Quote:



If you would care to play on www.net-chess.com, I will be happy to take Black's side of the BDG in some more games against you.  In our game here, you played better moves than I did; but that is not an argument for the BDG.  I admit that it's not an argument against it, either.  I would like to try again, but play here is inconvenient.  www.net-chess.com is public, so anyone here will be able to go there and see our games.  My handle there is "cornstalk."

This is not a Staunton gambit.

In the Staunton Black captures with the f-pawn. Here he has captured with the d-pawn.

As Mnb states, this is a very important difference, so I have raised it here in this forum as I believe that it is essentially a BDG line not a Dutch one.

From what I can see there are 4 main move for white on move 4.

f3
Bf4
Bg5
Bc4

f3 is a mistake. As Mnb has shown 4.... e5 is very strong here.

Williams and Pinski give Bf4 (to stop e5) as their main line.

Williams gives :-

4. Bf4 Nf6 5. f3 e6 6. fxe4 (6. Bc4 ? Nd5) fxe4 7. Bc4 Nc6
8. Nge2 Na5! 9. Bb3 Nxb3 10. axb3 Bd7 11. Ng3 Bc6 12. 0-0 and now 12 ...Be7 ?! was Benjamin - Malaniuk
- but Williams give 12....Bd6! as =/+ (all annotation is Williams' not mine).

I haven't got Pinski in front of me at the moment, I will check tonight.

Sawyer in BDG Keybook 2 gives 4. Bg5 as his main line. Here 4....g6 (intending Bg7 and Nc6 putting pressure on d4 ) looks interesting, although he does give several other lines.

4.Bc4 is Pocket Fritz's favourite move - it won't play anything else. I haven't gone to deep into it but there are many transpositions into the Bg5 and Bf4 lines.

Esio

Esiotrot : the lines you gave are close to the Staunton gambit : 1.d4 f5 2.e4!? which is perfectly playable. And then : 2..fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 and here you have 2 main choices, the classical 4.Bg5 and 4.f3!? like in the BDG.

And about 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5!? it's in the Dutch territory, close to the positions I just gave (often it transposes), where I think that 4.Bg5 is a bit more precise than the immediate 4.f3.

Here I copy and past what I have said somes month ago about the Staunton gambit in another thread :

"I think the Staunton gambit, with 4.Bg5 is not that bad. But as a BDG player, I like 4.f3 where a line can also arrise from the BDG move order : 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 f5!? 4.f3!? Nf6 5.fxe4 fxe4 and from Staunton gambit move order: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Cc3 Nf6 4.f3!? d5 5.dxe4 dxe4 reaching the same position, and the play can follow 6.Bg5 Bf5 7.Bc4 Nc6 8.d5!?(Nge2 is more common)Ne5 9.Bb3 with about equal chance, so I don't say that 4.f3 is better than 4.Bg5 but it is maybe as good. "

If you have any question about the pure Staunton gambit (1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 Bg5) tell me, I will try to respond. Maybe the insertion of 2.Nc3 before playing e4 is less precise than the immediate 2.e4 and could explain the ?! from GM Simon Williams.

Quote:

By the way, I consider being called an "amateur" to be a compliment!  An amateur is one who does something for the love of doing it!  I hope that even the most well-paid players are amateurs at heart!

I just thought I'd add another!

Ok, so maybe GM Eric Prié who defended the Black's side in a game in the forum against sevenviolet is an amateur? Or somes others players like Markovich who defended the black side against me? Sevenviolet and myself scored 65% after 4 games in the forum and I am ready to challenge anyone with my BDG on blitz or CC play. Yes, CC, you have all your time to find your "refutation" against my gambit, and databases to find the "serious" defenses. As an e4 player, with the BDG move order, it doesn't change anything if my oppopnent plays the French, but if he doesn't, I avoided the 2 mains responses to 1.e4 : 1..c5 and 1..e5, that's the good point of the BDG's move order. Oh and if I play a standard opening, for example 1.d4 and 2.c4, etc, I can say I refuted his Najdorf, he just could not play it, and I avoided it after only 1 move! What a refutation!

More seriously, you, like many others, failed to show that the BDG is REALLY bad. If you want to defend the Black side in a game, and if you believe you can do better than the previous players, let's play a new game here. See you.

And it's like saying that the Smith-Morra Gambit is refuted because of cxd4 followed by Nf6. No, a transposition is not a refutation! To refute a gambit, you have to accept it or to gain somes advantages by declining it. I agree with lost highway. Here, with the French or the Caro, you didn't gain an advantage by avoiding the gambit. Like I have said previously, a BDGer should be prepared to fight against the Caro, the French, the Pirc and somes independent lines. And for the Caro, 1.d4 c6 2.e4 d5 WOW you declined it with your favorite opening? 3.Nc3 the standard move, dxe4 standard move also, 4.f3! and now we have a sort of BDG (it can transpose or have that type of play)

For the Pirc, I am happy with the Austrian attack, and for the French, I recommand to play standard, because you can't force Black to take on e4 (I don't like so much the Alapin-Diemer gambit), but if he does, f3 is interesting in somes lines.

Many guys says that the BDG is bad from a theorical point of view, but nobody have shown that the pawn up give more than equality.

BDG is unsound. I agree with Roman Dzindzichasvilli about that.

He explains :

1. d4  d5  2.  e4 

black answers  2. e4 with   2...e6  and white is now playing against the french defense!!

or  2....c6 and you have the Caro-kann to face.

= BDG refuted.

You are suddenly in an opening that has NOT been refuted for hundreds of years !!!

Thats why the BDG is a totally unsound opening.

Against 1...Nf6 the only way to try to play a BDG is 2.f3 c5 3.d5 e6 4.c4 being OK for White when 1.d4 d5! 2.Nc3 (2.f3 c5) d5 3.f3 is equally refuted by 3...c5.
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4? contrarily to the easy equalizing Lemberger provides Black with a clear advantage in all the lines of the Hubsch 3...Nxe4! 4.Nxe4 dxe4 " Black parts with his kingside best defensive piece" Diemer's rubbish or ignorance at the time.
The truth is that it fluidifies his development and exchanges White's best piece!

By the way, I am curious....

BDGers,

When you're faced with the French, how many of you play the main lines against it?  That is, how many play the Advance (Nimzovich), Tarrasch, Steinitz, Classical (and all its variants), or Winawer as White?

How many of you play less trodden paths such as 3.Be3 or other moves that don't have the same practical pedigree but that may lead the unwary into a BDG-type of game?

Ok Smyslov, I have been a bit agressive with my response, but I tought it was quite easy to come here as total anonymous, and to give an easy response 2..e6 where anyone noticed that this transpose into a French. It was quite provocative for me, and not too helpful.

Hello Mr guest, you think you are a genius because you noticed that 2..e6 transpose into a French? No problem, a BDGer should be ready to face a French or a Pirc, so I would play 3.Nc3, and I managed to play an e4 repertoire (if my opponent decline the BDG with a Pirc or a French, not the Caro because of 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 with still a possible BDG) where Black couldn't choose 1..e5 or 1..c5, not that bad right?

Quote:


Probably you are  looking at lions

Sorry, X.  If my life (read: repertoire) depended upon it, I'm sure I could eventually work out the details.  But since it doesn't, I'll save my energy for positions with more strategic depth.

Which reminds me of a couple of other lines that ArKheiN has been neglecting...

Quote:


I'm hardly surprised that White can do better.  To be honest, Fritz "understands" these positions better than I do, and so they are not much fun for me to analyze.  It'd be better to let the computer run for a couple of days and then mop up.  I'm sure you've checked carefully that White is OK after Black's other alternatives; even earlier, 10...Nd5 may put the whole circus out of business.  I'm not sure I found equality after cxb5, but your other suggestions seem well-founded.

I might caution: if a strong player chooses this line, it is because Black wins.  No strong corr. player would even consider entering the Qxd4 variations without having already checked things very carefully; it is simply not worth the risk.

I thought when he reached 500 he'd stop posting nonsense.

You mean like this?  

You see, this is what you get when you demand things from chess players.  Chess players don't like being told what to do.  

Quote:


He said no talking.

Toppy  

As you can imagine, I proposed 11.Nb5!? after somes criticals analysis, to see if it this really playable.  Your actual attempts to refute my 11.Nb5 are refuted !

Quote:


after 15.Kf2 Qc6 : 16.Rxd7! +- with 3 pawns downs!, but the terrible pressure on the queenside will regain material, while black's kingside is sleeping. Same after 15..f5 16.Rxd7! +-

Quote:


14.Bd3 Ne5 (better try might be 14..Qc5 or 14..Qe6, but 15.Qxb7 after both, 15..Qc6 and White is better) 15.Qxb7! and White is +/- after both 15..Nxd3+ or 15..Qxf4+    

Do you agree with my analysis? If yes, you have to find something to the possible improvement (or alternative at least) : 11.Nb5!?

Of course the simplest way to try to refute 11.Nb5 : 11..cxb5 12.Qxb7 seems (=)(this is the first thing I had to analyse to see if 11.Nb5 was playable)

If White want to draw against a stronger opponent, playing a supposed strong defense against the BDG, then 11.Nb5 is the best move here, until someone find a real improvement in the Black side here.

Quote:


Yes, this is certainly true.  Of course, there are more than two ways to skin this cat.

The line which put me off the 8...e6/10...Nxc3 idea is (more or less):

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4 e6 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 12.Rb1 Qe7 13.0-0 b6 14.a4

Black's last couple of moves are a bit suspect, sure, but White's idea in either case is to taget b6 with a4-a5, and after White castles force g6 and play h4-h5.  Alternatively, against 13...0-0 14.c4 seems interesting.  In addition to some central control, there is a clearance theme, to target the weakened dark squares with Bb2 (in some lines, after g6 has been played).

I'd compare this to what seems to be the critical line against 8...h6, something like:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4 h6 9.Be3 e6 10.Bd3 Nbd7 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Rab1 Bd6 13.b4 -- I think this is the right idea; White should immediately challenge Black's plan of castling queenside.  12.Rab1 is a bit committal, though, and maybe Black can be more circumspect.  But I think some of Black's resources are illustrated by 13...0-0-0 14.b5 c5 15.b6 axb6 16.Nb5 Qb8 17.c3 Bh2+ 18.Kh1 Qg3 19.Qxg3 Bxg3

In general, I believe that Black can defend against White's queenside thrusts, and White's weakended kingside comes under question.  Black has all sorts of good plans of opening the kingside with g5/h5.

Quote:


On the first sentence:  Yes, we have very different ideas, so our assessments are evaluated with emphasis on different considerations.  I am not of the opinion that 8...h6 "completely eliminates White's kingside play."  I think you may be underestimating the difficultly of maneuvers involving queenside castling in this situation.  I see ...h6 as more of a "hook" in Black's position, than an effective prophylactic device.  The comment on ...g6 comes less from general consideration and more from necessity.  For one, black often wants to aim for an ...e5 break, and another consideration is if black is castling kingside, this move is often a must.  I don't believe in strict adherence to principles, but I am simply conveying my "feel" for the postion.  Black often has to have concrete forms of defense in mind, and I don't think just planning queenside castling is enough.  What are black's plans to consolidate?  When playing against the BDG, it is important to have an eye towards this, since sometimes the plan may be too slow.  I have had this happen a few times!

Another thing to note is g4-g5 may not necessarily be a great strength for White, and I think Black can often demonstrate it to be a weakness.  White always runs the risk of being overextended in these position.  These are currently my views on position, which seem to be diametrically opposed to yours!  I like to see conflicting views on a position, since they might indicate where I am wrong.  

Quote:


YOU  move on to other  openings, Smyslov Fan.  We  will continue to  debate the correct moves until we establish what is correct and  what is not.
   Me, I play a whole slew of other openings besides the BDG.

Quote:


These are both good points, but I think that this position cannot be treated just by those general principles, and I think that the resulting positions support this claim.

8...h6 has the advantage that it completely eliminates White's kingside play.  Sure, usually moving pawns like this is a weakness, but here the main threat was g4-g5 exposing f7.  Since the knight sits well on f6 shielding the pawn, it makes sense to prevent this advance.  Moreover, h4-g5 does not seem to be a realizable plan.  Since Black does not intend to castle kingside anyway, king safety isn't really an issue.  Critical here is that Black can now develop his pieces more harmoniously; the knight stays on f6 protecting f7, so Nbd7 is easy to play even after Qc7.  (Cf: 8...e6 lines where N(b)d7 is harder to come by, and Black castles kingside.)

I am less impressed with the idea that the light squares are weakened here; c6/e6 control the central squares well, and White has no way of exploiting the slight weakness of g6.  Moreover, this is more than offset, in my view, with the bind that Black has on the kingside dark squares after Qc7/Bd6.  White's dark bishop seems quite prospectless.

Yes, White's play was not so good; I listed this game to show Black's possibilities.  The h4-h5 plan you suggested is much stronger than the game continuation which just exchanges dark square bishops and plays into Black's hands.  But I think Black has sufficient resources to defend against a plan involving h4-h5.  This demands accurate defense; however, I believe I have found a defensive plan that neutralizes White's attack.

My reason for pointing this line out is that many defenders of the Black side seem to ignore potentially promising continuations out of fear of a nebulous attack.  (I have been guilty of this myself!)  It is better to confront a kingside attack head on with a principled defense, than to lie in wait, dodging every feint of an attack.  Such an overly cautious approach can allow White to gain very real positional advantages!

Also I don't like 8...h6 for the following two reasons:
1)  It compromises the kingside pawn structure before Black has completed development.  BDG players thrive upon opportunities like this.
2)  It does not seem very consistent with 6...Bxf3.  Black has just relinquished the bishop pair with the exchange of the light-squared bishop for the knight.  In such situations, Black would like to limit the influence of the bishop pair by protecting the squares of the missing light-squared bishop.  If Black is to move a kingside pawn, ...g6 seems more desirable than ...h6 from this perspective.

I understand that one of the main objectives of ...h6 is to castle queenside; however, preparing for this at such an early stage can be a cumbersome maneuver.  For instance, take a look at Schoupal-MNb.  Even when accomplished, it is not clear that this is a safe place for the king.  For myself, 8...h6 at this stage violates a number of guiding principles in development, especially against the BDG.

Quote:

I'm not sure White's better.  That continuation as well as 19...Qc5+ seemed unclear to me.  There are a few lines which result in lots of material being traded and a more or less equal endgame resulting.  At any rate, my interest in the entire 8...e6 complex is quite light, especially so after a move like Nb4, and I won't worry too much even if you are correct.
Quote:

Sure.  As I'm sure you're aware, Fritz is not very reliable here for either side, so its numerical scores are basically meaningless to me.  Of course, White does have an attack, and I agree that Black will probably have to give back some material and defend carefully.  That said, I think Black has good ways of doing this.  h6 seems to be an interesting way of activating the Black kingside, and it may be the way to an advantage after 11.Qf2, say.

Of course, the 8...h6 line seems like a safe way to leave Black with basically all of the winning chances and keep the tactical complications to a minimum.  I would be quite happy to enter those lines OTB knowing only this idea.
Quote:

Here, I must respectfully dissent.  What this thread shows is that every Black player can pick out his favorite line -- even ones which BDGers have ignored as 'not critical' -- and show that Black has good play; equality and maybe an edge.  The fact that there are two ways for Black to reach a better game even after 6...Bxf3 (surely a sideline of a sideline for the BDG complex) is not a good sign for the health of the gambit.  I recall someone, speaking of some variation in the dragon, that one critical (i.e., lost for black) line can be patched; two critical lines and the variation is dead.  This is something of an overstatement, but there are dozens of critical lines against the BDG, and one can spend (waste?) a lifetime trying to patch them all.

Quote:


But after 18..Nd7 19.Bh4 Nf6 20.Qe2 White is better!

Quote:


You are maybe right, but was is sure is that 10..Bb4, giving a tempo compared to 10..Be7 can only be inferior to 10..Be7 (It's not like if I had no good moves to play, and commit my position with a move)

About 8..Qxd4 9.Be3, I think only 9..Qd6! 10.g5 Nfd7 can give problems to White. With 8..Qb4, 8..Qe5 or 8..Qd8, Black have no advantages. But theses positions after the double pawn sacrifice are really hard to assess. In theory, it seems that there is not always a concrete way to compensate the 2 pawns, but in practice it's a lot different. If I wanted to analyse 8.g4!? it's because this move is very sharp, and it's at least equal (or real winning chances)against every Black's responses,(other than 8..Qxd4 9.Be3 Qd6 10.g5 Nfd7 where I am myself quite septical) like we have seen in our analysis. The other reason I gave 8.g4!?, is Peter Leisebein's favourite, where he have a very good results, but he admit that theses positions are difficults to judge and to play for both side. After 8..Qxd4 9.Be3 Qd6 10.g5 Nfd7 (I think this is the critical variation of the whole 8.g4!?, because in any other lines, I don't fear anything), Leisebein prefered first 11.Bd2 and after 11..Ne5 Qe2 I have 2 wins from him.(but like you Scholar, I am quite septical here) and in the recent years, he seems to prefer 11.Qf2 but here too, I am not sure about White's compensation. My general conclusion of 8..Qxd4 is that the game is very sharp, theorically better for Black because of the material advantage, but hard to play for both side, and not that bad in practice (still goods results of course, but I am not convinced by White's real compensation in line with 9..Qd6) And for curiosity, I watched to Fritz's evaluation after 11.Qf2, and despite the fact that he is generally materialist, he agree that White have a compensation of 75% for 2 pawns (about -0.50, 1 pawn totally compensated and an half pawn compensated in a material point of view, and somes times in a normal BDG position he give -0.50 where Black is "only" 1 pawn up. And generally when you continue to play best moves from White side, Fritz himself "improve"White evaluation gradually, moves after moves to finally reach an equality. )It was just an interesting point of view, but Fritz is not always a reference, it's even more true in the BDG when he sometimes gives defensives and passives moves to White because he plays like if he had to survive with a pawn down, which is contrary to the gambit spirit : attacking at all cost (and 8.g4 is in this spirit). But if White is doubt of White's compensation, or is just scared to offer another pawn without anything concrete, (only dynamics compensation, that can often be used to regain material with (=) or even more, but not sure they always can.) you can still play the classical 8.Be3 (Fritz the materialist seems to prefer this move, but was the old mainline I think) or 8.Qf2!?(Ciesilsky variation) which are more conventional and not bad.

This tread is just another example of the complexity of the BDG, and the differents positions that can arrise from differents strategies, and the theory of the BDG still evolue, and even you (anyone in this forum), or me can contribute to add a little thing to the theory, which is still growing and evoluting, sometime only one little improvement from one side can change an entire defense or attack! When you realise that theses analysis is just a part from my works and researchs of existing analysis, it just deserves the right to have some respects for the BDGers, who are also chess lovers, like any of you, and fights hard to defend a meprised line (only somes guys are concerned, generally the type of guys who love to uses only words to say that the gambit is so bad).

Global Chess Server, i.e., USCL.  Feel free to sign on, it's still in your game history.  Not blitz, simul though, so we can forgive you.   

Anyway, I did miss Bf5, and must say it's good.  Give me some time please  

NeX iRae

Come on Lev, your itch to move your b pawn 2 squares forward is historical!
Someone must have been willing to make an innocent joke about it...

Nexirae, you can compare the line given by Sacapawn and X to the main line of 4.dxe5 Qxd1 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Nxe4 Bg4+! (6...Nxe5 7.Bf4 Bf5 8.Bxe5 Bxe4 9.Bxc7 Rc8 10.Bb5+ Ke7 11.f3 Bxc2+ 12.Kxc2 Rxc7+ 13.Kb3 dead drawn) 7.f3 0-0-0+ and share your further conclusions with us 

Arkhein 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 Nf6 8.Nxf6 Qxf6 pretty equal, maybe too much for Black's legitimate ambitions, I concede, half-heartedly.

I savour your voice Smyslov_fan, keep burning   

@nexirae:

In your variation 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nge2 Bb4 5.dxe5 Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 Nc6 7.Nxe4 I suggest the very natural 7.-,Bf5

And it seems Black has at least equality.

E.g. 8.N2g3 0-0-0+ 9.Bd2 Bxe4 10.Nxe4 Bxd2 11.Nxd2 Nxe5 12.f3 Nf6 and Black is better.

The numerical results here are delightfully deceiving.  Anyone who bothers to do the work here will find something for Black that sets White difficult problems.  If asked, I think I could come up with at least five problem lines for White on the top of my head.  Sevenviolets is even willing to admit there are lines where White has difficulty maintaining the balance.  Later when I have a break from school, I might post a summary of what I believe are the most challenging lines.

On a side note about the Lemburger, it seems like Sevenviolets (!) is the only person that has acknowledge ubiyca's analysis on 4...Nc6 in the Schoupal-Prie thread.  There is some good stuff here, and 6...f5 looks dangerous for White.  I still believe Black has favorable ways to play for a win in the Lemburger, and ubiyca's comments seem to be a good guide for 4...Nc6 against 4.Nge2.

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 e5 4 Nge2 Bb4 5 dxe5  Qxd1+ 6 Kxd1 and I prefer white, e.g.,

6 ... Bf5 7 Nd5 Ba5 8 Nd4 Bg4+ 9 f3 exf3 10 gxf3 Bh5 11 Nf4  when the bishop pair should give white a slight plus.

6 ... Bf5 7 Nd5 Ba5 8 Nd4 Bg6! 9 h4 h6 (Bh5+ is similar to above) 10 Nf4 Bh7 11 e6 fxe6 12 Ndxe6   

6 ... Nc6 7 Nxe4 Nxe5 8 Bf4 Nc4 9 c3! Bd6 10 Nxd6+ (Ba5 b3!)

Other moves?  Perhaps I missed something, but it still looks good enough to me.  (Lacking comp checks as I'm busy with all sorts of work right now).

BTW, GM Prie, I don't accept your "refutation" as you claimed Nc6 was the move, and then quickly retracted that.  I have not seen any of your analysis of Bb4, but would be interested.  Until then, I still think e5 is not the way to play against the BDG. 

And to the others, no, I don't think these forums or the games here have shown the BDG is bad.  By my count it scored 66% in the games against strong players. 

NeX iRae

Quote:


I said that it was the basic plan, but I didn't say I would play it blindly! My plan was mostly to fight 9.Be3 e6 10.Bd3 Bb4 because it was the favourite choice of Black in the few practice, where the plan I gave can beat Black's strategy in somes variations. But if the Bishop doesn't come on b4, I don't fear a weakening of my Queenside with Bxc3, so I can castle long if I want.

I have found only one game with your interesting suggestion : 10..Nbd7 where White played 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Ne4 (it is clar that the h4-g5 plan is totally bad and not useful here)12..0-0-0 13.c4 and draw in 27 moves. More practice is needed, your defense deserve attention!

Now let's see the somes analysis of the "main lines" 8..e6 and 8..Qxd4 :

8..e6 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd3

10..Nb4 11.0-0 Qxd4+ 12.Be3 Qd7 13.Rad1 and now you gave 13..Qe7!? (N) and now I don't know if your proposition : 14.Bxh7 (spectacular, but does not seems good enough) but a possibly good variation and practically forced : 14.g6!? f6 15.Qh5 h6 16.a3 Nxd3 17.Rxd3 f5 18.Bf2 Qg5+ 19.Qxg5 hxg5 20.Re1 Ke7 21.Rde3 Kd7 22.Rxe6 Bd6 23.Bd4 seems to give enough compensation for the pawn, or unclear/equal maybe.

10..Bb4 (it seems playable but I don't understand the point of that move) 11.0-0 0-0 (or 11..Qe7)and I quite prefer White's prospects. 12.Ne4 Be7 have been played a few times. And what was the aim of Bb4 then?

10..Nxc3 11.bxc3 and I agree with you Scholar.

10..Bd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Ne4! f5! 13.gxf6 Nxf6 14.Ng5 Qd7 15.Bc4 Nd5 16.Qe4 Rxf1+ 17.Kxf1 g6 18.Qxe6+ Qxe6 19.Nxe6 Nd7 20.Bh6 Nxf8 Bxf8 +/= (Leisebein's analysis)

10..Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Ne4 Nb4 13.Nf6+! gxf6 (..Bxf6 14.gxf6 with nice pressure in the Black's square, but maybe playable)14.Bxh7+!! +-

of course 12..Nd7 is maybe playable, and now 13.c4 Nb6 14.Bb1 (12..Qb6 has also been played ), and the position is not clear.

Now the other main move : 8..Qxd4 9.Be3

Quote:


Quote:


11.Bd2 to try to castle long or 11.Qf2!? seems to be the best moves.
9..Qd8 10.g5 Nd5 11.0-0-0 e6 12.Bb5(!) Nd7 13.Rf1 looks equal!

after 11.Bd2, Qe6+ is possible, 12.Be2 and I wait to see your ideas for Black here.

8..Qe5 and 8..Qb4 are quite common, but I believe White have a strong attack for the pawns. 8..Qe5 9.0-0-0 e6 10.g5 Nd7 11.Bc4! and 8..Qb4 9.0-0-0 e6 and here White have somes good options, like 11.Nb5!?, 11.Rd4, or 11.Bd4. I don't know which is best but when I faced 8..Qb4 in a CC game I have played 11.Bd4 and won.

to Eric :

Quote:


after 5.Bd2, with accurate play, I agree, that there is equality (but no more). But is it the best choice for Black to have no more than equality when the challenge is to win with a pawn up? If you are unprepared to face the BDG accepted, then the line you give is good enough. But I don't know if we can consider (=) as a refutation of the BDG. But the Lemberger is not so easy to play, because you have to know how to play against every variations you have cited, even if they are little worse than the Rasmussen theorically.

Quote:


After 4..exd4 5.Nf3, what is your recommandation?

I agree fully that the Lemberger Defense (it is not a Countergambit, that is a trick of BDG aficionados to make an unattractive line look more attractive) is a good reason for White not to play the BDG. It is similar to the reason I gave up the Danish: 3...d5! and White can forget about his attacking play.
After playing a variety of gambits myself on my modest level for a long time I have noticed this. Amateurs seem to have a more "principled" than "practical" attitude. They desire to prove gambit play dead wrong and thus accept the pawn with all the risks. This attitude is a great joy for all amateur gambit players.
So I don't have any doubt, that the heated debate on the refutation of the BDG will continue forever, despite of GM Prié's laudable efforts to teach us a more sensible and practicle attitude!
as I have already produced too much of the BS Nexirae was complaining about.

Quote:



What, have you no eyes to read the other threads on this subject here?  Plenty of specific lines have been discussed at length there, and three exhibition games have been played, two of which are still in progress.

It really is either most ignorant, or most insincere, to come here with the suggestion that the criticism of this gambit, which offers about a half-pawn's worth of compensation for the pawn, has been based here on words alone.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4 h6 9.Be3 e6 10.Bd3 Nbd7 11.0-0 Qc7 12.h4 0-0-0 13.g5? hxg5 -+

OK, that is a bit of a joke, but still.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.g4

I didn't really mean for this to become a game, more a discussion between or among friends.  I was out of theory by move 6, so it's not really meaningful for me to play a game here, unless I spend a week preparing.  Rather than do that, I figured I'd get us started.

So in my view, Black has three interesting choices here, 8...h6, e6, Qxd4.  Of course, I imagine that you have looked at all of these in some depth, but here are some of my initial thoughts:

8...h6 Black can continue with e6, Nbd7, Qc7, 0-0-0 etc. and seems quite solid.  This is more or less what I had in mind before I started thinking about specific variations.  I don't see anything at all for White here, but I admit to not trying very hard.  This would be my choice if I had to play against this line right now.  (And so if you prefer to play a game rather than analyze cooperatively, consider this my move.)

8...Qxd4 9.Be3 Qd6 10.g5 Nd7 11.Bf5 Ne5 12.Qg3 Nbd7 is one cute line.  Taking on d4 is not particularly to my taste, but this is obviously the critical move for the variation, so I assume White is packing some tactics here that I don't immediately see.

8...Qxd4 9.Be3 Qd8 10.g5 Nd5 11.Bc4 e6 12.0-0 Qd7 (instead, Qc7 13.Bxd5 cxd5 14.Rae1 Kd8 15.Nb5 and White starts to look like he might get something going).  Of course, I am sure that these are not even close to the best lines for White here.  Like I suggested before, I see little reason to try and find them now if you can just look them up, and we can continue from there.

For reasons unbeknownst to me the lines after
8...e6 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd3 seem to be the most popular in practice.  I think White almost has compensation in some of these lines:

10...Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bd6 and not 12.Rb1 is unplayed but seems annoying.  Black will have a hard time developing because of the weakness of b7 and f7.  (White usually prefers some random weaker alternative and then loses.)

instead, 11...Qd5 12.Be4 Qd7 13.Rb1 Bd6 14.0-0 which is similar to the above.  I'm unimpressed with Black's position.

10...Bb4 11.0-0 0-0 is an option I haven't had time to explore; this invites White's kingside attack, but probably Black can defend.  At any rate, something for future exploration.

10...Nb4 a computer strategy: take out the light-squared bishop.  Fritz has a good chuckle and then vomits out: 11.0-0 Qxd4+ 12.Be3 Qd7 13.Rad1 Qe7 14.Bxh7 Nd7 15.g6 f6.  Good stuff.

At any rate, hopefully that is some food for thought; I think most of the lines I flagged as favoring Black will stand up to scruntiny, though I guess I only really need one.

nexirae - dvigorito  (a.k.a. Fluffy)
GCS GCS, 13.07.2003

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 e3 5.Bxe3 Bf5 6.g4 Bg6 7.Nge2 h6 8.Bg2 e6 9.Ne4 Bxe4 10.fxe4 Nxg4 11.Bf4 c6 12.h3 Nf6 13.Qd3 Nbd7 14.0-0-0 Be7 15.Qg3 Nh5 16.Qf3 Nxf4 17.Nxf4 Bg5 18.h4 Bxf4+ 19.Qxf4 Qe7 20.d5 e5 21.Qe3 cxd5 22.exd5 Qd6 23.Rhe1 0-0 24.Bh3 f5 25.Rg1 Kh8 26.Qg3 Qf6 27.Bxf5 Nb6 28.d6 Rad8 29.Rdf1 Rg8 30.Bh7 Qxd6 31.Bxg8 Rxg8 32.Rf7 1-0


You had 13 mins left on the clock at the end.  Don't blame the flag.

Terrible, patzerous play by myself too.  Two years ago though  

NeX iRae

From Fluffy: Quote:


5.Nxf3 unclear at the moment.

From Sholar :
Quote:


8.g4

Quote:


-/+ is asking a lot from Black.  I don't think that White is lost by playing the BDG, simply that he no longer can be said to have the advantage.  Viewing chess as a game solved to a draw with best play, this is immaterial, and in that sense, I do not think the BDG will ever be refuted.

But I am willing to take up the position from the other thread, if only so that I learn something.  Perhaps it will teach me to be more ambitious against the BDG.  At least, understand that I am playing for =+, and would not be disappointed with static equality, so if seeing such a continuation is insufficient to convince you, then you need not reply.  Others may prefer more enterprising play with Black.  For me, play continues:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 (you may consider this a conditional move if you prefer an alternative for White).

Let's settle this once and for all. 

No words.  No BS, from either side.

All I want are variations here: if you think you can show a clear -/+ or better, please do so with variations.  No talking.  Just variations.

You guys talk too much.  If you want us to shut our mouths about the gambit, please show us why.

NeX iRae

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 ...