent.  

[Event ""]
[Site ""]
[Date "1990.??.??"]
[White "Diebert,Charles"(NM)]
[Black "Ivanov,Igor" (IM)]
[Round ""]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A45"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. f3 c6 5. Be3
exf3 6. Qxf3 Qb6 7. Rb1 Bg4 8. Qf2 Nd5 9. Ne4
Nd7 10. Nf3 N7f6 11. Ned2 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Nxe3 13. Qxe3
O-O-O 14. c3 e5 15. Nc4 Qc7 16. dxe5 Nd5 17. Qxa7
b5 18. Qxc7+ Kxc7 19. Nd2 Bc5 20. Ne4 Kb6 21. Nxc5
Kxc5 22. Kf2 Rhe8 23. Re1 Nf4 24. g3 Ng6 25. Bg2
Nxe5 26. Be4 Rd2+ 27. Re2 Ng4+  0-1 Yuck!!

I guess Charles had an off day, it happens, or this could be further proof that Playing the BDG at Master level is like taking a sword to a gun fight, you might prevail, but its unlikely. If you agree with this statement, put your hands up and say I.

I strongly suspect that it is easier for a GM to play the BDG  than it is to become a GM playing the BDG.  

On a side note, I did not know that the Danish was refuted, maybe someone will finally get around to busting the Goring Gambit while there at it. So many Openings seem to be refuted on the forum these days, that I am fast becoming disillusioned.  

Just thought I should plug the line Ivanov used earlier, as I have recommended it elsewhere on this forum already. For those who don't know, this particular variant its called the O'Kelly, and its quite a pleasant way to meet the BDG. 

Albatross! (Don't ask, I have no idea).

Top  

I see 2 main reasons :
1) BDG lacks of complexity at master level , exactly as Danish
But Danish has been played ( and refuted ) at master level , say circa 1850-1900 , so everybody knows what to do to counter it
This is not the case for BDG , but I am sure that every master knows
2) So , between masters , it's terror equilibrium , and therefore no master plays it in tournament play
But BDG is highly productive in simuls , and masters have no interest to disclose "killer lines" again BDG , 
what would happen if they play BDG against another master
Moreover , books on BDG are written by enthousiastics
of the gambit , quite partial on white side : so refutations don't risk to be disclosed
For me , these 2 points are quite sufficient

Of course this thread should be moved to the 1.d4 d5 specialties category. The problem is, that moderator Yaltmax has been inactive for a long time.

Again, 

My problem is not really with this thread, but that it belongs in the d4 d5 forum.  I'd like to see this forum get back to the "daring defenses" it's supposed to analyse.  The harm of placing the thread here is that otherwise thoughtful commentators get preoccupied with stuff stuff that's off topic.

Oh, wait a minute, I'm guilty of doing that with this tell!    

Pls, let's just move the thread back to where it belongs.

Ummm...  I'm not MNb, though I'm pleased to learn that my recent deity status here camouflages my shortcomings.  But let me clarify a little bit.  I didn't complain that too many people use computer analysis here, but rather that too many people rely ONLY on computer analysis here.  Computer analysis can be very valuable (and a time-saver), but I'm tired of endless analysis where the author of the message clearly has no clue what's going on on the board.

And I don't recall defending the BDG--not at all to my taste--but rather that if people want to discuss it that's fine.  And I commended Patrik's games as a valuable means of conducting analysis on this site, not necessarily that he's validating the BDG (he's making a relatively decent case, but you still won't see me trot it out--not to my taste...).   

And, frankly, this is a two-way street.  We could do with less bravado and more analysis on both sides.  Lev, if you don't want to use a computer, that's fine: all power to you.  But rather than challenging every critic to a game on another server or chastising them for how they choose to enjoy playing chess, work with the analysis people offer, refute it if you can or improve your own line if you need to.  You don't need to play a game the way Patrik does, but you do need to provide some analysis rather than change the subject.  That's what makes this forum work.  The BDG seems to provoke all kinds of passions on both sides that I must admit I find rather amusing (it's still just a game, folks), but ArKheiN did try to instigate an interesting critique of one of your lines and we stalled.

Chess!

Chess is chess--there's a place for the BDG discussions, especially if that's what people want to talk about (and there are plenty of people who clearly do).  But they do tend to evoke rather silly personal jabs that only hurt the quality of the forum overall.  Stick to chess and everything will be fine.  Rather than banning subjects, I would rather ban the clowns who start calling each other names and then feel compelled to reply when it comes back around--you know who you are.   

Most of the name callers wouldn't know a chessboard if it hit them in the face--they've spent too much time in front of Fritz or some other machine (and, again, you know who you are).  While I think Lev takes the anti-computer position too far (blunder-checking can be rather valuable), I do agree that plenty of folks here like to spew ridiculous lines six or seven moves deep, concluding with "and White is slightly better."  How?  Explain!  Enjoy chess because it's a great game, full of nuance and creativity, not because you have a really great program that plays 1500 points above your own average.  Learn by reading and studying and looking at the board in conjunction with some of the more interesting threads here.  For what it's worth, I think Patrik's BDG games have been some of the most instructive threads here (and your computer won't help you too much).  It would be great to see more of these on other openings.  But if you can't contribute to the conversation without Fritz or Shredder or whoever, don't be afraid to ask questions, but leave the unadulterated computer analysis at home (or at least give the computer credit when you use it!)  Queue angry replies at this accusation...

All those, who object this thread: why bother to read them and why react in the first place?
If you don't like this stuff, just stay out.

I generally adhere fairly strictly to the "don't feed the trolls" policy  (yes - I do believe LDZ belongs in that cathegory; the all-caps heading is just one indication). But I will make an exception as I think TopNotch forget the most important argument:

The position after 5Nxf3, like the initial position, is a quiescent position which can be evaluated without any further calculation (indeed further calculation is close to impossible). In computer terms most masters would agree that the evaluation has changed from roughly +0,33 to -0,33; or in more human terms: White has only partial compensation for the pawn and has gone from being slightly better in the initial position, to being slightly worse.

This can happen the best, and in the most respected openings. But it rarely will happen to a master as early as by move 5 (or basically move 2!) and even more rarely he will do so voluntarily.

So to conclude: It is certainly possible to win with the BDG at master level. I have even seen master lose when a clear piece up. But masters are masters partly because they don't accept any voluntary handicaps, and generally try getting an advantage from the opening. They won't get that with the BDG, and no furious challenge from LDZ can change that fact.