I do not usually play 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 a3 line, but I can see the merits of it. First, it is a waiting move; second, it protects the b4-square; third, it prepares 4 b4 if Black does not play a timely 3...a5 . Fourth and last, it makes the opponents think for themselves.

In the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, I invented a similar line: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 c6 6 a3! . I scored a number of wins with it. The games and analyses were published in BLACKMAR-DIEMER GAMBIT WORLD #79 (October-December 1997 issue).

Uberdeker, Eric Prie, chill out and calm down.  Stop acting like schoolboys and start acting like mature adults. Better yet, why don't you play a match on this forum with 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 a3, the way Patrik Schoupal did with the BDG?

Lev

GMEricPrie wrote on 10/03/06 at 15:13:10:


Dear Eric,

   Indeed everyone may judge how clearly you express your ideas in the thread "Alternative to QG". And I'm sure there's more to come in answer to my last post there. I'm looking forward to more insults, grammatical errors and incomprehensible blabber.

                                                        All the best,
                                                              Hubert 

"Souquons alors!" as we say in french.
From a recognized troll, I am always ready to trade embarassment against a good laugh  

Is it necessary though ? Everything has been already said in the thread-Poll "Alternative to QG" where anyone can jugde by himself...

Then it will be obvious that I have continuously tried to enlighten our Mule on the conflicting point that his limited chess means fails to sense :

In my experience, transposed into my work for chesspublishing, there is no alternative to QG apart from makeshifts based on prophilaxy if White is not satisfied with an easy pleasant equality conceded to the opponent after best play from both parts.  
a3 is useful but maybe not worth the move considering the positions I end up in with it. However, it is because I have limited my opponent's options upriver that I end up in those positions I feel like a fish in water!
Restraining (the opponent's options) is actually acting.

Is there anybody apart from a person overprotected by crass jammings who cannot understand this is the base of chess?  
Then he could tell me which GM is not happy to play as Black,  after 1.d4 d5 instead of a QG but except 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 against a BDG, the Colle, The Veresov, The pseudo, the London, 2.c3 or 2.Nf3 Nf6 2.c3 ?

This is the stuff I force my opponents into with my extra move a3!
This is why I have a perf of 2593 on 31 FIDE games up to now.
And finally this is why the Prié is not for anyone who would have to know all the things I know on the D pawn specials and on the Slav to obtain something more substantial than a surprise from the opening.     

'Untergecker', you are pathetic. 
I urge you to stop parading your bumptious failure to understand my variation or continue your obsessive droppings elsewhere than on the forum of my chesspublishing section.

In the french B championship, to take my last FIDE tournament, all of my opponents ( Mazé 2526, Guidarelli 2437, Marzolo 2440) changed their usual first move not to confront my "ludicrous statements" and when they did not (Gozzoli 2470, Relange 2494) I just beat them...with 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.a3!    

TopNotch wrote on 10/02/06 at 02:06:55:


Actually it is called Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit. 
There is a German language book from 1988 titled "Das Gibbins-Weidenhagen Gambit" authored by Niels Jørgen Jensen and Rasmus Pape. According to Jensen, he himself prefers the name "Humphrey Bogart's gambit", the title was decided by the publisher.

Apparently Bogey played the gambit in 1933.
Bronstein essayed it at least once - against Simagin in 1967 (some sources speculate 1950)

Stanley Gibbins was an English player from Derby who played the gambit by mail in the 1960ies.
Rolf Weidenhagen was a German player. His claim to fame derives from Diemer's comment in 1960 that Weidenhagen had played the Gambit.

Many of these obscure gambits have their names jumbled up in various ways. Some english language writers on such subjects (Schiller, Keene,...) don't care too much about history, names, sources, quoting other people's work etc.. They just want to push their book without breaking a sweat. So names are misspelled, analysis copied, and facts distorted.

Flicking through the posts and topics I can see that some players take the BDG more seriously than others and that some are even fanatical.


Here's my view :

If you play chess purely for fun and enjoyment the BDG is FINE

If you add a liking for results the BDG is DUBIOUS

If you want to play at the highest level that you possibly can the BDG can be USED INITIALLY as a training ground for tactics ( although the King's Gambit, Scotch Gambit, Evans Gambit - open games- are better ). After a certain point it MUST BE DROPPED

If you aspire to master level FORGET the BDG ALTOGETHER.


Andrew

ArKheiN wrote on 10/01/06 at 23:21:47:


Andrew already has an article on the web on how to meet the BDG, Eric Prie has also outlined a sound approach. Maybe Andrew couldn't find a better game to show because good players rarely employ the BDG as White, and that isn't gunna change anytime soon, I mean, why would one give your opponent odds.

Frankly I would argue that 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 is better than the BDG as its a wing pawn that's pitched for nothing rather than a central one.  

By the way Andrew 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 has a name, its called the Gibbons-Wiedenhagen Gambit (Sorry Zilbermints, this one is patented already)  

Surely we don't need anymore updates featuring BDG's, as I think we have established that White has reasonable chances of equality once Black plays imprecisely. Push comes to shove BDGeers can always draw those pawn down endings  

As Andrew says, continue to have fun with the BDG, and I suspect the use of the word 'fun' here, is code, loosely translating into something like - for those who do not take their chess development seriously by all means play the BDG. 

Topster

If my opponent ever wheels out 1. ...Ktg6, I will probably accept it. But 2. g4 is the real [i]fingerfehler[/i].
It should be 2.h4! threatening to win a piece!

Hmm, while I agree with you of course Arkhein that the accepted main lines should be covered first when attempting to prove the unsoundness of this or that variation, the BDG in general is rather obscure and we might forgive Andy for not being up to date on the "theory".
Much more perplexing to my eyes are some of the ludicrous statements made by Eric Prié in articles covering the variation that bears his own name!