What is this thread about again, I lost track?

Top 

  tafl must be one of the few people left on the planet who thinks white actually has a tangible += in the slav exchange and c-k exchange, or for that matter the london!   

i really cannot believe anyone will annotate 2. Bf4 with a "!". okay maybe its a joke.

About the c-k exchange, both Gallagher (starting out c-k) and IM Petronijevic (chessbase CD 2004) give black an easy = in the line you mentioned, and also assess sidelines like early 4....Qc7/5... Qc7, and fianchetto ideas as equal. I wonder if you have any improvements on their analysis.

Quote:


This is not a London thread, but it should not be a BDG thread either, so I take up this theme.

It is true that the lines given above is rather equal (even though the Slav Exchange should imho be marginally +=).

That's why I prefer the Kovacevic move-order 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4!, when White after 2...Nf6 (2...c5 3.e4!?) 3.e3 c5 4.c3 cxd4 5.exd4 Nc6 6.Bd3 has a normal, healthy += (and scores 54% out of almost 3000 games in BigBase 2005). Black improves that score in the main-line 6...Bg4 7.Qb3 Qc8!, but White's position is still the more comfortable. This line of course could be categorized as a Caro Kann, Exchange. 

In this line, the main advantage of delaying Nf3 is that Black doesn't get the chance to pin the knight with ...Bg4.

Quote:


I disagree, I would say that below master level, playing the BDG is as good as playing main theory, or even better against an unprepared opponent. And at master level, the gambit is a bit underrated maybe, or even practicaly unknown!. I would be curious to see  what would the standard GM plays when he faces 1.d4 d5 2.e4, the first question is : would he accept the challenge, but risking to fall in White's theory if the master have never seen any BDG game and plays it over-the-board for the first time without knowing which line is the critical one to try to refute the gambit against a well-prepared BDG player? Or would he decline the challenge and try to play a French defense,  CaroKahn or something else, even if he only have sicilian in his repertoire? But declining the gambit would be a loss psychologically, at move 2! That would mean that he is not ready to faces an unclear game or to fall into White theory, but that mean also that he is unaware how to try to refute the gambit even if he is sure that the BDG is dubious. Or let's imagine the GM feeling insulted and thinking "oh, what a monkey, he thinks he will rape me with this gambit? I will show him what is an accurate defense"and he finally take on e4. Which line would he choose if he never analysed that gambit before( and it is clearly possible that he didn't)would be interesting, but if he try something like the Teichmann defense, he could be in danger by playing an innacurate move if he plays it for the first time, because even if he is strong, he could miss the best moves because there exist a real theory in the critical lines, known by the White player where the best move by Black in a precise line is not necessary the most natural, good-looking, or agressive one. So, even for a master, it would be risky to enter in the BDG without having ever analysed the gambit. But if the master have analysed the BDG on a critical line, it could be dangerous for the White player, but that doesnt mean that he will necessary lose either

you guys just don't get it. I'm not saying you can't play the BDG. 

"This is a poll designed to find out why master-strength players do not play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit more often in over-the-board chess."

of course Zilbermints poll possiblilities are all ridiculous and ignore the real reasons the BDG isn't popular. look at the poll options and tell me, who really lacks an open mind?

MNB, why don't you read this thread from scratch and see who is doing the insulting. I give an opinion and get torn to pieces by the cultists.  I gave the reasons the BDG is not common in master play. If you don't want to hear the answers, don't ask the questions. Me saying why masters don't play the BDG makes me akin to Bin Laden? ok. MNB, get a grip.

Ah--but there are schools of thought that can really get aroused by White's fourth move.  Those who advocate 4 c3 will never be caught analyzing, let alone playing 4 e3.  It's all a bit cultish; I had a friend who got thrown out of a club for playing 4 e3 a number of years ago.  And, of course, to suggest that the London System gives Black easy equality is enough to provoke a furor.  There are parts of England and Ireland where such a statement will not be met with a friendly disagreement but rather howls of derision.  And then there are the mavericks who will hold off on Nf3 as long as possible, but they're regarded as black sheep by the purists...

I will speak as a BDG player myself. When I play the BDG, I know that this is not a forced win for White, I know there is not a forced advantage in every lines of the gambit, I know this opening isn't better than a normal non-gambit play. So, why do I still play it? For somes reasons : The best thing about white position after the standard BDG is reached, is the f-file open with great use for attacking chess, and whitout having weakened the position. Often White's rooks plays more than Black's, that's a good positionnal compensation for the pawn too. One of the other reason, is more psychological and about knowledge of theory. Here White generally are better-prepared to standards BDG position than Blacks, you are in your own theory and Black not. I think that if every GM would play that gambit I would be less interested to play it, because it would lose his surprise effect and would lose a lot of fun because this opening would become natural and I like to be provocative, and the BDG is provocative because Black seems to believe that the BDG is refuted. But NO it isnt refuted. If White and Black make the best moves I am sure most of the BDG games would end with a draw, is it a refutation? Some gambits are countered by a rapid return of the pawn and Black have no problem. Here, an easy antidote for Black have not been found yet, some counter pawn like 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 just give another complicate game before reaching a draw after a long battle. Iam pretty convinced that this gambit is still playable at 2300 of rate, and here, the last critical theory lines are needed to fight for an advantage, because at this level, the BDG would often end with a draw I think, and master wants to win with White with the more promising systems. And I repeat : no the BDG isn't illogical, the semi-opened f-file is very strong and useful to use for attacking chess. This is not the ultimate way of attacking for White, this is just another possible and good way.