There you go again with the Matrix references...   

Quote:


At the moment my opponent accept the pawn, I have NO FEAR. I am very curious of which defense my opponent will use, and I like my position. But what I have said before is to keep a good mental for the whole game, if I have nothing concrete after the middle-game for example. But this is a form of bluff to play the BDG quicky and confidently against your opponent's responses, and despite the fact that you may know the lines as White, you have a psychollogical advantage when your opponent is thinking "oh he seems to know it, but I really don't, can I have an advantage? Which move to use now, I have a lot of choices" and later "Did I play the best defense? Is is theorical until now? etc" (the guy on the Black side who have never faced the BDG have doubts in the firsts moves while his opponent is relax) The real challenge is when my opponent seems to know how to play the Black side because he admitted that the BDG could be dangerous and have prepared a serious defense against it (like Markovich in our game) At the moment I have a score of 12W 1L and 2draw with the BDG on correspondance play, good score in rapid, but didn't try on OTB yet. My actual results is not going to make me stop the BDG for the moment!

Quote:


Against 1..Nf6 I play 2.Nc3, if Black play something like 2..d6 or 2..g6, 2..e6, I will enter in the Pirc and French, against 2..c5, into a benoni. Against 2..d5 I will play 3.e4 (3.Bg5 : Veresov is playable, but not the same subject), to enter into the Hübsh gambit after 3..Nxe4, or BDG after 3..dxe4 4.f3

Another common move  order by BDGers is 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 (BDG), this have the advantage of avoiding the Hübsh gambit, but you have to like to play against theses moves : 2..c5; 2..e6 or even 2..d6/2..g6 but the BDG expert : Peter Leisebein plays mostly the BDG with that move order, and is not affraid to faces theses lines.

Quote:


I think myself that White have enough compensation, but we can't necessary see it immediately. But because I can't say for sure that it's 100% compensation against every Black's defense, I think that it could be possible that I fail somewhere to have 100% compensation, and for this reason, Black could possibly get =/+ in somes variations, it's just an objective evaluation of the Gambit. My subjective idea is that White can have 100% compensation for the pawn everywhere and have = if both side play perfect. And when I am playing the BDG, this idea help me to have a strong mental when I play it, if not, it would be quite masochist to think everytime "oh I play this gambit, but I hope to not allow a =/+ or more" in every moves. The mental is the factor number one in OTB. If the guy as Black is too relax with his pawn up, but the guy on the White side really want to win at everycost, without using his concentration to think if his compensation is sufficient or not, Iso in this case, I am not sure that Black will win. Patrik Shoupal and Gambit explained that idea maybe better than me, that you have to be a bit overoptimistic when you play the BDG, and objective when the game is finished.

Even top GM's plays sometimes risky moves at a moment of the game, to put some fire in the board with a provocative move where this is the only chance to play for a win and not for a draw, which is not always totally sound after a deep analysis, but which is impossible to calculate over the board, and the opponent generally decline it, because he had less mental than his opponent. One example is a game Kramnik-Leko in the Wch in a Caro, where Kramnik was clearly worse with White, and wanted to complicate the position, and after a move offered draw, and Leko, could decline the draw advantageously and play for a win, but he was not sure of what Kramnik had prepared to continue, and didn't want to risk to lose when a draw was good enough, even if in the analysis he had -/+. Mental and bluffing is a part of OTB games, not only home preparation or chess skills!! (theses factors are important also, but every human have somes doubts at a moment. The lack of fear of the computer, and no psychollogical advantage against it, is one of the reason that any strong GM don't try to play in the same way than against an human, the other reason is that you can't generally bluff a computer : he calculate faster and deeper than you.

@Arkhein
Just wondering about your limited theory argument. What do you play against 1..Nf6? You probably need to go into something like a tromp to keep it limited and 2 Nc3 doesnt allow a Bdg I think and leaves you with the Veresov.

Just curious not trying to catch you in a discussion

@Sacapawn
I don't think the BDG is common anywhere, but it does have a vocal following, so on a forum like this it may seem more popular than it is.  At least that is my impression, and as far as I can recall, I have only played a couple of games with it.

@Smyslov_Fan
You are, of course, correct that it is on the gambitter to prove the worth of the gambit.  The BDG cannot survive such tests: there are dozens of adequate replies, and many good ones.  We have already seen a couple in the challenge matches here.  The typical response to any line for Black, which I see Gambit has already gotten around to in the other thread, is to give one win in rapid chess, and call it a day.  Selfishly, I am curious to see what the state of the art is in the line that I would play against the BDG, but perhaps I am just encouraging nonsense.

There's another thread going on now which challenges people to offer specific lines to "refute" the BDG.  That thread has it all wrong.  As with any gambit, the onus is on the person sacrificing the pawn to prove that the sacrifice is worthwhile.  Fluffy stated flatly that accepting the gambit gives Black a slight edge.  That's blunt enough for most of us, but Arkhein responded that Nxf3 is unclear (here, Arkhein admitted that it's at best equal.  So let's presume it's unclear/equal.)

Let's see, giving up the pawn is at best unclear, so why give it up?  There are plenty of openings that survive five moves with White's natural initiative in tact, so why give it up so early without a fight.

I'm not going to sully that other thread with dreaded words, and I'm not going to argue that any one line "refutes" the gambit.  Rather, I will wait to see if White actually can prove an advantage.

Most posts here miss the big point again. ArKheiN is right, when he says that he will lose anyway against a GM, playing the BDG or the Ruy Lopez. But the real issue is that there is so much more in chess. Why limit yourself to the BDG - or the French Fort Knox, to give a completely opposite example?
While I try to be an attacking player, I have tried a whole variety of openings the last 20 years and enjoyed a lot of them. Personally I think the Velimirovic Attack far more exciting than the BDG, to name just one opening. And yes, it is possible to start a furious attack in the French Exchange.