Maybe some players are chicken, Gambit. And you're a kid, so this will be the result:

The guys in the park play the Blackburne-Shilling gambit in the hopes of catching an unwary tourist and winning a few bucks.  Does that make it a good opening?  Of course, not.  Markovich is right.  If you want to be taken seriously, post some analysis and stop with the meaningless challenges.   

LeeRoth

mefisto6 wrote on 01/25/08 at 12:27:25:

You are right about 4...c5 5.d5. At first this looks like an Albin's with colours reversed and an extra tempo for White. That's why I don't recommend the traditional setup with ...g6 etcetera. White will play Bf4, Qd2, 0-0-0 and h2-h4-h5, which even in the Albin's is quite dangerous. A sample line is 7.Bf4 (7.Bg5, 7.Be3) Nbd7 (e6) 8.Qd2 g6 9.0-0-0 Bg7 10.Bh6 0-0 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.h4 h5 (b5 13.h5 Nxh5?? 14.g4 wins) 8.Qd2 g6 9.0-0-0 Bg7 10.Bh6 0-0 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.h4 h5 (b5 13.h5 Nxh5 14.g4 wins) 13.Be2 b5 14.Ng5 Bb7 15.g4 b4 16.Nce4 Qa5 17.c4 hxg4 18.h5.
So 4...c5 5.d5 exf3 6.Nxf3 a6 and 7...e6 and Black is just a pawn up. One of the first BDG fanatics, David Gedult from France, therefor recommended 5.Bf4 eg exf3 6.Nxf3 cxd4 7.Nb5.

@Gambit: it was not GM Prié who lost to Schoupal, but me. And I am somewhat lower rated. Moreover I did not follow Prié's recommendations. Then you have contributed zero analysis to all the debates about 5...c6. Finally you never showed anything against Prié's recommendations either. Maybe because you're chicken? That's probably also the real reason you don't want to play corr games with your beloved opening, like Schoupal and ArkHein. 

mefisto6 wrote on 01/25/08 at 12:27:25:


First in the line you give 6.Nf3 scores very badly as you suggest. 6.Qf3 gives much better results. There are quite a few alternatives after 4...c5  One simple alternative is 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.dxc In my opinion this leads to an even games although the extremely unbalanced pawn structure means that it is not always drawish. 

Hi,
maybe it is not really in line with the current discussion, but I have a question for you, BDG experts.
I was looking for a good defence against the BDG and I had a look at the line 
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 de 4. f3 c5
It seems to me that after the logical 5. d5 ef 6. Nxf3 a6, white has no compensation for the pawn, on the contrary, black has a clear plan, b5, Nbd7, g6, Bg7, O-O etc. Black scores very good in this line, something like 80%.

Is there a reason why this line (4. .. c5) isn't so popular?
Is it discussed in another thread?

Gambit wrote on 01/24/08 at 17:00:59:


You're equivocating. "Showing analyses" is about Chess Truth. Over-the-board considerations are something else again.

So, according to you, is the BDG objectively good, or is it just a good practical weapon for certain situations? If the former, you should accept the corr match. If only the latter, well, that is an opinion whose validity depends on given players and given playing conditions.

Finally it is not unfair for anyone to come here and say that in his opinion, System X is unsound.  Seldom on this board do we see such issues argued out with hard analysis.  More often, it is just left as a matter of opinion.

I don't know that I agree that the BDG is unsound in the sense of definitely losing, but I do think that White's comp in his best lines isn't quite sufficient, and that the best he can hope for, if Black plays well, is a draw.  I also agree that this system can be difficult to face OTB.  On the other hand, Arkhein did defeat me in a corr game here when I played my pet 5...Bf5, so who knows, maybe it is sound?!

As for "chickening out," well, I personally thing that the Danish is unsound and I always accept in CC, but I would never accept it OTB.  You can call that chickening out if you want to be singularly obnoxious, but really it's just good sense.

You know, your trumpeting your little pet gambit here and spouting personal invective against those who disagree is getting to be a little wearisome for me, and I imagine it is for others as well.  Why don't you come forth with some analyses?  I'll be happy to comment on them.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 01/24/08 at 14:56:08:


GM Prie did not refute anything. Last I recall, he was beaten by Patrick Schoupal in a correspondence match elsewhere on this thread.

To those of you who say I offer unfair terms, I say that the whole idea is to NOT ALLOW Black to chicken out with the Lemberger Counter-Gambit, the Hubsch Gambit, or the Langeheinecke Defense. And no,
I am not interested in computer assistance. The whole idea is to see how well Black plays under regular over-the-board tournament conditions, without any access to books, computers, or other human beings.

You say this is unfair? Well, how fair is it of Uberdeker or anyone else for that matter, to say that the BDG is unsound without showing any analyses or lines proving that? Without avoiding a fair match in over-the-board chess? 

So let's cut to the chase and start playing.