To Matemax: If you want to show the statistics, you should learn to uses them properly.
You gave the numbers of games played by White at master level, but not the score, but you gave the score for the Black side. And what can be said with theses statistics is: Masters with Black pieces, very often played against weaker opponents, maybe no masters opponents, nothing in your statistics tell us that every White played who played the BDG against Masters were courageous 1800 players. So, the reason of the defeat is not necessary because of the BDG, but because of the level of difference.
Most of us here might have no more chance to survive with the Ruy Lopez when our theory is over against 2400+, does it mean that the Ruy Lopez is bad? No, it only means that you are weaker than your opponent, or that you didn't handled the opening very well.
Do you remember this match: Rybka against a GM (I don't remember his name), first Rybka played without the pawn a, in the second game without the pawn b, in the 6th game, without the f-pawn (oh, like the BDG), etc. The GM scored miserably. I think, in a match: Rybka playing the BDG vs 10 GM's OTB when they didn't know what it would play, the Machine would win something 8,5-1,5 (3 draws).
Does it mean that the BDG is winning? No, I am the first to defend that opening but I know that Black can equalize fast but I don't think they get a concrete form of advantage, because to me, the BDG is a dynamical equality.
And there are at least 4 goods reason I see for masters that doesn't want to play the BDG as White:
1: It has a bad reputation, it looks very suspects at first, and I remember how myself looked at it without respect at first before I began to study it deeply. Masters usually like to play something which is quite reliable. There is a question of fashion too, many respectables openings are not played because of fashion for another line. I am waiting the day when Morozevitch will try the BDG
2. It is really hard to play the BDG OTB, you have to calculate many tacticals variations, and sometimes, to play a move very hard to find needed to win or to draw by force, or you lose. So you might have zeitnot problems in complicated positions.
3. At that level, you only can use it as a surprise weapon, because if every masters know that you will play that, you might fight many potentially good defenses well prepared.
4. Why would a master play something which is about equal as White when they begin with a small advantage? You don't see many Colle or Veresov too, and they don't have a pawn less, but it is well-known that Black should equalize easily. And they always search for something new in the well-known theory where they have chance to place their special preparation for one game (for example Ivanchuk and his Nf3 in the English attack in the Najdorf against Topalov).
So I gave possibles reasons to explain why Masters doesn't play the BDG often. And now I will give reasons why No Masters could play the BDG:
1. Under 2200, the Black side does not defend really good, you can win with a strong attack before 30 moves.
2. The BDG is practically unknown, the Black side will look the BDG badly, they want to refute you quickly with logicals moves like 5..Bg4. But White should know their positions far more, and it compensate a difference of level. You have the psychology advantage: you are only thinking "I will crushing you" with confidence into your pet gambit where your opponend might think "I will refute you but how?" or "What is it? Isn't it the Black Mortimer Gambit? What can I do?", or "Haha I already won, nobody play that, it should be really bad" and so on.
3. At your level, are you able to maintain a slight advantage? Even in the most theoreticals openings, it seems that Black manage to equalize at the end. Sveshnikov, Marshall gambit, where is the concrete "small advantag" and how to convert it as advantage? Maybe you even don't know what you followed the 15 firsts moves of Kasparov. So, you are here to play for fun I think, BDG is fun, it isn't losing, ok Black might equalize but if you like your position, who care?
If your opponent is really stronger, you have no more chance to win with a so well-known line than with the BDG. I even might say: at that level, you have more chances to win the BDG.
4. The basics idea of the BDG are quite easy to learn, even a 1600 could crush a 1800 with it, but if he faced his Najdorf he would not have survived 40 moves.
5. The rebel attitude. You are the only one in your chessclub who play that and you are proud, you know that the BDG has a bad reputation but you still win with it against yours local members and with an unique flagrance, and your opponent way "I have lost again to this patzer opening". And the others players looking at your f3 move and the evolution of the game might be amused.
They are maybe others reasons too.
Now mister wcywing, when you say "if its cowardly than it should be no problem beating it, for what's its worth, i like the zeigler and teichman's variation the best. i always like an easy point.",
I wonder how you get an easy point against a BDG well handled.
ArKheiN, the patzer who play a patzer opening, wondering how I managed to win even a few games with that ,and waiting to be personnally challenged on corr, or blitz
Pages: 
How to beat the BDG (Read 129631 times)
