Well if SWJediKnight intends his BDG recommendation to apply to young and improving players, I fully agree.  I think it's a good way to get an open, attacking game of chess where the emphasis will often be on finding tactics.  Granted, White's comp is not quite enough, but this is unlikely to matter much at lower levels of play.  If I thought the BDG were totally unsound, I wouldn't take this position, but Black's game isn't a total piece of cake.

I recommend the King's Bishop's Gambit, the Goering Gambit, the Belgrade Gambit, the Scotch Gambit and the Scotch Four Knights on the same basis.

By the time a player is rated 2100 or so, however, I expect him to be perfectly capable of handling open positions and finding tactics, so I think that above that level, and possibly even before then, I would recommend his shifting to something more capable of producing a real advantage, and also more conducive to the progress of his chess understanding.  1.d4, 2.c4, for example.

Definitely if an improving player can cut down the occasional chess master with gambit-style play, he should switch away from these simple, 19th-Century-style gambits.  That doesn't mean that he should shun White's side of the Anti-Moscow, of course.

Right, addressing some of the points:

Quote:


A good point.  I guess that the King's Gambit might be harder to play and/or easier to play against at lower levels than is the case with many of the other gambits.  

Quote:


The Latvian does have a lot of fanatical supporters, you just don't see them on here.  Look at some of Jeremy Silman's Latvian-bashing articles for proof.

It's very clear that I am being tarred with the same brush as the hardcore BDG fanatics- and I think it's not right that I should suffer because Lev Zilbermints and his ilk obsess about how 8.0-0?! in the Euwe Defence wins a lot of 5-minute games.   Or do people think I displayed fanaticism in this thread?  All I did was join a couple of other members in suggesting that the BDG might be viable as a part of a wide-ranging opening repertoire below 2000 Elo (note- I even advised against making it the centrepiece of one's repertoire).  I have even admitted many times that objectively in the BDG, Black is at least equal with best play.  And then, when I was singled out from the others and scorned for daring to suggest it, I defended the validity of my position.  Am I not allowed to have anything less than utter contempt for this opening without being labelled as a Zilbermints level fanatic of it?

Some of the former openings I mentioned are definitely better than the BDG- e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 almost certainly fully compensates for the pawn.  But some of the others are open to debate.  Some people believe Black has the edge against the Moller, Morra and Goring Gambits with best play (I don't agree on the latter two, but that's beside the point).  Similarly, it isn't a foregone conclusion that Black has an edge against the BDG- see other threads for how open to debate this is.  

Quote:


Again, a sure sign that I'm being tarred with the same brush as Gambit, Sloughter etc.   I couldn't care less about 8.0-0?! in the Euwe Defence and all the rest of it.  I do, sometimes, delve into these threads when people are contributing analysis on the BDG, because along with many other openings, it's a line I take an interest in.  And on occasion I've found resources for Black- e.g. 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Bg5 e6 8.Qe2 Bb4! (an improvement on 8...Be7, which works nicely for White), where White might not have enough for the pawn.  Is this the trademark of a BDG worshipper?  And I probably play the BDG in, at most, 10% of my games with White- is that the sign of a fanatic?

If I'm uptight about anything, it's being tarred with the same brush as people whose attitude to chess is a lot different to mine.  And my defensiveness of my right to a relatively moderate view, without being tarred with the same brush as those with an extreme view, is clearly being mis-interpreted as defensiveness of the BDG.

SWJediknight wrote on 02/23/09 at 22:25:01:

Because most of them are sound, at the worst white gets an equal game. Well maybe not the centre game, which I find even worse than the BDG.
Note that I dont scorn the opening or anything, I just rate it very low.
Quote:

Elephant yes, Latvian I am not so sure. What they lack are ardent supporters who are as fanatical as some are about the BDG. The minute someone starts doing that you will get the same as illustrated in the thread about the refutation of the TKD.
Quote:

There are reasons I dont take the BDG seriously:
-I never meet it. The few times I did (in blitz) I had an easy win.
-I am a clear pawn up and in return I have a slight problem with an open f-file, nothing to scare off someone who plays CK or French like I do.
Quote:

The difference is that at worst they are equal. Furthermore with the Italian or 4 knights you develop sensibly, dont screw up your kingside even before you castled and you dont put pressure on yourself to sustain an initiative which isnt there. Lastly most of these openings teach a lot about open games, so you get familiar themes which you can then use for expanding. Ie with youngsters (say in the 1500-1600 range) focusing on f7 in the opening gives you much material later when you want to do more advanced combinations and attacks.
Quote:

Whence I usually keep out. I just react now, because you seem to think there is no good reason to take this attitude.
Quote:

I am always tolerant, except when it may have a bad influence on others
The thing is that I think it is a waste of time if you want to improve. There are other gambits one could play, but more importantly I think it is unwise to spend much time on openings in this case and in particular if you have to do repair work each time. Time that is better spent on other things. In particular as the literature on it is usually rubbish. A thing I hope this book will remedy.

This whole debate reminds me of something Yermolinsky wrote about a player he knew who played these kinds of gambits. He would sac a pawn then spend loads of time in justifying the pawn sacrifice by maintaining his non-existent initiative, then sac a piece in an incorrect combination and lose.

However if you take a more loose approach I might agree. By this I mean look at the basics and some lines and  then just play it, without spending too much on theory before and after. As I think the BDG does have one important merit. It is about attacking the king and not in the usual ways you see in the 1e4e5 openings.

At least in the KG, Black has to go into fairly irrational territory to prove something.

Here he gets a sound Caro structure.

Because in this BDG Black has a relatively simple route to a slight advantage,
which is certainly not true of the openings you mention, heck even the Morra.

I'm open to debate in the antidote thread though.

Well you recognize it isn't objectively good.

In the endgame, you wouldn't play a bad move on purpose, would you ?

So why would you do it in the opening ?

True, more leeway for error there, but that's bad on principle.

Point by Point:

1. Getting better is easier by playing variety of systems and learning good chess.  Just because a player is weak should they play a weaker opening?  That seems to be one point that could be taken from your point #1. These players you speak about should be aspiring to the higher levels if they are here.  The best way ti be successful is to imitate success.  What top flight player uses this system?  I mean like Super GM strength. 

There are many MANY resources for players under 2000 on how to get better. This site is for opening theory and opening theory has clearly coalesced about the merits (?!) of the BDG, and I argue from that perspective.


2. Good players have many reasons for shilling certain lines.  If they are pimping trash they should be scorned even if they are Bobby Fischer or Kasparov.  In fact, even more so if it is someone of that pedigree.

3.  Economic factors could be considered.  I respect the author very much and know it will be top notch work.  I will even purchase it.  This does not mean the opening is anything other than interesting.  Is the Budapest better now that a book has been penned?  Is that your argument?

I am not scornfully dismissing anything.

I am speaking from experience and harbor no ill feelings.

From my experience, 30+ years, I have learned it is better to teach lower rated players to understand things better than it is to play crazy gambits if they wish to progress and build a foundation that will allow them to continue their personal chess evolution.  Gambits have their place in the Pantheon, no doubt.

A part.

I would not eat a plate full of Garlic.  It is a spice.

I would not build a solid chess repertoire hoping to get better by playing the BDG, the entire panoply of Zilbermint's Gambit's and The Borg.  I would, however, suggest using them as a spice, if that player likes spicey.


Of course, some students may prefer another path and to them I could suggest your coaching skills and strategy if they wish and they would prefer that path.  Some of my other colleagues may miss the referrals though.  

In good nature, and well intentioned with humour, nuance and respect, I remain,


~  drkodos.

Right, so before suggesting it willy-nilly on a site like this it might help to realize that the site is designed for high level play that stems from opening theory used by GM's, IM's, Masters and (possible Experts), the latter 2 of which is who I usually aim to play competitive chess against.

With this new and highly pertinent info at your disposal, would you not tend to agree that the opening is insufficient for my needs?

That is all I have ever argued. I have tried it repeatedly as White. I got crushed twice by people 100+ pts below my rating level in CC and get rolled up and laughed at (not really) otb against 2400's if I use it even in Blitz.

No doubt the IM's and FM's where I live may not be the strongest in the world, but they smack this stuff around.  I dare not truck it out when I (infrequently) play a GM.  I would prefer to try something that gives me actual chances of at least a draw as white.

Seriously.