I have played the Ryder Gambit for two years OTB and it is not that bad. 6...Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 8.Nf3 Bb4 9.Nxe5 Qe4 10.Nc4 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Be6 etc. provides more compensation than White has in some other lines of the BDG: slight lead in development, pair of bishops, half open f-file. Of course it remains very dubious, but White knows that as soon as he plays 2.e4.

Personally I think 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Qb4 8.o-o-o c6 a good defense, as square g3 is occupied.

But whether you play 6.Nxf3 or 6.Qxf3, first you should find something in the Hübsch Gambit or against the Lviv (that's what Lemberg is called these days) Defense (3...e5).

  How about some analyses?

Quote:

  I am sure improvements exist in the Ryder Gambit  for White.  After 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6  4 f3 ef3 5 Qxf3 Qxd4  I experimented with 6 h3 in blitz games. The point is that ....Qg4 is prevented, and White may get something -- about a pawn's worth of compensation -- by attacking the Black Queen and developing his pieces.

  Being prepared for the Ryder as Black is another story. Lots of people are not prepared.  Witness the many White  wins as testimony to that.

I compared the coverage of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (specifically the Ryder Gambit) in GM Joe Gallagher's 1994 Batsford book "Beating the Anti-King's Indians" with the 2005 Gambit Publications book "How to Beat 1 d4" by IM James Rizzitano. One interesting fact is that both of these books were typeset by GM John Nunn!
Here is the line I am interested in playing for Black:
1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Qxf3? (Rizzitano gives a question mark, Gallagher does not) 5...Qxd4 6. Be3 Qg4! 7. Qf2 e5! 8. Nf3 (Both authors also cover 8 Be2, 8 Bd3, and 8 a3, with Black obtaining a clear advantage in all cases.) 8...Bb4 9. Nxe5
Now:
A) "Beating the Anti-King's Indians", page 186:
"9. 0-0-0 is probably his best chance".
B) "How to Beat 1 d4", page 156:
"9. 0-0-0 has been suggested as an improvement, but 9...Bxc3 10. bxc3 Qa4 gives Black a decisive advantage".
Back to 9. Nxe5:
9...Qe4 10. Nc4 Bxc3+ 11. bxc3 Be6 (Rizzitano quotes and credits Gallagher here: "White has nothing for the pawn.") 12. Bd3 Qc6 13. Qe2 0-0 "gives Black a decisive advantage." according to Rizzitano.
Rizzitano writes on page 156: "The Ryder Gambit is unsound and the reader should be extremely sceptical of any claims to the contrary."
My question is this: Books, articles, and web blogs have been written about the BDG Ryder Gambit, yet both Gallagher and Rizzitano convincingly destroy it in a page or so each. Also, I have the 2004 Gambit Publications book "Understanding Your Chess" by Rizzitano and he gives two victories as White playing the Smith-Morra Gambit against GM Pal Benko and GM Igor Ivanov. So my question is this - if I guy who is obviously an experienced and successful gambit player is so down on the BDG Ryder Gambit, isn't that pretty strong evidence that the BDG Ryder Gambit is no good, and that's the real reason why zero strong players play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as White? In other words, if the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit were any good and White really obtained dynamic play, wouldn't all of these modern players embrace it like they do openings such as the Benko Gambit and the Ruy Lopez Marshall Gambit?