One has to be very careful when interpretting signs from the Almight.  It could mean something like no no no no BDG.  Or "n" could stand for never or ....

You can't avoid it, but is it a big problem? ..a5 is another tempo lost, just to exchange the bishop. You can for example (long)castle and after ..Ba6, Bxa6 Nxa6 and you can open the game with a better developpment with a move like d5! where Black are behind in developpment, have weakness in light squares and a knight on a6 misplaced. Really, a plan like ..b6, ..a5, ..Ba6 can't be dangerous for White, and most of players with Black seems to understand this: they never play it, maybe just in blitz...

I see a problem in early h6 lines, but well, in principle, the bishop should retreat but not on h4 but he needs to stay on c1-h6 diagonal in case of black is continuing with 0-0 plan. In case of Ng4 something like Bg1. It is not as easy as in standard lines but I think the only reason is that white has to develop his attack in a bit slower pace. That´s all. 

b6-Ba6 seems to be no worry. Bd3 - Qe2 setup is ok. Qe2-f2-h4 possible. or Bd3-Qe4.

Well ! I have understood chess by playing the BDG more than any other way ! But, i have to confess that from time to time, i have my doubt about it ... But i keep on playing it among other openings ...
For the moment, my doubts are about :
1) the Euwe def. when black plays ... h6 before castling (very important) ! Very ennoying ! Where can i find some ideas to cope with this annoying black way of play ? Do you agree with me about this black way of play ?   
2) the Euwe (again) when black play a rapid ...b6 followed by ...Ba6 in order to exchange the attacking white Bd3 ! Do you see a problem as i do , or not ?   

Man yall ive been gone for a minute and not much has improved. Thank you all who posted actual lines. I really do appreciate it and i wish i had the ability to delete the ravings of a certain individual. 

Also i would like to make a comment on the law issue. Laws are great and all but in running a country and other little governments. But the moderators of a forum are the law. Thats why they are moderators. They are here to make sure things dont get out of hand. I happen to be on another site i enjoy my work. So far we have only had one little argument which was theoretical and we settled it like gentleman. Showing games and analyisis. We didnt play one game against each other. We simply supported our thoughts. 

If we did play an OTB game. The more prepared player would win. And if we both worked hard enough it would end in a draw or maybe because i have a couple pawns a slight edge for black. Dont get on me about saying its refuted. If I believed that I wouldnt play the BDG. I dont think its 100% sound but as was stated earlier its full of traps and pit falls which need to be avoided. The attacks can be rather quick for white. And this makes it an attractive mistress. Is it good for white with "Best" play? No!

"Best"= to the highest possible degree 

I love the gambit but i am also not blind. 

peace to all. 

Hope that this thread continues to grow even if it grows slowly. No one has been here in a minute lol. 


The basqueknight

Since LDZ refuses to give improvements on Craig's and ArKhein's analysis, I must assume, that for LDZ chess is a casino game.  

nexirae wrote on 02/02/06 at 20:26:01:

Not to mention, that freedom of speech only shields you from government pro(per)secution, not from other things. So if Chesspublishing decides to delete all BDG threads (here's hoping) there is nothing legally wrong with it.

Should I be the one to point out to Lev that chesspublishing is a European site?  British to be particular, and hence his whole constitution rants are worthless.  Doesn't matter what his opinions are.  It's British.  US laws have no application.



So anyway, 

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7 Qxf3 c6 8 g4 Qxd4 9 Be3 Qd6 10 g5 Nfd7 11 Nb5 Qe5 12 O-O-O Na6 13 Bc4 e6 14 Rhf1 Qf5!

Looks good, white can't trade queens.  Qg2 Qg6 and what does white have?   

I'm sure you've got an improvement there Arkhein   Let's hear it.

Nex

I should point out that this "evidence" of yours, Craig, is one thing in analyses, but not so easy to remember in over-the-board matches. There is only so much the human memory can remember.

In my opinion, this forum, chesspublishing.com, is organized under U.S. laws. Thus, it comes under the protection of our Constitution.  Anyone, even a foreigner, using this forum, must  respect the laws of the land in which it is based, the United States of America.

I personally think President Bush is the stupidest president we ever had, but that's another story altogether. Reagan and Bill Clinton were better than Dubya.

The Zilbermints Gambit will survive all attempts to refute it. I will see to that.

Dear Craig,

Last I looked,  this country had freedom of speech.  Thus, for you to request that  administrators delete my postings or anyone else's for that matter, is highly unethical, illegal, and contrary to the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Your response merely confirms what I thought: You are avoiding my challenge. Sure, you may have  lines  against openings... however, when it comes to the ZGED, you are just too afraid to  face me over the board. 

Who's being childish? Not me, that's for sure.  The record shows that I made an honest effort  to arrange a match with you at a longer time control.  You avoided the match  time and time again.

Let the people make their own conclusions.  You remind me of Staunton who avoided playing Morphy 
under every excuse.

You are so confident  computers can help you out, Craig. But listen, when you sit down to play at a tournament, you never know what opening your opponent will play. For example, you prepare for a Scotch, and get a Sicilian Defense instead.  Plus, you can't use a computer  to help you against your opponent when you sit across each other. 

Also, has it occurred to you that memorizing a lot of analyses requires a photographic memory?  Humans are fallible and can forget the analyses. This has happened numerous times, even in master games.

Obviously, Craig, you don't want to put your $$ where your mouth is.  You  said blitz didn't mean anything, so OK, I proposed a longer time control. But now you avoid  even a longer time control. What does that show?

That you, Craig Evans, do not have the courage to test your so-called 'refutations' against the BDG , Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense  over-the-board?


That is what it sounds like, according to the facts. 

My 2 SRD thought: I have always found it hard to believe, that Bc8-g4xf3 is the refutation of the BDG. In addition to his lead in development White gets the pair of bishops in an almost open position, while f7 remains weak. These are additional positional concessions Craig was talking about.

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7 Qxf3 c6 8 g4 Qxd4 9 Be3 Qd6 10 g5 Nfd7 11 Nb5 Qb4+ 12 c3 Qxb2 13 Rd1 and now not cxb5, but Na6 looks fine for black.

Ne5 is in the air, and I don't see any "attack" for white.  I don't have Fritz or another strong comp, but I'm sure they would love the position for black.  -/+

8 g4 is ridiculous; I can't believe it for white.  8 Qf2 is probably better, but I don't think white has the play he needs for the pawn.  But even then, 8 Qf2 Nd5! 9 Bc4 e6 10 O-O Qf6!  or 9 Nxd5 Qxd5.   

What say you?
Nex, former BDG enthusiast.

Arkhein, I understand your points; however, to compare the BDG as white to the Exchange Ruy Lopez as black is farsical. Black's only weakness in the latter is doubled pawns on the c-file, with white having an extra central pawn. As you noted, he has the bishop pair and dynamic play to compensate, and usually the relinquishing of one of these is enough to either force the un-doubling of his pawns (for example, in the 5...Bd6 lines, white often plays Nd2-c4xd6 to get rid of the bishop pair, thus undoubling black's pawns, and in the other lines, when black clamps down on the centre with ...c5, white usually has to make positional concessions himself which allow black to free himself. Even then, if black can blockade the kingside in a king and pawn endgame to prevent white creating a passed pawn here, then even here the endgame is drawn. With bishops/rooks/knights/queens on the board, black's position is not losing despite the doubled pawns.

However, when you are material down, if the other side is not forced to give this material back (and, I don't believe in the BDG white can force the regain of his pawn), then ultimately I believe they are winning with correct play. I don't believe an attack is enough, on it's own, to justify a material defecit unless that attack, by force, can regain the material or force some positional concessions. 

That said, looking at one of the old threads, one of the critical lines for the gambit seems to arise in the 5...Bg4 line, where black willingly parts with the bishop pair in return for exchanging off a kingside piece. 

So, after 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6, the consensus seems to be that 8.g4 is the move. I agree with Scholar, here, that 8...Qxd4 must be critical - for two pawns, white should either have a knockout blow or a way to force the regaining of at least one pawn, since no endgame two pawns down should be tenable. Black, notably, still has no weaknesses in his position.

9.Be3 is assumably the follow-up to grabbing the pawn on d4, and now I don't have a board in front of me so it would be folly for me to try and analyse anything too deeply (as pointed out by people before, sometimes the analysis is sloppy, especially on these sorts of lines, and I don't want to be guilty of this crime). However, Scholar's suggestion of 9...Qd6 10.g5 Nd7 11.Bd2 Ne5!? is probably one line worth looking at. And 9...Qd8 shouldn't be bad, white can drum up some compensation but for two pawns, as Scholar obseved, he needs more.

So, 8.Be3, the old classical line, is where we need to direct our attention in the 5...Bg4 lines, are we agreed?

I'm not interested in this opening from either side, but I have to say that if I were, the disrespectful and often venomous tone in which debate on it frequently seems to be conducted would drive me away PDQ!

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