MNb wrote on 02/19/08 at 02:33:11:


OK Don Quixote, it would save you a lot of trouble, if you at least tried to absorb the context, before battling.

Background: 

1)      I have defended the Black side of this after 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 in previous post, and therefore I’m not even one of your windmills, in the first place. We’re on the same side in the judgment of this position, however I might be a little more open minded about other variations after 4.f3, if that’s what disturbs your black and white view.

2)      David posts a file of games, and says 5... c6 looks worrying.

3)      I reply to that message, saying that as I trust one of the players in that file, who happens to pick 7.Bg5, and the fact that he does makes me interested in the value of that move. 
(Note that I do not claim a thesis that this move saves White’s position or something, so I do not have anything to prove, I just say that this may be the best alternative in a bad position, as it was chosen by a strong BDG-expert in a recent and important game, still skeptical about 6.Bc4.) 
I also post some trivia about that position, with the idea of mentioning other masters who have chosen the same alternative, 7.Bg5.

4)      You swing your sword at me in person, trying to imply that I’m representing an evil sect who tries to destroy innocent minds with biased messages, and therefore can’t be taken seriously.

Jee..! Wake up!

What you’re battling isn’t even there.
Your sword isn’t even drawn, as you haven’t mentioned one single argument about what is wrong with what you thought I said, only whining about me being “typical” and “one of those”, and that is a direct personal insult.

Ciocaltea was a master strength player, regardless of his age, and so was his opponent, and this was before the FIDE GM title was introduced. No one was a FIDE-GM until then you see. The meaning of master existed before FIDE though, if it has anything to do with however I find the move 7.Bg5 interesting or not at all, and you just can’t be serious about that age crap either.
He also did repeat BDG-ideas at least until 1954, so you’re not only of topic, you’re wrong in fact.

You are trying to claim that I put words in your mouth you never used?
Now, who’s talking? You’re trying to bias the whole subject, making me sound that I claim 7.Bg5 to be a rescue for White, and that GM´s supports that statement. Why?
And if you think I did, why don’t you argue with facts then if it upsets you that much if someone would think 7.Bg5 is good enough to save White after 6.Bc4 Bf5? (Which I don´t if you missed that again)

Your remarks are emotional and pathetic per se, as they lack logical or referential substance. A reference to anything has a higher arguing value than just a belief. You believe someone is manipulating, and you feel that is wrong. Not a single fact, thus pathetic.
Do you really need to go that low to find anything to say that sound like the opinion you’ve decided to have is indisputable? With such confidence in that opinion it shouldn’t be that difficult to find a valid argument.

You are wrong in making me one of those BDG-enthusiasts you’ve come to dislike, just because.
You are wrong in thinking that I tried to prove something at all with my post.
You are wrong in saying that I stated that the game presented proves 7.Bg5 to be good.
Lack of objectivity seems to be a problem to the both sides of this game. I know Sawyer is a useless reference, but as I said, I haven’t referred to anything to claim an evaluation, so objectivity is not even on the agenda.

"Next time I expect concrete analysis again, I already have spend too much time on this junk subject" you say.

Well, next time I find an alternative interesting based on who played it,  I’ll put an MNb-remark at the bottom saying; "MNb: Interest based on who played it". If I need to analyze and prove something I’ll remark; "MNb: Analysis".
On your second statement I can only agree, even if I haven’t found any suggestions of yours to why the subject is junk. Why exactly is the subject junk to you? And if so, why do you feel an urge to tell those who like it what you have decided to think about it, no matter what? I think the closed defences sucks, but I wouldn’t dream of going to their thread and say that they are boring persons who doesn’t understand the art and beauty of attack, due to basic manners. And that goes for others as well – we’ve heard the clichés, now; be specific and show it.

So, why don’t you present concrete analysis, as you tell me to do?
I haven’t seen a single move in this fury on what you thought I claimed.

You also claimed to have a refutation of the whole BDG last week, with;
4... c5 5.d5 exf3 6.Nxf3 a6 7.Bg5 e6
to which I replied with concrete analysis;
8.Qd2 Be7 9.0-0-0 exd5 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nxd5 0-0 12.Bd3 Nc6 13.Nxf6 Qxf6 14.Ng5 and Rhf1 +/-, without response.
Who stopped the research there, as you say is “typical for BDG:ers to do”?
Or to anyone else of those three (!?) who have voted that Black is better, show it to us!

I’ve come across people with less reading ability in this forum, but this time surprises me the most yet, and by the way, rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered. Only children do that. But on the other hand; it takes a certain level of cognitive capacity to understand sarcasm as well, so never mind.

Good Luck on your crusade!

ArKheiN wrote on 02/19/08 at 08:03:51:


No way Hose, I played the BDG for many years in both correspondence and over the board chess. For many years it was met badly and was a great opening to play. Now however antidotes are available and quoted in repertoire books. I have played fixed openings tournaments where my objective was to bust the gambit. I am concerned about the c6 defences. I would play the gambit against all the other lines.  But unless someone produces convncing lines for white against the c6 defences then I shall not play the BDG. Fortunately there are plenty of other good gambits. Last week for example I ripped apart an exceptional junior with a line of the Sicilian wing gambit given in Kaissiber

Congratulations MNb! A very convincing rebuttal of Carl's arguments! 

DoubledPawns wrote on 02/16/08 at 03:52:28:


Well, I don't see that as bias. It may be a valid observation, but with the f2-pawn off the board, White has more open lines. Though it makes me wonder about something...

The Center Counter (Scandinavian) Defense has been known for a long time. It was known to Ignacy Popiel, the inventor of the von Popiel Gambit, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 and one of the first theoreticians of 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 move order.

Occuring after 1 e4 d5 2 d4! is something that Popiel might or might not have known, thought it was Diemer who popularized the gambit.
Possibly the first Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (by transposition) was played in the game P.P. Bobrov - Wilhelm Steinitz, simultaneous,
Moscow, February 1896.

White won in crushing style.

You can find the game in the 2004 issue of Atlantic Chess News, the chess magazine of the New Jersey State Chess Federation.

Markovich wrote on 02/14/08 at 02:38:16:



Would it be biased mobing to mention that the inventor of this gambit played 5.fxe4 e5 6.Nf3, and that Diemer favoured 5.Nxe4, even if our objective BDG-expert nails that "White has nothing but 5.Bc4"?! and thus 4... c6 is the refutation of the BDG this week.

Refuting is always a big word. My first idea is to continue with 7.Bg5 and to play like if it was 6..e6. 7.Bc4, 7.Bd3 and 7.Ne5 are others candidates moves.

I would say =+ because of that weakling on e5.

Gambit wrote on 02/10/08 at 15:20:53:


6.a3 looks like a straightforward loss of tempo to me - just 6...Bf5.
6.Bd3 is probably best met with 6...g6, though 6...Bg4 might be good as well. Black gets good versions of the Bogoljubow (5...g6) and the Teichmann (5...Bg4). If I am wrong on this, then the solution is just 4...c6 as White has nothing but 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 transposing.

Carl wrote on 02/10/08 at 20:49:19:


Typical for the biased way BDGeers present their pet gambit. No, this is no GM approval, but a youth sin. Moreover 14...Nd7 -+ (idea 15.Neg5 Bxg5 16.Nxg5 Nf6).