Gambit wrote on 02/08/11 at 04:55:04:


You're right, it's equal, but Black's position seems easier to play.

After 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 I would play 2...d5 3.g5 Ne4 and laugh in my opponent's face for weakening his kingside.

Hint: White could achieve this position with a bishop on f4 instead of a pawn on g5...

When playing 5.Bf4 I envisaged lines such as 5...Bf5 6.Qd2 e6 7.0-0-0 Bd6 8.Bc4 0-0 9.Ne2 with long-term attacking chances on the kingside.  Even if it isn't objectively enough, White's chances in an OTB game are reasonable.

However, MNb's idea 5...e6 intending 6.Qd2 c5 is awkward for White.  In that line White appears to have nothing better than 7.0-0-0 Nc6 8.Ne2 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Qxd4 11.Rxd4 Bc5 12.Rxe4 Bxf2 and Black maintains the extra pawn in a simplified position.  Therefore after 5...e6 White should probably try 6.Ne2 (6.c3 c5 does not help), and then if 6...c5 7.dxc5 Qxd1+ (or 7...Qf6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rd1 with compensation) 8.Rxd1 Bxc5 9.Nc3 White has reasonable compensation.  However Black can just play 6...Nc6 here and reach an improved version of the first line I gave above- the problem is that White can't easily deal with this ...c5 threat without disrupting piece development.

Thus I think you're probably right, White should really avoid the Hubsch Gambit (not a big deal for me, I only used it as a sideline against the Alekhine Defence, and White isn't short of uncompromising responses to the Alekhine).

Re. 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5, I believe that 4.Nxe4 is the best reply.  Eric Prie defused most of the alternatives in an earlier BDG update here at Chesspublishing.com (and 4.Be3 btw is just bad for White), but 4.Nxe4 leaves White with compensation for a pawn after either 4...exd4 or 4...Qxd4, which defeats the point of playing 3...e5.

Jonathan Tait wrote on 02/06/11 at 10:11:34:

This line was covered in Yelena Dembo's Fighting the Anti-King's Indians.  It seemed rock solid to me (for black), so it seems that black can sidestep the BDG entirely and if white persists, then two knights come off the board which reduces the white attacking capability which is precisely why white players play the BDG, right?

I believe that 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 Nxe4 is covered in Christoph Wisnewski's book- another reason to get it methinks, as I'll be interested to see what he thinks of it.

I've played it occasionally with White (most often via the order 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4), though many opponents reply 3...dxe4 rather than 3...Nxe4.  After 3...Nxe4 I prefer 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bf4, intending Qd2 and 0-0-0 and a later f3, though previous discussions on the line in Chesspub suggest that Black is objectively at least equal.  There is a discussion on the line here:
http://www.belkaplan.de/chess/bdg/diemer/budzinski_ueber_bdg_und_huebsch-gambit_...

I don't particularly trust 5.Bc4- to my knowledge Black can return the pawn and reach at least equality with lines beginning 5...c5, among other objections (e.g. GM Eric Prie gave a safe line for Black which is = to =+).

TN wrote on 02/06/11 at 07:36:14:


there's a decisive statement

Do any of you try to enter the BDG via 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e4?

Yes, maybe 6.Nge2 is more precise than Bc4 with the same idea of attacking the Bf5 but without the counter-attack on the Bc4.

PS: about the Langeheinecke defense, it's useful to notice this transposition (and this is the reason why there is some 2300+ games OTB): 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 d5 4.f3 Nf6 5.e4 dxe4 6.Nc3 e3 7.Bxe3