The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is controversial to say the least, but let's face it: there's gotta' be something wrong with this this thing. Instead of the more common 3.Nc3, my opponent tries 3.Be3!? This is sort of a transposition from the French line: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3, which is also considered a lemon. I used to play this myself, against the annoying French Defense, back during the Carter Administration. I had very mixed results. Here, I figured a quick crush was at hand, since I was already familiar with the line.....

Even though a gambit may be "Refuted", it is still complicated and it is very easy to give up tiny advantage if your under 2000 rated.

"Complicated"! Really!? Chess? You're kidding!

Forget the ridiculous example in the first post. The question is: Just how bad is the alternative move 3.Be3 in this line? The idea, of course, is to follow up with Nd2, which now doesn't block the bishop. It also discourages the annoying pin Bb4 because of c3. After 3...e6 4.Nd2 Nf6 5.c3, white's position looks good, and flexible. He can continue with g2 or Qc2 or Ne2.

Many people say the best you can do is to decline the e4 pawn and play 2...e6 or 2...c6 

As BDG-player you MUST be prepared for the French and the Caro-Kann.

And i think, most "serious" BDG-player are prepared.

You can choose other gambits like the Alapin or Diemer-Duhm-Gambit with 3.c4 or the Winckelmann-Reimer-Gambit

or you can choose to play the French and search for a sharp variation like the Aljechin-Chatard.

So there are many alternatives, when Black is not eating the pawn in the second move.

After 3.Nc3 or 3.f3 a solid possibilty is ...e5.

If 3.Be3 e5! is even stronger, 4.d5? f5 threatening f4 or 4.de5 Qd1 5.Kd1 Nc6 are good for black

Thanks TomKf. But what about simply 4.Nc3.? If 4...Bb4 5.Bc4. Or 4...exd4 5.Bxd4 Nc6 6.Bb5. Nothing earth-shaking here, but I'm not convinced the mainline 3.Nc3 is markedly better than the strangely neglected 3.Be3.

that transposes to an inferior line of the Lemberger variation (3.Nc3 e5 4.Be3?!) White has a hard time getting his pawn back. I copied some lines from a recent book about the BDG:

Thanks again, TomKF. Something about the Lemberger variation stinks  :P   Seriously though, the position after 15...Ke6 looks unclear. I guess after black's knight exits via f3 or h3, the doubled pawns will be a liability. That plus his advanced king position should give black a better endgame. But this is hardly enough to convince a stubborn wood-pusher like me to give up on 3.Be3.....

Thanks for the input, Dark_Falcon. I may have been unclear in my original post. I've never played the BDG myself. But I sometimes try the Alapin Gambit against the French, which is similar. After the first few moves it's a transposition from the BDG. Black usually captures the pawn, but can decline with 3...Nf6. After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3 dxe4 4.Nd2, black can follow-up with 4...Nf6 or the more adventurous 4...F5. This is like the Tarrasch Variation except the c1 bishop isn't blocked by the knight on d2. Of course,it's at the cost of a pawn. Game Explorer has one of those funny, swashbuckling games from the 19th century with the line: Mieses Jacques vs Lipke Paul . I don't think any high-level players use this thing today.

No prob...but as Tom said, 3.Be3 without 2...e6 doesnt work well, because of 3...e5.

so if you play 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 you are forced to play the BDG, if you want the Alapin, then you have to move 1.e4 and play it against the French.

Hey! What a coincidence! The sometimes dubious but always entertaining and typo-prone FM Eric Schiller just posted an article on the BDG on this site! Fo gigure!?

Keep in mind that that's the sort of position you have to be willing to play as White every game. In my opinion, you simply cannot do that; having all the losing chances after 15 moves as White against a good player is no way to live in chess.