Stigma wrote on 12/15/09 at 04:20:39:
@dmp4373
Sure, BDG Lover can play anything he likes and does well with, and have fun. Nothing wrong with that.
Anyone who criticizes BDG players is implicitly assuming that the goal of any player is not just to have fun and score well in the present, but to improve and reach higher levels. And above a certain rating (2100 maybe) I really do think White is handicapping himself by always having to win by attack from a pawn-down or structurally weak position.
There is a hidden assumption among many BDG (and other offbeat openings) fans that the opponent will be well-prepared for the main lines and unprepred for the BDG. But on club level often the reality is that Black isn't well-prepared for anything at all!
So White can play critical main lines, be only slightly better prepared than Black, and score many points while getting experience in a wide variety of positions and moving towards mastery. I think that's more satisfying than playing only attacking positions all the time, but that's just my opinion.
See this article here:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_rb/rb_ht_build_chess_open_rep.html and this quote:
Quote:I think the author sets up a straw man by evoking the problems encountered by Grandmasters Gallagher and Federov in playing the King's Gambit against world-class players. From this, he concludes that most players would be better off by, early on, learning and sticking to the Ruy Lopez (or maybe the Scotch). I don't think that this analogy really works for the average player. The bottom line is that, with limited time to study, most players would gladly accept the Gallagher/Federov problem (what to do when I get to grandmaster and can't play the King's Gambit against Shirov) as a risk worth taking. Granted, if you are an up-and-coming junior who hopes to make it to the Gallagher-Federov level, the advice might be worth considering. For the average player, however, it doesn't seem all that relevant.
Thus the problem with your assumptions regards how you define "higher levels". All chessplayers aspire to improve to enough of an extent to enable them to get a lot out of the game, but not all chessplayers aspire to reach exalted levels. This is true for various reasons- the need to study more at higher levels, and indeed the lower likelihood of getting away with risky sub-optimal play are just two of them. I would suggest, though, that the point at which these opening are a handicap may be nearer 2400 rather than 2100, considering Morozevich's success with the Albin at 2600 level and Stefan Bucker's success with the Englund at the 2400 level.
Btw in the Euwe Defence I prefer 7.Qd2 when no path to advantage for Black has been found- and I disagree with giving 4.f3 a "?!". White's slight inaccuracy was at move 2 with e4 instead of c4, and after 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6, 4.f3 may well be White's best move in the position.
I also don't see why the Lemberger (3...e5) shouldn't be considered as a line of the BDG. True White hasn't played Diemer's 3...Nf6 4.f3, but the whole point of 3.Nc3 is to avoid Blackmar's 3.f3?! e5!.
Pages: 
Christoph's Gambit!? (Read 173023 times)
