You are correct to point out that the ...Nc6 lines are irrelevant (although never +=, that Bf8-d6-f8 was funny)

To your last line you can add the forced 18...O-O 19.cd ed, and it's just a symbolic advantage to Black in a boring endgame.
Not a White's player dream.

If Bxe5 instead of dxe5 (move 13 or 14), we come back to our standard position with O-O-O & Rg8.
The exact position of the h-pawn does not change that no one can make real progress.

So 6.Bd3 remains a hard nut to crack.

I just thought of an exciting line:

6...Bg6 7.Bxg6 hg 8.Qe2 Nc6!? 9.Be3 e6 10.O-O-O Nd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.c4 Qf5 13.Rhf1 Nb4! 14.a3 Na2+ 15.Kd2 Bxa3!
16.ba Qa5+ 17.Kc2 Qc3+ 18.Kb1 Qb3+ 19.Qb2 Nc3+ 20.Ka1 Qxb2+ Kxb2 21.Kxb2 Nxd1+ 22.Rxd1 f6

After six consecutive checks, Black has emerged better  

EDIT:

calming down a bit I see it's hard to make progress here.
Still that's another line Black can use to draw at will, since I don't see where White could deviate.

There's 11.Ne4 Qd7 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.de Be7 14.Kb1 (c4 Qc6) Qa4 15.Bg5 O-O-O 16.c4 Nb4 (again!) 17.a3 Nc6,
but Black has again at least a draw, and possibly more.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0) 9...Be7 10.h4 Nbd7 11.h5 Qa5 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 h6 14.Qg3 Rg8 15.Rdf1 0-0-0 16.a3 Rdf8 17.Kb1 Nd7 18.Bf4 Nb6 19.Rf2 Nc4 20.Qd3

Uruk wrote on 05/30/09 at 15:34:42:

Well, 11...Qa5 attacks pawn h5, so 12. Ne5 is forced. Of the alternatives that White has, let me only mention five: 8. Bg5 (instead of Bf4), 10.g4 Nxg4 11.Rdf1 (instead of 10.h4), 11.Kb1 Qa5 12.Ne5 (instead of 11.h5), 14.Kb1 0-0-0 15.Rhf1 (instead of 14.Qg3), and 19.Qd3, as already mentioned. 

Uruk, I feel compelled to make a point... if the best that black can do is demonstrate a forced draw in 20+ moves, then:

a) That makes the BDG appear perfectly sound (especially given that, in general, after 20+ moves of most openings black has usually achieved equality)
b) It implies that, should white know the opening better than his opponent then, to use a Zilbermints-type argument, white is indeed doing very well (because, realistically, not all people are even capable of memorising 16-move-long variations, especially when they are unforced). As Stefan points out, there are ample possibilities for both sides to deviate, which (as in any other opening) do not necessarily constitute best play, but could work in practice. This looks very much like a game of chess to me.

The thread started out looking to prove a black advantage. It now seems to have resigned itself to proving a black equality. I would say that, for most BDG fanatics, this is going to be another huge success. Even the hardiest BDGers do not claim that the opening gives an advantage, simply that it gives adequate compensation in a complex position where white has a chance to outplay his opponent. Whilst the best available lines prove 20+ move "forced" draws, then the BDG is in good health indeed.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/29/09 at 21:32:08:


Plenty of alternatives? I think White has to be really precise to keep equilibrium.
19.Qd3 can hardly avoid the draw because after 22...Bf6 23.Qe3 b6
White must bail out with 24.Bxh6! ed 25.cd Bxb2! =

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/29/09 at 21:32:08:


I meant there's also ...Ncd5 besides ...Bd6, although I doubt we have enough to push for the win.
So a good positional player can probably play the BDG and hold after all.

The conclusion about 9...Be7 is that after

10.h4 Nbd7 11.h5 Qa5 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 h6 14.Qg3 Rg8 15.Rdf1 0-0-0 16.a3 Rdf8 17.Kb1 Nd7 18.Bf4 Nb6 19.Rf2 Nc4 20.Qd3

Black can force a draw with ...Nxb2 (enough to make the BDG uninteresting, I think),
nevertheless the passive position of the Rooks makes it difficult to play for the win.

9...Na6 (going to c7 instead of d7) could well be better.
After 10.a3 Nc7 11.h4 there is ...Ncd5 as well as ...Bd6
White is again fighting for resources.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/29/09 at 07:00:07:


9...Na6 may or may not be cumbersome, but it's not as slow as it seems since the immediate threat is 10...Nb4 11.Q~ Nd5, exchanging another minor piece.  Further, what is White doing in the mean time?  I'm not sure which 9th move is best, and you may be right that 9...Be7 is good.  To me though, 9...Be7 looks worse than the other moves because it does nothing to inconvenience White.  Almost always when I'm a pawn up, I'm looking for ways to simplify, and in the BDG I think it's an excellent rule of thumb that Black needs to bring off at least two sets of minor pieces before he can hope to make good on his material advantage.

I haven't yet had the time to examine Stefan's analysis just above.  I certainly will, however, and return with my reaction.  But I note that in Stefan's latest line, fully three sets of minor pieces have come off, which in my view is quite hopeful for Black.

In general though, I am quite sympathetic to your remarks about the doubtful nature of White's compensation.  At best it seems just enough to maintain equality.  We have already established that Black has a not-very-difficult path to equality with 9...Bd6 10.Be5 Bxe5!?.  This makes Stefan happy because he only wants to show that 6.Bd3 does not result in disadvantage.  The question therefore is, does Black have more?   

As a postscript to my previous note...

I just re-read the earlier comments of Markovich.  If I've gained a pawn, I don't mind making one or two consolidating moves.  I find 9...Be7 more to my taste than 9...Na6.  However, the fact that Black has at least three moves that give him at least an equal game should show the dearth of White's ideas here.

(1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0) 9...Na6 10.a3 Nc7 11.h4. Perhaps best. 11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6 13.Ne5 Ncd5 14.Kb1 0-0. So far my last post. White has some compensation, but I wasn't sure whether it is enough. So let's try: 15.g4 Nxc3+ 16.Qxc3 Nd5 17.Qe1 f6 18.Nc4 Qd7 19.g5 and White has full compensation for the pawn.

Markovich wrote on 05/21/09 at 12:15:25:

After 16.Qg4, there may follow 16...Qe7 17.Rxe5 Rf6 18.Ng5 Nd7 19.Rxe6 Rxe6 20.Qxe6+ Qxe6 21.Nxe6 Re8 22.d5 =. Okay, I hate this primitive treatment, too. It is only to demonstrate that there is some real compensation. May others find subtler ideas.

Markovich wrote on 05/21/09 at 12:15:25:

Very interesting - a slower approach, since the faster 9...Bd6 and 9...Be7 (which you call "passive") both give White concrete targets. In some lines you may even combine the troglodytic and the passive element, it may still be good: 10.Ne5 (hopes for Nxc6) Nb4 11.Qe2 Be7! (better than 11...Nbd5 12.Nxd5 = Nxd5?! 13.Rhf1!) and Black's pieces are better coordinated than White's. 

And if 10.a3 Nc7, White is left guessing about Black's plan: 
(a) 11.h4 Bd6! 12.Bxd6 (12.Be5 would now be pointless) Qxd6 13.Ne5 Ncd5 14.Kb1 0-0.
(b) 11.Kb1 Be7! (better than 11...Ncd5?! 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Be5). 
(c) 11.Be5 Ncd5 13.Rhe1 Be7 followed by Qa5, b5...

So I don't know. Your troglodytic idea looks ingeniously strong. After 9...Na6 White's active pieces are more impressive than ever, but is there anything concrete that White can do?

TonyRo wrote on 05/21/09 at 16:18:13:


Thanks, that's useful.  If that has any validity, dead equal is right, I guess.  My own assumption was that my more central king should count for something, plus 2N should be a little better than R+P.  Plus the knights are centrally placed.  Ah well.

Stefan,

I enjoy these very specific chess discussions, too few of which occur in these forums (outside of Dragons, anyway).  I very much appreciate your participation.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on the adequacy of White's compensation after 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.O-O-O Bd6 10.Be5 O-O 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 f6 13.Rhe1 Bb4 14.c3 (interesting is 14.d5 cxd5 15.Qxb4 fxe5, but I believe it favors Black after 16.Nxe5 Na6 or 16.Qg4 Qd6) 14...Bxc3 15.bxc3 fxe5 16.Qg4. 13...Re8 is obviously a worse version of a similar idea, and I won't defend further this move, particularly since I didn't propose it.

I'm surprised by your judgment of that ending, but for all I know, it is correct.  I'd be interested to hear any other strong player's opinion of it.  And of course yes, White has options earlier; I'm just not sure how much they lead to.  

Something else with which White has to contend after 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.O-O-O is 9...Na6 with the idea ...Nb4-d5, or if 10.a3, then 10...Nc7 intending ...Nd5.  That looks pretty solid to me, even if somewhat troglodytic.  If White's bishop wants to escape to g5, then Black's develops on e7.

@Uruk:  Yes, I knew what you were talking about. I just think that in specific positions, more specific argumentation, e.g. analysis, is much more useful.  I think that you and I have rather different ideas of how to play chess, though.  I consider 9...Be7 to be an excessively passive move, for example.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/21/09 at 04:51:39:


I doubt White's compensation after 11...Nbd7 plan 12...Qa5 and 13...0-0-0. This looks too much like a Caro-Kann (4...Bf5) with an extra pawn for Black.

Markovich wrote on 05/21/09 at 01:35:01:


No familiarity nor deprecation, just abbreviation. But right, butchering a name is evil.

Markovich wrote on 05/21/09 at 01:35:01:


I didn't get that. I was answering your claim that the light-squared bishop is White's best piece, saying that to me, the rooks are.

Markovich wrote on 05/21/09 at 01:35:01:


Precisely the heavy pieces are left, and they're quite active.

Markovich wrote on 05/21/09 at 01:35:01:


See above, I offered the bind h4, Ng5 & Rd6 to follow your variation 13...Re8 (...) 17.de5 Qe7
Maybe that wasn't clear enough.

Sorry, didn't saw your 13...Bb4. It looks interesting, although 14.c3 Bc3 15.bc3 fe5 16.Qg4 looks like comp.

About the 2N vs R, I didn't really look at it but I suspect White can hold.
As it stands 6.Bd3 is White's best chance for equality at the moment.

So maybe it's time to investigate my first reaction 6...Bg6

Actually it's not clear that the pawns are weakened by 7.Bg6 hg6:

we saw that a queen on g3 could attack the pawn on g7.
Now the doubled pawn shields that.

Moreover the fixing Caro advance h4-h5, that we also saw, is now senseless.

Say 8.Qe2 c6 9.Bf4 e6 10.O-O-O Bb4.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/20/09 at 05:24:44:


After 23...Nd7 24.Rxa5 Nxe5 I certainly would not give a draw if White offered it, would you?  On the other hand, I don't think White would be unhappy to accept if Black offered. You may be right that technically, it's drawn; I don't have the skill or knowledge necessary to judge that.

After 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.O-O-O Bd6 10.Be5 O-O 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 f6 13.Rhe1 Re8 (13...Bb4 may be best) 14.g4, what do you say to 14...Bb4 with the idea 15.c3 Bxc3 16.bxc3 fxe5 and now 17.Nxe5 Nd7 or 17.dxe5 Qe7?

I think what I said about 6.Bd3 is that is not that it loses, but that it's a dubious move because it offers to bring off White's best attacker.  For the time being, I maintain that opinion.

Quote:


My claim that the line were good for White was exaggerated, but so was your suggestion above that 6.Bd3 would lose. Can we agree that both sides are fine after 23.Ra7 a4 24.c4, or 23...Nd7 24.Rxa5? Or do you want to win an ending like g4 (white) vs g5 (black), with 2N vs R ?

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0 Be7 10.h4 Nbd7 11.h5 Qa5 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 h6. Here my last post had 14.Rdf1. Maybe 14.Qg3 is an alternative: 14...Rg8 15.Rdf1 0-0-0 16.a3 Rdf8 17.Kb1 Nd7 18.Bf4 Nb6 19.Rf2 Nc4 20.Qd3 Qa6 (20...Nxb2 =; 20...b5 21.Bc1) 22.Bh2 Bh4 23.Rf3 f5 24.a4 Bg5 25.Ka2 and White has full compensation for the pawn. 

Analyzing 6.Bd3 I have the feeling that White can vary his plans and still retain sufficient compensation. 6.Ne5 may be sound, I don't know. But here I can understand Uruk's doubts, the move seems too risky.

Stefan, you gave 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0 Bd6 10.Be5 Bxe5 11.dxe5 Qxd3 12.Rxd3 Nd5 13.Ne4 b5 14.Nd4 0-0 15.Rf1 a6 16.Nc5 Ra7 17.Rdf3 and so forth.

That's a long line and not forcing. I think that Black might improve with 15...Ne7 (intending 16.Nc5 a5) or 15...a5 (intending 16.Nc5 Ne7) instead of 15...a6.  No doubt White has better activity, but I'm not sure if it translates into anything.  Meanwhile Black has his pawn and at least won't have to worry about his king.

Further 10...0-0 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 f6 13.Bg3 (or 13.h4 Qe7) 13...Qe7 and I am not at all sure that White has enough to carry though with anything.

Markovich wrote on 05/18/09 at 12:36:20:


See my reply #37. Sorry for my mistake regarding the move numbers, so please read 10...Bxe5 for 11...Bxe5, and so on. The explanation is that in my file I still have the inaccurate move-order 6.Bd3 Bg6?! 7.Qe2?! Bxd3 8.Qxd3, which added a move for both sides.

Fine, so what about 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0 Bd6 10.Be5 Bxe5?

Stefan, 

Thank you for providing the diagram.   

All, 

I am overwhelmed
   by the number of positions 
you quote in one post. 

     So I will leave with this ragged verse in time 
and let others do the wandering.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/17/09 at 19:00:02:


Well, we should discuss the rights and wrongs of that either in another thread or perhaps here after we have dispensed with 6.Bd3.  But one thing I am very much not impressed by is statistics in these gambit systems, so we'll eventually have to get into the actual chess of it.  Black of course plays 8...c6.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/17/09 at 19:00:02:


Ah, now I see that.  But I wonder why Black was made to play either 10...Be7 or 10...Bc7.  Why should he fear 10...0-0? For that matter, why can't Black just concede d6 outright and play 10...Bxe5 11.dxe5 (I assume your plan is not to play a pawn down with no bishops on the board) 11...Qxd3 12.Rxd3 Nd5 13.Ne4 b5, after which I doubt that White's sinking a knight into d6 is really going to help him very much.  Black is not without play of his own, for instance eventually ...Nd7, ...Ne7, ...Ng6.

@Uruk: Yeah, I understand the point of ...Be6, I just think that ...Bg6 is a strong move.  Further after 6.Ne5, 6...e6 does happen to be a line.  If you like Black in the first diagram, you and I have very different ideas of how to play chess.  But in general I think you're too shy about asserting Black's chances.  He's a pawn up and has no weaknesses, for crying out loud.  Should it bother him that White has some pressure down the e- and f-files?  

Stefan says that if White is more active and Black has no pawn breaks in the near future, White has comp.  Well fine, the only problem is that Black is a pawn up and the course of a chess game is not limited to the next ten moves.  In such a position I am very happy to shift my pieces around and eventually find some way to simplify.  Without a clear plan for White, there is no way I would want his side of it.  (I myself am by no means reluctant to gambit a pawn, by the way, just not my e-pawn on move two unless Black's first move is 1...f5).

Stefan, your Qf5-d7 idea is cool.
Black gives back the inactive rook to regroup.
The Nd5 is a beast then.
White is left shuffling his heavies looking for tricks.

The drawing chances seem more intact in the Bd3 variation.
After 9...Be7 10.h4 Nbd7 11.Ne5 O-O (show me!)
does the absence of f-pawn make the attack stronger than in normal Caro?
I don't think so.

9...Bd6 is possibly more precise, I don't know.

5...Be5 6.Ne5 and here I'm not sure that I agree that 6...c6 is critical.  There's also 6...e6 7.g4 Bg6, where Black's chances seem fairly good to me.

Further, I wonder whether 6.Bd3?!, exchanging White's best attacking piece, can really be taken seriously.  After the proposed 6...Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0, I would prefer 9...Bd6 to 9...Be7. 

A good rule of thumb for Black in the BDG is that if you can bring off two pairs of minor pieces without incurring an obvious disadvantage, you will eventually win.  So to me, 9...Bd6 10.Bg5 Nbd7 11.Ne4 Be7 looks quite fine for Black.  White can only avoid further simplification by some retreat of the e4 knight, when 12...Qc7 followed by ...h6 and/or ...0-0-0 looks good for Black.  On the other hand, 12.Nxf6 Bxf6 obviously favors Black.

Uruk wrote on 05/17/09 at 07:06:28:


In the second diagram yes. White is three tempi ahead in development. Another question is how White must use this temporary compensation. If Black can play Nbd7, Qa5 and 0-0-0 undisturbed White is a pawn down for nothing. So I wonder if 7...c6 is really necessary? Is there something wrong with 7...e6 8.Bf4 Be7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 or Nc6 ?

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 (the so-called Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, or short: BDG) 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5

(a) 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 Be6 8.g5 Nd5 9.Ne4 Nd7 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 11.Nc5 Qd6 12.Bg2 g6 13.c3 b6 14.Ne4 Qd7 15.c4 Nc7 16.Qa4 b5 17.cxb5 cxb5 18.Qa5.



(b) 6.Bd3 Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 8.Bf4 e6 9.0-0-0 Be7 10.h4.



Uruk questions the soundness of 1.d4 d5 2.e4 and regards 5...Bf5 as =+. The two variations seem to be White's best attempts to get sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Any improvements are welcome, taking back moves is allowed.

Quote:

That's the advantage of a mere discussion, instead of playing games!

Uruk wrote on 05/16/09 at 18:29:23:


I don't understand - on 13.c3 b6 14.Ne4 Qd7 my plan was 15.c4 (not 15.0-0). If then 15...Nc7 16.Qa4 b5 17.cxb5 cxb5 18.Qa5 (unclear?). 

 
Uruk wrote on 05/16/09 at 18:29:23:

I had thought you would prefer 6...Bg6 (see your last post). But you are probably right, 6...Bxd3 seems more precise. 

Your last remark probably comments on my side-line 9....Be7 10.h4. "A Caro without f-pawn" - hmm, I'd rather stress White's big advantage in development. Black's Be7 indicates that he intends to castle short, which in itself justifies h2-h4 (even if Black now adjusts his plan and plays Be7-d6). Your worries whether f- and h-file play are compatible are subtle, but White can probably make good use of both files, should Black castle short. I really believe you should check 9...Bd6 instead of Be7. If you can make this work, BDG players might be frustrated (especially if Black's king reaches a safe place on b8). However, if you castle short, into White's attack, I have my doubts whether this can deter BDG players from this variation. 

Yes, after 14.Nxe6 Qxe6+ 15.Qe2 Qxe2+ 16.Kxe2 e6 17.Bd2 Ne7! Black's advantage is not in doubt. 14.Ne4 (14...Qc7 15.0-0; 14...Qd7 15.c4) may be playable.

Uruk is only one of many who say that the BDG is dubious. And it is just this bad image which makes the BDG so attractive for players without prejudices, so what... For a long time I had (wrongly) regarded 4...c6 as -/+, when in reality White has nothing to fear, so I am not in a position to criticize anybody. Never trust your old analyses.

Quote:
 
I'd prefer 13.c3 to avoid any future crumbling of said center.

Quote:

(6.Bd3 Bg6) 7.Bxg6 hxg6 8.Qe2 would be my last reaction.

I am saying, Uruk, since you regularly go into these BDG threads with the aim of dismissing the line- why don't you regularly go into the threads on the Evans, Belgrade etc, since they aren't likely to give White more than = either?   

Or how about the Milner-Barry against the French, which is certainly no sounder (unlike the Evans and Belgrade which probably are sound).

The patronising dismissive tone is the problem.  We have threads devoted to lesser lines that are devoted to finding out the truth of said lesser lines- be it =+, =, += or +/-.  For instance there's been a good debate on the Latvian which isn't objectively one of Black's best answers to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3- but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the high quality discussions that it ultimately got.

Uruk wrote on 05/14/09 at 11:40:03:


Probably. Being a teacher in maths and physics I still enjoy trying to find an answer to other questions - like is the Danish playable? You see, quite a few scientists are not only interested in the relevant questions, whatever they are. They also like the quest for answers for the sake of the quest itself.

Btw, your central question already has been answered by Steinitz. The initial position is a draw. From that perspective = or += does not matter. Now what? Are you going to quit chess? I don't think so. So I am pretty sure your curiosity is not limited to your central question. If it were you would not post that much in BDG-threads.

Concerning the question game or not, let's keep it simple. If the two of you enjoy it go ahead. If one doesn't, whatever his reason, everybody should show respect.

Now could we get some moves again? Eg Uruk, don't you think 12...g6 =+ a bit easy, perhaps even lazy? Wouldn't it be better to give a few sample lines? ArkHein and Craig E, what do you guys think the best reply?

See, chess may be solved, there are still a few things I would like to know. 

SWJediknight wrote on 05/14/09 at 20:14:32:


I don't know why you say that 1. d4 d5 2. c4 should lead to += in all lines; that seems to go against the usual view of recent times.

The openings you refer to (Evans...) are seldom played at the top, which should say something.
Still, rather give my b-pawn for a tempo than my e-pawn for none!

The point of having a section on 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is to look at equalising attempts from Black, of course!

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:


Even if 2800 I'd still be willing to prove my assertions.
I'm a mathematician you see.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:


I twice said contributions are welcome, and am waiting for a response to 12...g6
So I don't see what you're talking about. 

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:


I already said exactly that, look above.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:


A draw does not disprove =+
The problem is that we have more evaluations than possible results,
so a 1-to-1 correspondance is not available.

CraigEvans wrote on 05/14/09 at 17:01:37:


I've been waiting for moves for some posts now.
So stop calling me Mr Bad Guy & try to contribute.

I hate to disagree, Uruk, but you've taken a variation as far as 12...g6 and claimed =+. Now I'm not sure how strong a player you are, but I'm doubting that you are so strong that we have to accept your verdict as the ultimate authority on the classification of the position. Clearly Arkhein feels there is compensation there for white and is willing to continue from that position to prove it.

If your goal is to find the ultimate line for white which gives the biggest advantage possible with the first move advantage, then go ahead, you have my blessing. But, you cannot dip your toes into other waters, claim "BDG is bad, white is worse lol!!!111" and then skulk away into the shadows without some people wishing to see that particular pudding eaten.

Further, not to go against my co-moderator, but I agree with Smyslov Fan that these forum games can have a profound benefit for those who participate and follow along, although I would also agree with the sentiments that there is no place for grudge matches and macho blitz challenges here. However, I feel from past experience that Arkhein's motives are pure enough, and some of the games he has previously been involved with have shown the gambit to be far more robust than some people will accept.

I would say that, if you could find a line which you could prove (to open-minded BDG players and to impartial observers - there will always be a few fanatics who can be ignored) to give an advantage for black, your place in history would be more than assured. At the moment, however, your position after 12...g6 is just that, a position, and I have to greet any claim of a definite assessment of =+ as simply an amusing opinion. 
You have given your reasons as to why you believe 6.Ne5 inferior, but at the moment you have done nothing to convince me or anyone else. As a relatively impartial, open-minded person who intends to play the BDG next season, I would be very interested to see the ideas that yourself and Arkhein come up with as you try to discover the truth in this variation. But the final choice is yours. Just don't be surprised if your "black wins lol!!!111111" claims (with insufficient grounds to support) are met with some scorn by the more dedicated BDGers here - many have claimed similar thigns in the past, so far no-one has convincingly shown the gambit to be bad in any way.

Markovich wrote on 05/13/09 at 15:18:23:


I was part of one of the best threads I've seen here.  Yes, I am biased.

That thread was on the French Steinitz.  While I was one of the main participants in the game that was played, many people joined in, including IMs.  The opening covered one of the most important variations that was played that summer, and the publicans' research  was such that the thread is still probably one of the best resources available to anyone who wants to play that line.

While I agree that there isn't really any room for grudge matches here, a game in which champions of White and Black have an open discussion of the variation is an excellent way to delve into the intricacies of an opening.

Just as there are many styles of opening books, including ones that use complete games, the pub can accomodate many types of opening threads.  If the Chess publicans don't like a thread, they don't have to participate in it.  We currently have a thread in the chit chat section that has two people commenting on the Dutch League.  While that thread doesn't comport with the stated purpose of the Chess Pub, there is certainly no harm and some amusement that comes from its existence.

Again, I agree that this is not the place for grudge matches.

Cheers!

Gambit wrote on 05/12/09 at 20:03:02:


What's the point of playing a game on this website?  What's the point of issuing a challenge, for that matter?  What's it have to do with openings theory, which is the broad subject of this website?   

Also to me, it didn't sound very friendly, but more of a macho dude thing.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

What's wrong with playing a game here between ArKhein and Uruk?
I think it is perfectly fine. As for me challenging people to play me on ICC, let me say that I proposed longer time controls than Game/5. Only a couple of times were the challenges accepted.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how the game develops between ArKhein and Uruk. Markovich, you said it should be chess, correct? Well, a challenge to play a public chess game is chess. Personally, I do not think it is fair to delete such posts.

I don't want to impose what might not be a widely accepted norm by deleting this thread, but frankly, this challenge bothers me.  What does it have to do with chess opening theory?  This isn't a chess playing website.  Why issue a challenge publicly when a private one would do just as well?  There is a lot of bravado in it, and to me, it seems not entirely friendly.  It reminds me the everlasting challenges to play speed chess on ICC that Gambit so liberally substitutes for argumentation.

On a friendly basis, Arkhein and I are playing a pair of games, one as White, one as Black, in the 9.Nxa7+ Schliemann on an informal cc site; and some time ago we played a "public" cc game here in BDG 5...Bf5 (which I lost).  I regard this sort of thing as helpful toward learning how to play given variations, but not very constructive toward determining "chess truth."  I have not, for instance, changed my opinion that 5...Bf5 is strong against the BDG.  Since it doesn't say much about the strength of given variations, I am doubtful that it has a value here that would offset my concerns about its being unduly confrontational.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 Be6 8.g5 Nd5 9.Ne4 You previously agreed that you would play like this as Black, now let's show that in practice. My last move is 9.Ne4 and I am challenging you in a game as Shoupal-Bonsai.