Basque, I don't want hostility either, just a forum where poeple can discuss lines and provide variations to support claims. That would be far more helpful for any outsider looking in than the talk-shops which usually fill BDG threads. 

The problem with a Starting Out: The BDG type book is that there needs to be enough theory to play the opening, with a discussion of the typical plans for both sides. Since this usually stretches to "White: Sacrifice material, try to mate. Black: Grab material, try not to get mated.", it doesn't work as well - I'd be happy to be involved with any project though. However, I would be more interested in looking in-depth at lines than this sort of general outline. Especially since I don't consider the BDG to have anywhere near the strategic depth, or the number of typical ideas, that the Sicilian has.

Besides, the "Starting Out:" series still give an evaluation of the positions given, just with more prose to back up the evaluations. What we get in here is plenty of prose, but no variations or honest evaluations.

Now, Lev...
Quote:

Yes I do.

Quote:

No, stop being a child. This isn't about me against you, it's about critically analysing the line to get an objective analysis. The analysis is complete - against correct play white does not get enough compensation. 

Quote:

I can't think of anything which could be more meaningless than a blitz, time-odds, internet simul game. Please don't waste server space with this junk.

Quote:

No, it isn't. I'm not looking to test your line for practical chances. I'm looking to ascertain an objective evaluation for the BDG as a whole. Your line is meaningless, trap-filled garbage. And I'm not on about the ZGED, there's another thread for it. 

Quote:

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And wrong. Any serious player studies openings before his matches, these days with books, DVDs and Mr Fritzy. Especially if he knows his opponent plays something inparticular. Just because one plays the BDG, or the ZGED, doesn't mean his opponent hasn't prepared for it - one hour analysing and writing down conclusions with aid of a computer, and committing it to memory, the ZGED is busted. Just because the computer isn't in the game, doesn't mean it's knowledge isn't. It's not only correspondence that people prepare for, or use opening knowledge in.

OTB, there's a chance anything could work. I've played 1.d4 e5 in tournament games before and won - I don't claim for a second that this opening has any merit whatsoever (it clearly doesn't). Just because openings give practical chances, it does not make them any good. If you get good results with your opening ideas, great. If you want to continue to play them, great. But if you bring the ideas in here, you're opening them up to scrutiny. And when that happens, they're gonna fall apart. Deal with it.

Now, when I get a chance, I'll trawl back through a couple of pages of the old thread and find lines where I think white is struggling to justify his pawn investment.

You say that my blitz games are meaningless, Craig? How about we play on the Internet Chess Club at Game/30 minutes or Game/60 minutes, hmmm? Find out if that time control is better than G/5 minutes?

Playing White, on 22 January 2006 I  defeated GM Hikaru Nakamura with the Hubsch Gambit. It was a simultaneous exhibition on Internet Chess Club. He gave time odds to everyone. Since my rating is over 1900, I received 5 minutes, and Nakamura, 2 minutes. I'll post the complete game score later.

Craig, you can talk all you want, but the real test is a tournament game.  Has it occured to you that the reason I test the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe in blitz games is because it almost never appears in OTB tournaments? I had one (1) game that was played under tournament conditions, with regular time control, last year.

If you are so hip on it, I can lengthen the time control in my test-games on ICC. Since I do not play correspondence chess, testing lines in the ZGED by blitz is the only way to do it.

ArKhein's analyses may be good...in correspondence chess.  However, over-the-board, with no notes, books, or computers, the odds must surely favor White.

The problem with this, Arkhein, is that I don't believe in "equality" in gambit positions. I have no doubt that white usually gets some initiative and possibly an attack for his pawn, the compensation isn't in doubt. The problem is that white has no "positional compensation" for the pawn - for example, in the King's Gambit black at least has doubled pawns so a resulting endgame is not simply won.

My true feeling on the Blackmar-Deimer is that white has compensation, but since this only comes in the form of initiative, it means that accurate defence should see black through to an endgame where this initiative is evaporated, but his pawn advantage isn't. That is the key to a true -/+ assessment. Not taking material considerations into account, a lot of the positions are probably objectively "equal". However, a pawn is a pawn is a pawn is a pawn is a ... 

Several lines were shown on the long main BDG thread where black reaches a middlegame a pawn up, with no weaknesses. Yes, he has to do a little defending, but he's still a pawn up with a sound position. I'd call that =/+ or even -/+, others wouldn't, arguing that their attack in the middlegame gives them "equal chances". I know that the best way to play gambits is to forget about the material side, but this only counts in my eyes for playing them - not assessing them.

If other people want to go searching through the old threads for problem lines, then fine. I'd rather start a fresh, objective discussion on the opening where people who want to contribute to a proper analysis of the opening, can do so. I don't know a great deal of the theory so I'll be learning as I go along, as I suspect a lot of other people will do. I would even speculate that if we were to carry out such a study, in an objective and idiot-free way, that a lot more people would contribute to the discussions than previously, and some new ideas may be unearthed for both sides. At least, I presume not to be the only person put off by the usual idiot-fest which is most BDG discussions ("BDG gib 2 mvch comp n winz 4 white easy haha n00b" type comments abound), and would rather spend my time looking at critical lines, trying to find improvements and to prove, once and for all, either that the BDG is unsound (although I don't think I'll live to see the day that most adherents of it will accept it, even if a forced mate were to be found) or that it isn't. 

My last post is an example of the stupid talk-shop that I wish to avoid. If enough people are interested in doing a full, objective analysis, then we will. If not, then I will leave these forums safe in the knowledge that if I knew my opponents played the BDG, I would change openings as black just to face it, assured of a better chance than usual of securing the win.

Regards, 
Craig

No Lev, there is already a thread on the Zilbermints Gambit, post them there (if you haven't done so, already). Please, stop polluting other threads with your meaningless blitz games. This sort of thing is part of the reason we never get anywhere with a proper discussion of the BDG.

I propose that we keep this thread as a sort of "off-topic" thread while discussing the critical lines in properly-created threads for each branch. To allow us to informally chat about findings, what to look at next, etc. 

Lev, if you want to discuss your opening ideas, such as the ZGED, then create specific threads for these things. You have created two threads already for the ZGED, and it has been looked at in depth. You have, as usual, bored people away from the threads with your countless 5 minute game scores, and have failed to provide any variations to back up your repeated claims that the gambit is good, and ignored any lines given by others which prove otherwise, especially if they've mentioned computer analysis. Please, do not ruin another thread in the same manner.

Looking back through the other BDG threads, it looks like several people have done a good job of posting critical lines, indeed lines where white doesn't appear to have enough for his material. I hate to say it, but it's usually the BDG advocates here who shy away from the theoretical discussion (usually after starting their threads with something along the lines of "Okay, no more bs, no prose, just variations"). It's one of the reasons that I don't get caught up in this debate, since trying to prove to a BDG player that their opening doesn't give equality is like trying to prove to a Buddhist that Jesus is indeed the way... it's pointless.

I don't say this from the stance of most people, given that I have played gambits religiously for most of my chess-playing life, and have indeed played the Blackmar-Deimer both in blitz and in congresses. I have no contempt towards either the opening or it's practicioners. But a discussion of it seems pointless, and I don't understand why people bother, since no matter how many lines they post where black is safe and with an extra pawn, a true BDG fan will never accept this.

Also, a problem arises with the way that different people assess different positions, and this is a problem I have encountered on several other threads as well (albeit usually with me defending the other side!). Some people, for example Smyslov_Fan, would always prefer to be a pawn up, and when they are they'll consider themselves clearly better, even if their opponents have a huge attack. Other people prefer to be material down, for example Basqueknight, and will always see themselves as having compensation for the material, even when their position is clearly dreadful. Everyone assesses positions differently, and no matter how much evidence one side provides to bust a line, if the other side likes the position they won't accept it to be bad, no matter whether or not, from an objective point of view, it is.

GM Prie has shown several ways for black to reach a position which is (at least) equal while denying white his usual fun with the Lemberger. I think most people already accept that the Hubsch is not going to give white much. I provided a line before the Great Crash against Zilbermints' 9.Kh1 which, to my knowledge, no-one has provided an antidote against - black remains two pawns up and, while having to weather a bit of initiative, for two pawns this is not enough. Even if black misplays, he can sacrifice a piece for a pawn, and have material equality. However, an hour of study and black should never find himself in trouble. 

This leaves the main lines of the Blackmar-Deimer. I don't profess to have a huge theoretical knowledge on this opening (I've always considered it the sort of opening you 'busk' rather than waste your time learning), but if a proper theoretical discussion was to emerge on this board, then I would happily take part in it. Of course, I don't believe any theoretical discussion could include Lev, who claims he wants the "truth" about the opening, and then when you use Mr Chips for help, rubbishes all your suggestions saying that man-on-man he'd beat you because you didn't have a program to think for you. Lev, indeed, seems a little obsessed with "man-on-man" action, but I won't delve further into this - suffice to say, in any theoretical discussion on the BDG I will just ignore his posts completely. 

So, if we're going to do this, let's do it properly. Ignoring everything else (discussions on the Lemberger, Ryder and Hubsch have taken place already), let's start at 5.Nxf3, and find out, once and for all, what all the fuss is about!

Perhaps it would be best if separate threads were created for each of black's main replies? 5...Bg4, 5...e6, 5...c6 and 5...g6 are the four that I would immediately think of (I think the former two are named after Teichmann and Euwe, though I could be incorrect... I'm not sure of the names of the other two, however) as being critical, and each has a sufficiently large body of theory that I think separate threads would be necessary so as not to confuse people. 

Also, I think that we should only look at one line at a time, since otherwise the discussions will never be completed, as people will jump from one thread to another, and also there will be a sea of BDG threads clogging up the d-Pawn Specials. I would be interested in hearing from one of the Moderators/Admin whether it would be possible to have a new subsection created (forum only) for the BDG, since it is clearly going to fill up the d-Pawn thread completely otherwise. Or, perhaps, for one thread at a time to be "stickied" at the top of the section for the BDG line currently being discussed.

Does anyone have any other suggestions for a way in which we could methodically tackle what, from this moment on, I will be calling "The Blackmar-Deimer Problem"? 
Perhaps if we take this week to decide on our strategy, and then from next week start work on ascertaining the whole truth about this opening, one way or another. We might even get asked to convert it into a book!?

Regards,
Craig

Hello everyone, Iam happy that the forum is back! Iam am alive too, and I still defend the BDG :p

Quote:


I don't think we overestimate the position when we say that despite the pawn down, White have about equality with the best play for both side. And this is generally the Black side who underestimate his pawn advantage, and who ignores the critical lines and loses badly when they play a bad line. 

Sadly, I don't think a "starting out" book or thread on this opening would be a good idea... since most practicioners of the white side here will always overestimate their chances in every line and ignore the critical lines - actually sounds a lot like a project that Schiller/Plaskett should take up!

Ok I was thinking we have a lot of BDG threads on here but for those who jsut want to take their first look at the opening we are kind of out of luck for a type of starting out guide! 

So I was thinking for all you BDG fanatics out there lets do our own starting out thread.

Who ever knows the history of it rather well could do a shitorical introduction and a nice intro.

Maybe we could go with some early examples and then go into the different defenses for black. And the different white variations as well like the ryder gambit.

Im not even close to knowing theory on this opening and i happen to be one of the those who are curious. 

So if any of you think this is a good idea then give it your best shot.

Peace to all

Basqueknight