For David:

In Chess Openings for Black explained Zinzi gives the Hubsch...but a bit different

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4

A) 5.Be3 [...]
B) 5.f3    [...]

C) 5.Bc4 as main line...then 
    5. ... g6 
    6. f3 Bg7 
    7. c3 c5
    8. Qb3 OO
    9. dxc5 Nd7
  quoting the game Josslen - Vanderstricht , 2003 0-1  

I will also check other books I have... (i.e. Meeting 1.d4 by Aagard, etc)

Much of the BDG's reputation probably stems from the fact that many players become obsessed with it and try to get it in every game, and often try to get a Soller Gambit in every game with Black as well. 

I think TopNotch's points are quite correct, but also that they represent a specific case of a general problem- it's a bad idea to play one opening all the time as it means you get a narrow range of middlegame positions, a point that applies to positional openings as much as gambits (though gambiteers are the most notorious for doing this).

But for players who play for fun and aren't so bothered about improvement, or are a fair way below the level where opening preparation becomes important (say below about 2100) I see little wrong with incorporating the BDG as a part of one's opening repertoire.  The only downside is the health warning that if you aspire to reach master level then it won't be an opening for life.

I'd quite like to see what Wisnewski has in line against the Lemberger as that's the line that Eric Prie endorses heavily.

Funny, I view things quite differently. Restricting oneself to dodgy opening systems with limited plans and flexibility is an excellent way to stagnate as a player. Years go bye and suddenly lo and behold the realisation hits, but by then its too late, patzer for life. 

Having said that, if you play chess simply for fun then you can do worse than the BDG, however if you play chess for steady improvement and growth as a player then the BDG must be a short term investment. There is simply so much more important stuff to master in chess than gambiting pawns willy nilly in the opening for speculative attacks.

Mastering the techniques involved in winning seemingly quiet and simple positions is much more valuable in the long run, not to mention harder than the unrealistic brute force attempts to impose ones will on a position, that gambit opening play often neccessitates.
 
Toppy  
[/quote]

There is nothing you said here that I disagree with so we really don't view things differently at all. If I gave the impression that White should play the BDG exclusively, well, then I failed to express my point clearly. However, there is a time in ones development as a chess player when it becomes necessary to get over the fear of sacrificing material and I think the BDG is an excellent tool for that specific purpose. Also, as in my case, I'm 55 years old, growth as a player no longer interests me - been there, done that - it's now time to relax, have fun and not worry about losing.

Is is that nice to know someone has finally found a way for White to equalize in the BDG   [/quote]

Yes, as a matter of fact it is nice.  

IM C. Wisnewski writes, "According to my analysis, the Diemer Gambit is good enough for equality, but not more." And at another point states that this is a dynamic equality, not a dull equality.

If IM Wisnewski is correct, this is a major victory for White in the BDG propaganda wars that have been ongoing for years. Detractors of the BDG believe the opening is unsound, unsound being defined as Black can force an advantage. i.e. Andrew Martin's article on Silman's site where he claims playing the BDG is like shopping for a tombstone.

My belief is that if Black can objectively only get dynamic equality out of the opening, he's in serious trouble. The practical advantage will be with the player of the White pieces that plays those sharp positions often and has a greater understanding and feel for the middlegame. This is something that BDGers already know from experience, but the detractors fail to appreciate.

I want to respond to the first post of this thread.

Gallagher and others have recommanded the Euwe defense. The Euwe defense with 7.Bd3 (7.Qd2 is probably ok for a dynamical equality) may face some problems against 7..Nc6 without quick castling. But I know that Gallagher and other suggested 7..c5, even computers use that move in their book sometimes. But the way it is played by Black, usually something like this: 1. d4 Nf6 2. f3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Nc3 exf3 5. Nxf3 e6 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bd3 c5 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. O-O Qxc5+ 10. Kh1 Nbd7 11. Qe1 a6 12. Qh4 Qb4, is +/- or even winning for White according to my deep analysis. So, I would be happy to face that line in a corr game where I already have 2/2 as a logical result according to my analysis.

The Hubsch is at least =/+ to me, GM Prié convinced me long time ago with the huge debate (between Lane and Prié), for that reason I play 2.f3 even if that move is suboptimal that 2.Nc3 in early Black's deviations. White has just to be ready to play in a Saemisch vs KID style, or f3 vs Pirc, because it may be a practical choice from a KID or Benoni player that doesn't want to challenge White with 2..d5. 

The Lemberger is nice, but I think the Rasmussen attack is ok, about equal (I never lost with that at corr, and I remember the challenge between Schoupal vs Prié with a draw result.). As an alternative I would recommand 3.Nxe4 with a very unclear and fighting game, I think.

Against the Vienna defense, I think it's a very good defense that gives at least equality to Black, but I don't think more. I don't trust that much the line for White with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 Bf5 5.g4, but I didn't see yet the last idea mentionned here. But I think 5.fxe4 and 6.Qf3 is fully ok.

In fact I don't know any bad defense for Black, but there is many dangerous and hard game for Black, and losing variations too. As always I think 4..c6 is the best, and 5..c6 the best of the BDG accepted for Black where the best way to play for White is not fully established. I think 5..Bf5 really deserve the name of Gunderam, see how much of Diemer - Gunderam games exist with 5..Bf5, with a lot of interesting ideas...

The Teichmann is the most popular at every mode, blitz, OTB or corr, and that's not a bad thing for White because it's really doesn't scare the BDG player despite the fact that the Teichmann is of course very good. For the anecdote, I played some days ago against a GM who played to me the Teichmann but I was really in my element, got total control at the end of the opening-middle game, I couldn't lose the game, it was about +/- (I even missed a winning move) but I overpressed the position very badly (went from +/- to at least equal or better for Black in about 3 moves) and I lost badly, but I am still happy because I got a very promising position, about winning in less than 25 moves where I would probably never get this with a Queen's gambit against a GM.

Hey, IM Wisnewski,

After 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf3 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 ef3 7 Qxf3 c6 8 h5 Bxc2 9 g5

Here you can try 9 Rh2 Qxd4 10 Be3!

9...Nd5 10 Bc4 e6 11 Rf2 Qd7 (or 12...Qc7) 12 g6!

Is this what you propose?

If you think Ziegler a more significant player than Von Hennig and Milner-Barry, yes.
The connection of 5...e6 with Euwe is far more obvious. The Dutch ex-WCh recommended this move back in the 50's in De Losbladige, a Dutch chess magazine edited by him (later Pachmann took over). Diemer certainly knew this.

Also back in the 50's quite a few Dutchies learned about Diemer's peculiar thinking. GM Donner has written a lovely comment on him.