Quote:


Diebert is a friend of mine, and he does indeed teach chess to kids here in Columbus, Ohio.   

Chuck is a very fine teacher, but he has his kids playing a lot of funny stuff like the Pirc with 3...c6 (what's that, the "Czech?") and the English Defense.  I think that this does them no service, but his view seems to be that these systems require less preparation than, for example, 1...e5 after 1. e4.  I don't think he promotes the BDG, though I'm not sure why not, since it's a good system for young players.

Last year he and I talked about the BDG, and he agreed with me that it was not entirely sound, but he defended it as a good practical choice in certain situations.  The thing to bear in mind about Diebert is that he is a very strong tactician, so from a practical viewpoint, accepting his BDG might not be the best way to try to score against him.

Quote:


Oh, baloney.  We argue against these people first, because we like to argue, and second, because they're wrong.

Quote:


This is somewhat overstated.  The BDG will never become popular not because there is "no logical reason why it should succeed", but because White's compensation is insufficient.  White does obtain some compensation, and there is no logical reason why this should not be enough.  It is merely that as a matter of fact, it is not.  By analogy, there is no logical reason why a sparrow should not be as large as a crow; it is just that as a matter of fact, none is.

Quote:


I would broadly agree, if by "gambit play" you mean playing gambits that rely solely on the advantage of the first move and the tempo gained by the gambit itself (e.g., the classical center pawn gambits).  But as you will know, modern chess is full of excellent gambits.  One could give a hundred examples, but one that springs to mind is 1. d4 d5  2. c4 e6  3. Nc3 c6  4. e4.  Another is 1. d4 d5  2. c4 dxc4  3. Nf3 Nf6  4. Nc3. .

Indeed, the gambit fanatic's claim that modern chess is materialistic and hyper-cautiousness is just so much blather.

Quote:


why will that be a tragedy? that will just mean more free points to look forward to! 

Hey Fluffy, 

Congrats on beating Teimor Radjabov, even if it was only in ICC Blitz!  That's a major feather in anyone's cap.  Now join the forum and stop being a (very welcome) guest already!

"you just have not respect for the skill or the BDG player."

correct. I'm not going to argue with that.

"You put masters on such a high pedestal, thinking they must gods."

huh?

"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? "

I thought you were looking for opnions.

"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."

what a lunatic.

"Ridiculous!! What about GM Tartakower (1950s); NM Charles Diebert (1980s-1990s)" 

how conclusive!

"More to the point, I think you, "fluffy", are just prejudiced against the BDG. How about you try playing the BDG yourself?"

yes I am "prejudiced" I am also prejudiced against jumping off of bridges.

""or do you want the truth?" 
I suspect everyone, who claims to know it - in life and in chess. They are in company of say Bin Laden. "

yes MNB, claiming the BDG is trash is akin to murdering thousands of people. BDG "logic"?

so, yes, I do not respect BDG fanatics. check the d-pawns specials board (where this thread belongs- good job Zilbermints) and you'll notice there are more obscurely name BDG "variations" than in all of theory combined. It looks like a Dungeons and Dragons thread.

Top is a rare voice of reason- I remember him being lambasted on a Belgrade Gambit thread for merely using common sense. Monson is another, um, "character". Please don't beat him on ICC or you'll never here the end of it....
 

Quote:


I dont know who you are in real life, but you just have not respect for the skill or the BDG player. Even if a BDG player plays it all his life, he will surely be strong on tactics, and in some strategies. and saying that a BDG will stay on 1400, is not respect. At least a good BDG player could reach 2300, I am sure. Iam a BDG player myself and I am far higher than 1400

where was this, on the USCF server when their interface was f'ed up beyond all recognition and I lost almost every game on time? I never lost to the BDG in a Vegas simul that I can recall. I did lose to the Englund Gambit once though. big deal.

you guys miss the point. you can play this crap all you want. you can think it's good. but you'll stay 1400 players because you only know how to play one position. many strong players will play something like 2...e6 or 2...c6. it's not fear, it's a practical decision. fear is playing the same crap over and over again because you are too scared to learn a real opening.

How about renaming this thread Barely-Decent Gambit.

Just a thought.

Tops