Yes, I will do that once I check the analyses later this week.

Hey, Stefan,

Do you have any German games with the Englund gambit? Specifically, the line that goes 1 d4 e5 2 de5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4 Qb4+ 5 Bd2 Qxb2 6 Nc3 Bb4 7 Ra1 Qa3 8 Rb3 Qa5 9 a3 Bxc3 10 Rxc3!

You attribute 10 Rxc3!  to Dr. Egon Meyer, correct?

I consider this line, rather than 10 Bxc3?! to be critical for the Englund Gambit. The reason is that the Rook puts pressure on c7, while the Bishop does not.

Please respond. I am writing an article about this line. If you have the space, I'll send in a Reader's Letter to Kaissiber.

Still better than Gutmann's line.

Now why the heck would Black cooperate like this? Instead of 10...Qa5, how about 10...Be7 ?

Most BDG players are glad when Black plays the Euwe Defence 5...e6. It was a surprise that Gallagher in "Beating the Anti-KI" recommended the Euwe, when many other lines would have been available that must objectively be stronger. OK, his key idea was that Black should delay his castling, and such an advice, given by a GM, must be very useful for many Black players (much better, at least, than castling early in the Euwe and being smashed after Qe1-h4 etc.). But White has more reliable lines here than in most BDG systems. 

I haven't followed the latest developments, but in Kaissiber 8 (1998) 7.Qd2 (strongly favoured by Studier) looked just great, 7.Qe2 c5 8.0-0-0 came into question, and even something weird like 7.Bf2 seemed playable. The line 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.a3 h6 9.Bf4 g5 10.Be5 g4 11.Nd2! (Lane) was about =, here Gallagher's 8.Qd2 Nb4 was also acceptable: 9.0-0-0 Nxd3+ 10.Qxd3 0-0 11.h4 c5 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.dxc5 Qxd3 14.Rxd3 Bxc3 15.Rxc3 f6. =+ according to Gallagher, but I gave 16.Rd1 e5 17.Rd6 Bg4 18.Kd2 =. 

Diemer in a letter (quoted in Studier's book): "In a correspondence with Euwe on questions of nomenclature, he wasn't glad that this perhaps weakest defence 5...e6 was named after him." So perhaps a thread on "antidotes to the BDG" should focus on other lines. If the reply 5...e6 were obligatory, many would like to play the BDG.

MNb:

I admitted nothing of the sort! You said that I did not want to play solid moves. And what is this crap about "hope chess"? By your logic, any two-pawn gambit (Milner-Barry in the French Defense, Ryder Gambit in the BDG, Danish Gambit, King's Gambit, Evans Gambit, etc) is hope chess? Baloney!

You just admitted that you'd rather use a computer to do all the analyses for you. That's laziness! Whatever happened to using your own brains rather than a bunch of silicon circuits?

SWJK:

The key words are "accurate play". What makes you think that Black is going to figure out the maze of variations without the assistance of a computer, and with a clock ticking away at his side? I use the Zilbermints Gambit in blitz, tournament games, and what limited correspondence I do play.

Of course you have to know the theory! It is like the Danish Gambit, where White sacrifices 2 pawns for development. And certainly, if White does not know the theory, he can lose.

But hey, knowing the theory is true of any opening, any gambit.

Huh? What do you mean, David Flude? It is difficult to understand which variation you are talking about. What is the move order?

MNb:

You clearly do not know the theory of 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1. Of course you can ask a computer. However, whenever I play 8 00  my opponents cannot ask a computer!