"maybe i'm wrong" - Just trying to reassure you that your thinking of gambit play is ok, castlerock 

"I'm not sure about crazy ways of dropping a pawn, though. " - I'm hoping that statement doesnt include the KG!  

just to add for interest..... there are some gambits like the Muzio & the Evans which heve been so extensively analysed to a draw (!). I  did find this interesting & amusing blanket statement from another forum where the topic was about "sharpest openings" - one of the replies was "sharp play = drawn games"!

coming back to the BDG..... the fanatics wont get a chance to play it against me either cos I'm into the KID 

There's nothing wrong with gambits per se. It does lead to interesting play most of the time.

At club level any opening is sound (forgot who said that) At the highest levels .....then there mght be some question put to some or even all gambits as pretty often the resulting positions may lead to what the very top might say 'positionally questionable or unsound etc' eg Botvinnik said of Tal something to the effect of "i was surprised that he was ignoring  the objectivity of the position'. ie he thought Tal's play was anti-positional. But Tal did suceed in making up for those 'weaknesses' with his open lines & unsettling sacs! At the highest levels positional soundness is more a priority & tactics nowadays come from 1st establishing 'sound posns' 1st. At club level &  coffeehose level tactics and tactics and tactics  predominate.

That's why i believe that in order to win the gambiteer MUST play forcing moves & make the most of the open lines & lead in development to compensate whatever 'positional weaknesses' that he may have to unsettle the opponent & not allow him the time to consolidate and exploit those so called 'positional weaknesses'. (Speaking from a KGer's perspective.)

As to whether the BDG offers good compensation for the pawn.....there are too few games at top level to make a definitive conclusion. but i suppose that the fact its SO rarely seen at the top must say something.   

Quote:


Markovich is right, you do seem to avoid backing up your claims with analyses or played games. At least Markovich has the courage to take the Black side in a BDG.

I do post about other openings than the BDG. My specialty is in gambits and unorthodox openings, also for unorthodox lines in regular openings. Check the thread "Flank Openings" for a discussion on the Hobbs-Zilbermints Gambit, 1 f4 h6! 2 Nf3 g5 3 fg5 hxg5 .   
Also, in the "Nimzo and Benoni" thread, I have discussion on the Zilbermints Benoni, 1 d4 c5 2 b4! and 1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cxd4 3 b4!

I can play positionally as well as tactically. It's just that I don't like to play positionally, not because I do not know how. Gambits are fun to play; positional play can get boring.

To put it another way, gambit play is like having sex with two or more women at the same time     Positional play is like having sex with one woman all the time.

Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Hello,

TopNotch, I daresay Markovich is correct.  Are you going to be more specific in your arguments against gambits? Or will you, to quote Markovich, be taking personal swipes? 

Why don't you play ArKheiN or Schoupal when they finish their games? It would be interesting to see you handle the Black side of a BDG.

Quote:


That other was before my membership here, but yes, thanks for pointing it out.  I do maintain my view that your posts here are long on blanket opinions and personal swipes, and short on actual chess.

As for mine, I do so regularly write here about specific chess ideas that I should hardly need to point to any of my posts.  But for example, I am putting a proverbial part of my anatomy on the line in my BDG demonstration game here versus ArKheiN.

I am always grateful to stronger players for their insights, expecially when they are insights and not blanket opinions such as "5...Be7 draws easily against the Belgrade" and "the King's Gambit is weak."  And although you seem to be a strong player, I'm not entirely certain that you are.  (Parenthetically, I myself am only a middling USCF NM; I can aquit myself reasonably well against FMs;  IMs I rarely defeat, though I have done so;  GMs never;  in cc I play to a somewhat higher standard.)  I do generally shut up and listen hard when an IM or GM is talking -- but I am not necessarily in similar awe of anonymous interlocutors here who merely claim to be strong players.

I would be quite happy to converse with you at length here, but I sincerely wish that you would talk about chess and not make so many personal swipes and little digs that seem purposed to aggravate people.  For example, I said that modern chess is full of excellent gambits, but typically based on something more than the advantage of the first move only.  I would be intested to hear how that fits in with your evident distaste for play in gambit fashion.

Quote:


You seem not to have noticed that the remarks you quote were directed, not to you, but to Topnotch.  I certainly do not accuse you of making personal swipes in your posts here.

Quote:


Yes, well, I suppose I should have known that to attempt to engage you in a discussion about chess was only to invite personal swipes of this kind.  Still, one would occasionally like to see some actual chess ideas, as opposed to blanket assertions, sprinkled in amonst the personal remarks.  But, ah, there was that one post about the Dragon, wasn't there?

Ahem!....Lev, I think Markovich was actually agreeing with you there, at least in part, hard to tell really. 

That said, I don't find any of his arguments compelling and he contradicts himself too much. In politics Markovich would be described as a flip flopper or double talker.

Sheesh....make up your mind already.

Tops 

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

I always try to learn something from my opponent. So I consider to start infiltrating all BDG threads with London posts.

1) I don't claim White's advantage in the Slav Exchange is very tangible. But being a move ahead in a symmetrical middlegame/ opening position should constitute at least a theoretical advantage.
2) I don't have either Gallagher's starting out CK book or the ChessBase CD. But where do these books improve on (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bf4 Nf6 5.c3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bg4 7.Qb3 Qc8) 8.Nd2 e6 9.Ngf3 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Rae1? This position seems at least += to me (BigBase 2005 score: +21=9-12: 61% for White). A fairly typical continuation is King - Houska, London 2004: 11...Bh5 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Nd7 14.c4 h6 15.Bb1 Bg6 16.cxd5 Bxb1 17.Rxb1 exd5 18.Qxd5 +/-. It seems unlikely that Black will succeed with a minority attack in these lines.
3) The exclamation mark after 2.Bf4 was not intended to be a joke. It mainly indicates that this is the best way to play the London. It has a lot of minor points compared to 2.Nf3 and 3.Bf4. I admit that 2.c4! probably is even better (and that 2.Nf3! is an excellent move if White is not determined to play the London).

Albatross!

That felt good.

Topster 

Errrrr.... ok, and after that very long paragraph by Arkhein I guess it is fair to say that we are not all agreed.  

When will the insanity end.  

TopShop  

I don't see anything wrong or insulting about Fluffy's posts, and Arkhein's contribution was also well articulated 

Fluffy is absolutely right, this thread was about 'Why the Blackmar Diemer is hardly played at Master level' and the reasons he gave are spot on. Conversely, Arkhein's argument more explains why the gambit is popular below Master level.

So perhaps both Fluffy and Arkhein are right when they argue that at Master Level White's compensation is insufficient, but below Master level it is adequate. I can live with these assessments.

Personally I think the main reason for the popularity of the BDG are two fold.

A. Laziness ----- In that to play the BDG requires little sophisticated handling, just a few basic attacking motifs that are repetitive and easy to implement. That the compensation is not quite enough is maybe not so important below Master level.

B. Iconoclastic ------- There are those players who for whatever reason choose always to challenge the conventional way of thinking. If the majority believes  A then the Iconoclast will always advocate B. This is not always a bad thing, but its not always a good thing either.

So to sum up, at Master level BDG very Baaaaad below Master level BDG not so Baaaad.       

Are we all agreed now?

Toptrot

"I know that this is not a forced win for White"
I have news for you - and fluffy: the same is true for the main line Ruy Lopez and the QGD main lines.
Fluffy's insulting posts tell more about himself than about the BDG. That is a pity, as I agree that Black can prove an advantage against the BDG. But now I must add, that I have not been able to prove that against Seven Violets.
What fluffy fails to understand, is that chess - and this forum - is interesting, because people desagree.

"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.

Quote:



??? what controversy?! The theory I know on the london is only four moves deep, and it is more than sufficient: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. e3 cxd4! = or 4. c3 cxd4! = Not much to debate about that!

"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."

yet the truth made mints go berserk on me.

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

um, yes, most masters are "prejudiced" against the BDG, as they are against the Grob's.

Do you want to hear how great the BDG is? That masters are just missing the boat? or do you want the truth?

The BDG is a very simple gambit (pawn for development) and is rejected by masters because at higher levels defensive ability is much more refined. It offers some compensation for a pawn, but that's it. It is too easy for white to end up worse. "real" openings give white a chance for more. The BDG is just illogical. black has done nothing wrong, so why should white be able to pitch a pawn and get an advantage. The Grob is rejected for similar, but more positional reasons.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

see what I mean

trying to talk to a BDG nut is like trying to have a sensible chat with Tom Cruise.

I answered the pool by an answer that was not proposed , and nobody discussed it
I summarize my opinion:
1) between Masters , BDG promises only a draw (maybe more difficult for White)
2) if it was played between masters , it could teach to Amateurs how counter it : Then it's much too productive
in simuls to neglect this source of easy wins
So it is a sort of tacit agreement not to disclose a good defence against BDG , that is not covered on Black side in opening books
Who dares seriously counter this assessment?

Quote:


I think that for young and improving players, the BDG, though probably not entirely sound, is a good system to learn.  It leads to tactical play in open positions (or semi-open, at least), which is what these players should be aiming for.  Also it's the basis of a relatively economical repertoire. 

It's the ones that get hooked on gambit play, who must sacrifice a pawn or die of boredom, that eventually hurt their chess development. 

"It is "Albatross!"  that sounds silly."
Gambit fully has grasped the intention of HgMan, TopNotch and Monty Python. The world is silly, life is silly, chess is silly, so why not these threads?
Any employees of the Ministry of Silly Walks here?

Quote:


LOL



It is "Albatross!"  that sounds silly. Don't you have anything else to say other than shout the same word over and over?

The fact that people keep discussing the BDG in this and other threads proves they are interested in doing so.
Right now, from what I read, people are wondering what you are talking about. At least they know where I am coming from, and what I am talking about.

"Albatross" sure does not fit into this...

I!

Is "albatross!" a Monty Python reference?  Sounds like one, but I can't put my finger on the source.  Outside of their movies, I have only seen a few of the shows (mainly re-runs on BBC America).

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.

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!!

"I don't really care about the Slav Defense or the Noteboom Variation. My point is, vote why master's do not play the BDG?"

Here is your answer. Masters care about sharp lines in the Slav Defense, the Noteboom, the Najdorf and other openings. What about: "because these gambits offer more winning chances?"

I don't really care about the Slav Defense or the Noteboom Variation. My point is, vote why master's do not play the BDG?