Meat, 
       That seems to have been the trend in the past - BDG supporters believing that their pet is fully playable and at times taking offence to the opposite view.

Actually if the point of a challenge match is to test this gambit's theoretical merits, there should be a team on each side, with full access to books and computers, and the games should be played at postal time limits.  I propose that the six most critical defenses be seperately tested in each of six simultaneous corr games, to be played on a cc server somewhere.  In each game, one player would have ultimate command of his side, but would exchange advice with his teammates, each of whom would be commanding the same side (White or Black) of his own game.

Nothing magic about six.  We could do it with three or four.

MNb wrote on 01/24/08 at 02:31:50:

Or more importantly 3...e5.

LDZ's terms are highly unfair. Poor Überdeker cannot even chicken out with 4...c6, which avoids 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3.
Hgman also clearly understands what LDZ means to say with "chicken". He should be grateful though that there is still one fixed anchor at chesspub.
Panta rhei, but not LDZ.

Uberdecker wrote on 01/23/08 at 11:23:28:


My choice of weapon is a match between Mr. Uberdeker and myself.
The terms are as follows:

(1) No computer assistance.

(2) No human assistance.

(3) Six-game match, with time limit being one or two hours, on the Internet Chess Club.

(4) The opening is a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3

(5) One game per week.

(6) Zilbermints plays White in all games. The burden of proof is on Black to show his skill.

Gambit wrote on 01/22/08 at 05:22:24:


Usually, more active setups are risker and less solid, and passive setups are generally more solid but there is less risk, so I don't understand your argument here.

Gary Lane answered this question: the BDG allows patzers like LDZ and me to finish the game in grand style (mate in six etcetera). Now while I appreciate that quality I also have found that these grand fini's only occur after poor play by Black, which of course happens more often than not on our level.
But objectively the BDG is simply inferior to the KG, the Evans, all those interesting 2.c4 gambits and probably even to the Danish - another dubious fun opening.

Hoppers wrote on 01/22/08 at 20:51:39:

Every defence that allows LDZ to win with his original/bizarre ideas.
If we take this logic to the extreme every game should begin with 1.d4 e5! (avoids the BDG by playing a gambit himself) 2.e4! (avoids the BDG with colours reversed by .... you get the idea).

Gambit wrote on 01/22/08 at 20:26:35:

Whether the BDG begins with 2.e4 or with 4.f3 will not matter to Überdeker - he still will regard 2.e4 as blunder. There is something to say for it.
Concerning your challenge - sorry, can't afford the telephone bill. Moreover I find Internet Chess very uninspiring. You could have visited Suriname at the end of October though - would have been fun. At the other hand, in otb-chess it is highly likely that I will play chicken. You see, I don't give a d**n about such morals.

Gambit wrote on 01/22/08 at 20:26:35:


But sir, if honor be at stake, why not pistols at dawn!?  I will be most happy second Mr. Uberdecker.

By the by, in Rizitano's QGA book, he makes the strange comment that BDG fanatics should be left alone.  God, if only they would leave us alone.