BEWARE the vicious BDG: Zeller Ice Queen (1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Qe2!?)

this, serendipitously enough, was the very first new line of theory i started trying to build up a tactical repertoire and it is a 70% winning gold mine! yes, this gambit would be unsound if more people played correctly, but most don't between 1600 and 2000 and get punished bad for it. just check the stats and evaluations out! if you play the blackmar diemer gambit, you need to drop the 4.f3 main line in the zeller variation. it's strong at 56:41 in 54,000 games, but 4.Qe2 is a whopping 62:35 in 3,700 games!  that's the entire variation! play the best moves as white, and the numbers jump to 70% in almost every variation! black should just quit playing 3...Bf5? if he can't fix his busted theory.

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Qe2!? Nf6 5.Qb5+

5…Bd7 6.Qxb7 72:26@2k -1.4

   6…Bc6? 7.Bb5 87%@1,254 +6.3

      7…Bxb5 8.Nxb5 90%@430 +8.6

         8…Nd5 9.Qxd5 Qxd5 10.Nxc7+ Kd7 11.Nxd5 e6 12.Nc3 +8.5

         8…Nbd7 9.Nxc7+ Qxc7 10.Qxc7 89%@54 +9.0

            10…e6 11.Bg5 +8.9

               11…Be7 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Qc6 +8.8

               11…Nd5 12.Qc6 +9.4

            10…Rd8 11.Nh3 +9.2

            10…Nd5 11.Qc6 Nb6 12.Qxe4 e6 13.Nf3 Rc8 14.0-0 Be7 15.Qe2 +9.8

         8…Na6 9.Qxa6 88%@66 +8.2

            9…e6 10.Qc6+ +9.3

               10…Nd7? 11.Nxc7+ Ke7 +12.5

               10…Ke7 11.Bd2 +9.4

            9…Nd5? 10.Qc6+ Qd7 11.Qxa8+ Qd8 12.Qxd5 Qxd5 13.Nxc7+ +17.4

            9…Rc8 10.Nxa7 Ra8 11.Qc6+ Nd7 12.Nb5 Rc8 13.Bf4 +9.6

            9…Rb8 10.Qc6+ Qd7 11.Nxc7+ Kd8 12.Qxd7+ +8.3

         8…Qd5? 9.Qc8+ Qd8 10.Nxc7# 1-0 28 games

      7…Qd7? 8.Bxc6  96%@437 +8.8

         8…Qxc6?? 9.Qc8# 1-0 at 392 games!

         8…Nxc6 9.Qxa8+ Nd8 10.Qxa7 e6 11.Bg5 +9.2

      7…Qd6 8.Bxc6+  89%@70

         8…Qxc6?? 9.Qc8# 1-0 in 374 games!

         8…Nxc6 9.Qxa8+ +8.9

      7…Nfd7 8.Bxc6 Nxc6 9.Qxc6  80%@55 +9.1

         9…e6 10.Nxe4 Be7 11.Nf3 0-0 12.0-0 +8.8

         9…Rb8 10.Nh3 Rb6 11.Bc4 Qa8 12.0-0 +9.5

5…Nbd7? 6.Qxf5 73:24@901 +5.5

   6…e6 7.Qb5 71:25@409 +5.3

      7…b6?? 8.Bg5 76:22@157 +7.1

         8…Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nxe4 +8.1

            10…Bxd4 11.0-0-0 +8.5

               11…a6 12.Qc6 +8.5

               11…Bf6 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Qc6 Ke7 14.Nf3 Rc8 15.Qc3 +9.0

            10…0-0 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.Nf3 +7.5 (11.Rd1!? +8.0 why not 0-0-0?)

         8…a6 9.Qc6 +7.8

            9…Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nxe4 +8.1

            9…Bb4 10.Qxf6 gxf6 11.Qxe4 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 c5 13.g3 +8.0

      7…Rb8 8.Bg5 72:24@58 +5.3 (8.g3 is +0.9 but untested)

         8…Be7? 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Nxe4 Bxd4 11.0-0-0 +7.3

         8…a6 9.Qe2 +5.1

            9…Bb4 10.Bd2 Bxc3 11.Bxc3 +5.3

            9…Be7? 10.0-0-0 c5 11.Nxe4 c4 12.Bxf6 +6.6

         8…c6 9.Qe2 +5.1

            9…Be7? 10.0-0-0 +6.5

            9…Bb4 10.Bd2! bxc3 11.Bxc3 0-0 12.g3 e5 13.dxe5 +5.0

      7…Bd6 8.Bg5 0-0 9.Nxe4 64:29@14 +6.8

         9…Be7 10.Nxf6+ +7.5

            10…Bxf6 11.Bxf6 +7.5

               11…Nxf6 12.Nf3 +7.6

                  12…c6 13.Qb3 Nd5 14.Bc4 +7.8

                  12…a6 13.Qc5 Qd5 14.Be2 Qxc5 15.dxc5 +7.6

               11…Qxf6? 12.Qxd7 Rfd8 13.Qb5 Qxd4 14.Bd3 +9.2

            10…Nxf6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Nf3 c6 13.Qb3 Qa5+ 14.c3 +7.2

         9…c6 10.Qb3 h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Nxf6 Qxd6 13.Nf3 +7.5

         9…h6 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 11.Bd3 c6 12.Qb3 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 +7.1     

   6…g6 7.Qb5 70:24@63 +5.9 (vs 7.Qf4 63:30@30 +6.3)

      7…Bg7 8.Qxb7 0-0 9.Nxe4 75%@4 +5.5

         9…Nxe4 10.Qxe4 

            10…Nb6 11.Be2 Qd5 12.Qxd5 Nxd5 13.Nf3 Rab8 14.0-0 c5 15.dxc5 +7.9

            10…Nf6 11.Qc6 Rb8 12.Be2 Qd6 13.Qxd6 exd6 14.a4 c5 15.Nf3 +7.2

            10…e5 11.d5 f5 12.Qa4 Nb6 13.Ba3 Rb8 14.Nh3 h6 15.Be2 +6.2

         9…Rb8 10.Nxf6+ 

            10…Nxf6 11.Qxa7

               11…Ne4 12.Nf3 +7.2

               11…Ra8 12.Qb7 Qxd4 13.c3 Qe4+ 14.Qxe4 Nxe4 15.Nf3 +6.0

            10…exf6 11.Qf3 Re8+ 12.Be2 c5 13.Nh3 Qe7 14.dxcf5 +5.5

         9…Re8 10.Be2 e5 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.Qf3 exd4 13.Kf1 Rb8 14.Bd3 +5.5

      7…b6 8.Bg5 90%@10 +6.4

         8…Bg7 9.Bxf6 +6.5

            9…Bxf6 10.Nxe4

               10…Bxd4 11.0-0-0

                  11…Bg7 12.Qc6

                     12…Rb8 13.Bb5

                        13…Kf8 14.Rxd7 Qe8 15.Nf3 Rd8 16.Qxc7 +11.9

                        13…0-0 14.Rxd7 Bh6+ 15.Kb1 Qe8 16.Nf3 +10.4

                    12…0-0 13.Rxd7 Qe8 14.Be2 Rd8 15.Rxc7 Qxc6 16.Rxc6 +9.1

                  11…c5 12.Nf3 Qc7 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Rxd4 Rd8 15.Nc3 +7.5

               10…0-0 11.Rd1 a6 12.Qc6 b5 13.Nf3 Rb8 14.Ne5 Nb6 15.Be2 +7.7

            9…exf6 10.Qd5 f5 11.Bb5 Rb8 12.Nge2 a6 13.Bxa6 0-0 14.Bb5 +6.8

         8…a6 9.Qc6 Bg7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nxe4 0-0 12.Nxf6+ Nxf6 13.0-0-0 +7.8

    6…Nb6 7.Nxe4 Qxd4 8.Nxf6+ exf6 9.Nf3 +6.6     

5…Nc6 6.Be3! 71%@38 -0.9

   6…Rb8? 7.Qxf5 72:28@18 +5.8

      7…e6 8.Qf4 Nxd4 9.Bxd4 Qxd4 10.Bb5+ +9.6

      7…Nxd4 8.Bxd4 Qxd4 9.Rd1 +5.6  

   6…Bd7 7.0-0-0 e6 8.Bg5  57:43@14 -0.7

   6…e6 7.Qxb7  94%@16 -0.1

      7…Na5? 8.Bb5+ Nd7 9.Bxd7+ Kxd7 10.Qa6 +2.0

      7…Rb8? 8.Bxc6+ Nd7 9.Bb5 +8.2

      7…Nxd4? 8.Bxd4 Rb8 9.Bb5+ +7.2

      7…Nb4 8.Bb5+ Nd7 9.Bxd7+ Kxd7 10.Qb5+ -0.1

   6…Bc8 7.d5 a6 8.Qb3 70%@10

      8…Na5? 9.Qa4+ c6 10.b4 +1.1

      8…Ne5 9.0-0-0 g6 10.h3 Bg7 11.g4 +0.2

   6…a6? 7.Qxf5 71:14@7 +3.5

      7…Nxd4 8.Bxd4 Qxd4 9.Rd1 Qb4 10.a3 Qxb2 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd5 +3.5

      7…e6? 8.Qh3 b5 9.0-0-0 h4 10.Na4 +6.3

   6…Qc8 7.d5 a6 8.Qb3 Ne5 9.0-0-0 Neg4 10.Bd4  40%@5 +0.4

   6…Qd7 7.d5  40%@5 -0.1

 

5…c6?? 6.Qxf5 70:29@387 +6.4

   6…e6 7.Qf4 62:38@47 +6.1

      7…Bd6 8.Qd2 75%@4 +5.9 vs 8.Qe3 44%@9 +6.9

         8…Nd5 9.Nxe4 Bf4 10.Qd1 Bxc1 11.Qxc1 0-0 12.Nf3 c5 13.dxc5 +7.7

         8…Nbd7 9.Nge2 e5 10.g3 h5 11.Bh3 0-0 12.Bxd7 e3 13.Qxe3 +6.0

         8…Bb4 9.a3 Ba5 10.Bc4 0-0 11.Ba2 Nbd7 12.Nge2 e5 13.dxe5 +6.7

         8…0-0 9.g3 Qb6 10.Bg2 e5 11.Nge2 exd4 12.Nxd4 Rd8 13.Nf5 +5.9

      7…Bb4 8.Bd2 57:43@7 +6.5

            8…Qxd4 9.0-0-0

               9…Nh5 10.Qc7 Qd7 11.Ne5 Nf6 12.Nxe4 Bxd2+ 13.Rxd2 +8.9

               9…Nbd7 10.Nf3 Qd6 11.Qxd6 Bxd6 12.Ng5 Nc5 13.Re1 Bc7 14.Ncxe4 +6.5

            8…Bxc3 9.Bxc3

               9…0-0 10.Ne2 Nbd7 11.Bd2 c5 12.dxc5 e5 13.Qf5 Nxc5 14.Nc3 +6.6

               9…Nbd7 10.Bd2 Nb6 11.Qg3 0-0 12.0-0-0 Rc8 13.Ne2 Nfd5 14.Nf4 +6.4

      7…Qxd4 8.Nf3 Qd6 9.Qxd6 bxd6 10.Nd2 Bb4 11.a3 Bxc3 12.bxc3 +6.1

   6…Qxd4 7.Qc8+ Qd8 8.Qxb7 Nbd7 9.Qxc6 79:17@29 +7.8

      9…e6 10.Nxe4 +7.6

         10…Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Be7 12.Nf3 0-0 13.Bd3 +8.3

             13…Nc5?? 14.Qxh7# 1-0

             13…f5 14.Qe2 e5 15.0-0 e4 16.Qc4+ Kh8 17.Nd4 +8.3 

         10…Be7 11.Nd6+ Kf8 12.Nf3 Rb8 13.Nc4 Nc5 14.Be3 Rc8 15.Qb5 +7.6

      9…Rc8 10.Qa4 +7.7

          10…e5 11.Bg5 Rxc3 12.bxc3 Qc7 13.Rb1 Bd6 14.Bxf6 +8.2

          10…e6 11.Nxe4

             11…Nxe4 12.Qxe4

                12…Nf6 13.Qa4+ Nd7 14.bf4 g5 15.0-0-0 a6 16.Be5 Rg8 17.Qxa6 +9.8

                12…Be7 13.Nf3 0-0 14.Be2 Nf6 15.Qa4 e5 16.0-0 Qc7 17.c3 +8.0

             11…Bc5 12.Be2 0-0 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Nf3 Rfd8 15.0-0 Ne5 16.c3 +7.5

    6…Nbd7 7.Nxe4 59:41@68 +7.8

      7…Nxe4 8.Qxe4 65:35@20 +8.4

         8…e6 9.Nf3 71:29@7

             9…Be7 10.Bd3 c5 11.0-0 12.Nxd4 Nf6 13.Qxb7 Rb8 14.Qxa7 +9.3

             9…Bb4+ 10.c3

                10…Be7 11.Bd3 0-0 12.Be2 c5 13.0-0 Nf6 14.Bd2 Qb6 15.a4 +8.8

                10…Qa5 11.Qc2 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 c5 13.Bd3 Rc8 14.Bd2 +9.7

             9…Nf6 10.Qe3 Ng4 11.Qf4 Nxf2 12.Kxf2 Be7 13.Qe4 a5 14.Bd3 +9.3

           8…Nf6 9.Qe3 69:31@13 +8.5

              9…e6 10.Nf3 Bd6 11.Bd3 0-0 12.0-0 Qc7 13.Qe2 Rae8 14.Bg5 +9.2

              9…e5 10.dxe5 Nd5 11.Qb3 Bc5 12.Nf3 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6 14.Bc4 +8.8

      7…e6 8.Nxf6+ Nxf6 9.Qd3 57:43@7 +7.8

          9…Qb6 10.Nf3 0-0-0 11.Be2 c5 12.Qc4 Kb8 13.Bf4+ Ka8 14.0-0 +8.8

          9…Bb4+ 10.c3 Bd6 11.Be2 0-0 12.Nf3

            12…Qc7 13.0-0 c5 14.Bg5 Nd5 15.Bd1 Bf4 16.Bh4 +8.7 

             12…Re8 13.0-0 e5 14.dxe5 Rxe5 15.g3 Rxe2 16.Qxe2 +8.6

          9…Be7 10.Nf3

             10…Nd5 11.c3 0-0 12.g3 c5 13.Bg2 cxd4 14.Nxd4 Bf6 15.0-0 +8.5

             10…0-0 11.Qd1 e5 12.Nxe5 c5 13.Bd3 Qxd4 14.Nf3 Qa4 15.0-0 +8.1

          9…e5 10.dxe5 Qa5+ 11.c3 Qxe5+ 12.Be2 Bc5 13.Nf3 Qe6 14.0-0 +7.9

       7…g6 8.Nxf6+ Nxf6 9.Bd3 Bg7 10.c3 0-0 11.Be2 c5 12.Nf3 cxd4 13.Nxd4 +7.9

    6…Qxd4 7.Qc8+ Qd8 8.Qxb7 Nbd7 9.Qxc6 71:24@92 +7.6

         9…e6 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 Be7 12.Nf3 0-0 13.Bd3 +8.4

         9…Rc8 10.Qa4 e6 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Qxe4 +7.8

         9…e5 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 +8.2

      6…g6 7.Qf4 67:33@12 +6.5

         7…Bg7 8.Nxe4

            8…Nxe4 9.Qxe4

               9…0-0 10.Nf3 Nd7 11.Bc4 b5 12.Be2 e5 13.dxe5 Re8 14.c3 Nxe5 15.0-0 +7.7

               9…Qxd4 10.Qxd4 Bxd4 11.Nf3 Bf6 12.a4 Nd7 13.Be2 0-0 14.0-0 +7.5

            8…Qxd4 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Qxf6 exf6 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.Bc4 0-0-0 13.0-0 +6.9

         7…Qxd4 8.Nf3 Qd6 9.Ng5 Qxf4 10.Bxf4 Bh6 11.Bd2 0-0 12.h4 Rd8 13.Bc4 +6.8

   

5…Qd7 6.Qxb7 91%@342 +8.3     

   6…Qc6?? 7.Bb5 95%@261!!  +14.4

      7…Bc8?? 8.Qxc8# 1-0 @12!!

      7…Qxb5 8.Nxb5 91%@32

         8…Nfd7 9.Qc8# 1-0

         8…e3 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 Na6 11.Bxa6 e6 12.Qa5+ +20

         8…e5 9.dxe5 Bb4+ 10.c3 0-0 11.exf6 Nd7 12.cxb4 +16.6

      7…Bd7 8.Bxc6 98%@60 +14.5

         8…Bxc6 9.Qc8# 1-0 in 49 games!

         8…Nxc6 9.Qxa8+ Nd8 10.Qxa7 +14.5

           10…e6 11.Qxc7 Be7 12.Nge2 h5 13.0-0 Bc6 14.Nd1 +14.8

           10…c6 11.Nge2 g6 12.b3 Bf5 13.0-0 Bg7 14.h3 h5 15.Na4 +14.5

   6…Qc8 7.Qxa8 g6 8.Qxa7 Bg7 9.Bc4 Nbd7 10.Nge2 +8.3

have you ever seen such numbers in any grandmaster approved book? playing "the best moves" against 1600-2000s, this is all the ways black's figured out to lose. there is one refutation, but apparently only a couple people know it so it's statistically irrelevant. that, and i'm not doing my opponents' homework for them.

thank you all you smart attackers that have honed this system into a scalp taking secret weapon of the highest order! as it is so brutal and involves the white queen, snow queen sounds like an appropriate name for the variation. Qe2 is one scary witch alright! i'll post the ...Qxd4 sideline next. i broke the theory up into smaller chapters so you have two smaller walls of theory to navigate. trees are the only way that makes sense to me.

Zeller Ice Queen Variation 4…Qxd4??

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Qe2!? Qxd4?? 5.Qb5+  

 

5…Bd7 6.Qxb7 Bc6? 7.Bb5 97%@155 +9.4

   7…Qb6 8.Qc8# 1-0 in 59 games… THE MAINLINE!

   7…Qd7 8.Bxc6 100%@39 +9.0

      8…Qxc6 9.Qc8# 1-0 24 games, again, the “mainline”!!!

      8…Nxc6 9.Qxa8+ Nd8 10.Bf4 +9.1

         10…f6 11. Rd1 e5 12.Rxd7 Kxd7 13.Bd2 f5 14.Qxa7 +9.3

         10…Nf6 11.Rd1 e5 12.Rxd7 Nxd7 13.Bd2 Nc5 14.b4 +11.4

         10…e6 11.Rd1 Bd6 12.Nxe4

            12…Nf6 13.Nxd6+ cxd6 14.Bxd6 Qb7 15.Qxb7 Nxb7 16.Ba3 +9.7

            12…Qc6 13.Nxd6+ cxd6 14.Qxa7 d5 15.Nf3 Ne7 16.Qa3 +9.0

         10…e5 11.Bxe5 f5 12.Rd1 bd6 13.Bxd6 cxd6 14.Qb8 Ne7 15.Rxd6 +9.6

         10…Qc6 11.Qxa7 e5 12.Bxe5 Nf6 13.Bxf6 Bc5 14.Qa4 +9.3

   7…Bxb5 8.Nxb5 91%@22 +10.8

      8…Qb6 9.Qc8# 1-0 in 2 games

      8…Qb4+ 9.c3 e5 10.cxb4 Bxb4+ 11.Kf1 Ke7 12.Nxc7 Bd6 13.Nb5+ +17.8

      8…Qd8 9.Nxc7+ Qxc7 10.Qxc7 Nd7 11.Bg5 Ngf6 12.0-0-0 g6 13.Bxf6 +11.2

   7…Qc5?? 8.Qc8# 1-0 in 8 games

   7…Qd6 8.Bxc6+ 100%@6

      8…Qxc6? 9.Qc8# 1-0 in 39 games! 

      8…Nxc6 9.Nb5 Rd8 10.Nxc7+ Qxc7 11.Qxc7 Nb8 12.Bd2 e6 13.Ba5 +9.9

 

5…Nd7? 6.Qxf5 70:25@92 +5.5

   6…Ngf6 7.Be3 Qb4 8.0-0-0  59:32@41 +5.1

      8…0-0-0 9.a3 e6 10.Qxf6 Nxf6 11.Rxd8+ Kxd8 12.axb4 Bxb4 13.Nge2 +7.5

      8…e6 9.Qb5 80%@10  +5.1

         9…Qxb5 10.Nxb5 +5.1

            10…Bd6 11.Nxd6+ cxd6 12.Rxd6 Rc8 13.Bb5 Ke7 14.Bxd7 +6.8

            10…0-0-0 11.Nxa7+ Kb8 12.Nb5

               12…Nd5 13.Bd2 Bc5 14.Nb3 +5.4

               12…Bc5 13.Bxc5 Nxc5 14.Nc3 Rxd1+ 15.Nxd1 c6 16.Nh3 +5.4

            10…Rc8 11.Nxa7 Rd8 12.Nb5 c6 13.Nc3 Ra8 14.a3 b5 15.Nxb5 +5.1

         9…c6 10.Qxb4 Bxb4 11.Nge2 +5.3

            11…Ne5 12.Bd4 Neg4 13.h3

               13…c5 14.Bxf6 Nxf6 15.g3 c4 16.Bg2 0-0 17.Rhf1 +5.9

               13…e5 14.hxg4 exd4 15.Rxd4 Bc5 16.g5 +5.9

            11…Ng4 12.Nxe4 f5 13.Ng5 e5 14.Ne6 g6 15.Nc7+ +5.6

            11…Ba5 12.Bd4 0-0-0 13.Ng3 e3 14.Bxe3 Ng4 15.Nce4 +5.3

            11…h5 12.h4 Ba5 13.Ng3 Ng4 14.Ncxe4 Nxe3 15.fxe3 +5.0

   6…Ngf6 7.Be3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 e6 

      9…a5 10.a3 +4.5

         10…Qe7?? 11.Qxb7 +8.1 

            11…Rb8 12.Qxc7 

               12…g6?? 13.Bb5 Rxb5 14.Nxb5 Qd8 15.Qc6 Be7 16.Bh6 +12.7

               12…Qd8 13.Qxd8+ Rxd8 14.Bb5 Be7 15.Kb1 0-0 16.Nge2 +8.1

            11…Qd8 12.Bb5 Bd6 13.Bxd7+ Nxd7 14.Nxe4 Rb8 15.Qc6 +8.1  

         10…Qxb5 11.Nxb5 0-0-0 12.Bf4 e5 13.Bd2 c6 14.Nc3 b5 15.Nxb5 +4.9

      9…Qe7 10.Qxb7 Rb8 11.Qxc7 Kd8 12.Qxd8+ Rxd8 13.Bb5 Bb4 14.Nge2 +8.1

      9…0-0-0 10.f3 Qxb5 11.Bxb5 c6 12.Bf1 exf3 13.Nxf3 Bb4 14.Bd3 +5.1

   6…e6 7.Qxe4  72:28@18 +7.2

      7…Qxe4+ 8.Nxe4 78:22@9 +6.9

         8…Ngf6 9.Nxf6+ Nxf6 10.Nf3

            10…Bc5 11.Be2 0-0-0 12.0-0 Rhe8 13.a4 a6 14.Ne5 Rd5 15.Nc4 +6.8

            10…Bb4+ 11.c3 Bc5 12.Bb5+ c6 13.Be2 Ne4 14.Rf1 0-0-0 15.Ng5 +6.8

         8…0-0-0 9.Nf3 h6 10.Be3 g5 11.0-0-0 Bg7 12.Be2 Ne7 13.Bd4 +6.8

         8…Bb4+ 9.c3 Ba5 10.Nf3

            10…0-0-0 11.Be3 

               11…Kb8 12.0-0-0 Ngf6 13.Nxf6 Nxf6 14.Ne5 Rxd1+ 15.Kxd1 +7.2

               11…Bb6 12.Bxb6 Nxb6 13.a4 a5 14.Be2 e5 15.0-0 f5 16.Nc5 +7.2

            10…Ngf6 11.Nxf6+ Nxf6 12.Be2 0-0-0 13.Ne5 Rd1 14.Nc4 Rc5 15.Be3 +7.6

         8…h6 9.Nf3 0-0-0 10.h4 Ngf6 11.Nxf6 Nxf6 12.Ne5 Ne4 13.Be3 +6.9

      7…Qb6 8.Nf3 Ngf6 9.Qc4 Bc5 10.Na4 Qb4+ 11.Nd2 Qxc4 12.Bxc4 Bd6 13.0-0 +6.9

6…0-0-0 7.Be3 +7.1 100%@6

   7…Qb4 8.0-0-0 +7.4

      8…e6 9.Qxf7 Bc5 10.Nge2 Bxe3+ 11.fxe3 Ngf6 12.Qxe6 Kb8 13.Nf4 +7.4

      8…g6 9.Qxf7 Bh6 10.Bxh6 Nxh6 11.Qe6 Nf5 12.Nh3 e3 13.Bb5 +8.2

      8…Nh6 9.Bxh6 gxh6 10.Qxf7

         10…h5 11.Kb1 Bh6 12.a3 Qb6 13.Nd5 Qa5 14.Qe6 Kb8 15.Qxh6 +7.7

         10…e6 11.Bb5 c6 12.Be2 Qa5 13.Bc4 Bb4 14.Nge2 Nc5 15.Kb1 +7.8

   7…e6 8.Qxf7 Qe5 9.0-0-0 Bb4 10.Bb5 c6 11.Bc4 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Ngf6 13.Bxe6 +7.1

 

5…Qd7?? 6.Qxb7 93%@57 +8.5

   6…Qc6?? 7.Bb5 93%@41 +15.2

      7…Bd7 8.Bxc6 100%@7 +17.8

         8…Bxc6?? 9.Qc8# 1-0 in SIX GAMES!

         8…Nxc6 9.Qxa8+ Nd8 10.Bf4 e5 11.Bxe5 Nf6 12.0-0-0 Bd6 13.Rxd6 +15.1

      7…Qxb5 8.Nxb5 100%@5 +17.4

         8…Nd7? mate in 8 9.Qxa8+ Nb8 10.Qxb8+ Kd7 11.Qxc7+ Ke8 12.Qc6+ Kd8

            13.Bf4 e6 14.Rd1+ Ke7 15.Bg5+ f6 16.Qd7# 1-0

         8…f6 9.Qxa8 Kf7 10.Qxb8 +17.8

            10…Nh6 11.Nxc7 g5 12.Ne2 Kg6 13.Qxa7 Bg4 14.Nc3 Bf5 15.h3 +18.4

            10…c6 11.Nxa7 h5 12.Nxc6 g6 13.Ne2 Bh6 14.Nf4 Rh7 15.Kd8 +17.8

      7…Nd7 8.Bxc6 Rd8 9.Nb5 e5 10.Nxc7+ Ke7 11.g4 Bxg4 12.Qb4+ Kf6 13.Qxe4 +16.5

   6…e3 7.Bxe3 100%@5 +9.9

      7…Qc6?? 8.Bb5 +17.7

         8…Qxb5 9.Nxb5 f6 10.Nxc7+ Kf7 11.Qxa8 h5 12.Qxb8 g6 13.Qe8+ +19.1

         8…Nd7 9.Bxc6 Rd8 10.Nd5 f6 11.Nxc7+ Kf2 12.Qb5 Nh6 13.Bxh6 +17.7

      7…Bxc2 8.Qxa8 +11.5

         8…Qc8 9.Bb5+ Kd8 10.Nf3 Nd7 11.Qxa7 e6 12.Rc1 Bd6 13.Rxc2 +12.4

         8…Qd8 9.Rc1 Nf6 10.Rxc2 a6 11.Rd2 Nfd7 12.Nf3 e6 13.Ne5 e6 14.Nxd7 +11.5

      7…e6 8.Qxa8 +11.3 

         8…Qc8 9.Bb5+ +11.3

            9…Ke7? 10.0-0-0 f6 11.Bxa7 c6 12.Bxb8 Kf7 13.Bxc6 Bc5 14.Bg3 +13.1

            9…Kd8 10.0-0-0+ Bd6 11.Qxa7 Nd7 12.nf3 Ngf6 13.Rxd6 +11.3

         8…Qd8 9.Bb5+ Nd7 10.Bxd7+ Kxd7 11.0-0-0+ Bd6 12.Qxa7 +11.3

      7…e5 8.Qxa8 Qd8 9.Bb5+ c6 10.Rd1 Qc8 11.Bc4 Bb4 12.Bxa7 +9.9

   6…Qc8 7.Qxa8 e5 8.Be3 Nf6 9.Bxa7 Nfd7 10.0-0-0 Bd6 11.Nge2 +8.8

 

5…Nc6 6.Qxb7 66:31@29 +7.8

   6…Rd8 7.Qxc6+ 89%@9

      7…Bd7 8.Qxe4 +8.0

         8…Qd6 9.Qc4 Nf6 10.Nf3 e6 11.a3 Be7 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 Qb6 14.a4 +8.9

         8…Qb6 9.Qc4 Nf6 10.Be3 Qxb2 11.Rb1 Qa3 12.Nf3 e6 13.Bd3 +8.7  

         8… Qxe4+ 9.Nxe4 Bc6 10.Nd2 e5 11.Nc4 f6 12.c3 Ne7 13.Nf3 +8.3

      7…Rd7 8.Bb5 f6 9.Be3 Qd6 10.Qa8+ Kf7 11.Rd1 g5 12.Bxd7 +11.5

   6…Rb8 7.Qxc6+ Bd7 8.Qxc7 Rc8 9.Qb7 Qb6 10.Qxb6 axb6 11.Nxe4 +8.1

 

i'm very proud of this theory, i might not have invented it, but i did the archaeology digging it up and polishing it off into a complete system. these are the moves you're most likely to see. anything not in the book is too rare to be doubling the size of the book over chasing geometric progressions.

 

i hope that any BDG players that stumble on this try it out and love it. i've done very well in it already winging it. as the line's so new, out of book is going to happen, but so far, it's only happened after an advantage is secured.

 

after arguing with another member that combing amateur alleys for corpses is "incorrect". i will say here and now, look at these numbers and show me where black is kicking butt! he isn't... ANYWHERE! oh it's beyoootiful!

 

enjoy...

or don't

if all the theory i've been sharing isn't helping anyone. i'll quit wasting my time and keep it to myself, but this secret is just too juicy!

 

it's a lot easier making sense out of the data when it's single spaced and bunched tighter so each branch's indent shows more. i do 3 spaces for my own 8 1/2 x 11 theory pages, but 4 spaces is needed here. after reformatting all the evaluation. i'm not up to another hour of tweaking, especially if, like my carokann theory thread no one visited, i'm wasting my time.

 

i can share the data here as a PDF or PGN too if anyone's interested.

 

P.S. it's really funny seeing haters with time to analyze the theory saying "i'd play blah blah blah and you'd lose".

 

yeah... that's what every one of THESE losers thought over the board. this theory's especially strong for blitz.

 

DISCLAIMER: no grandmasters were harmed in the creation of this variation

The regular BGD Zeller variation theory with 1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. f3 (or even 4.g4 according to Stockfish) is quite playable for white.

I don’t know what this 4.Qe2 is. It seems like some trap lines hoping for black to play 4…Qxd4??

You say you’re database savy but you aren’t covering the most common played line, which also is the best one (at least in my estimation): 1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Qb5+ Bd7 6. Qxb7 Nc6. At least I couldn’t see it in those posts above.

And what’s your deal hating on GM level theory, the hyper-modern and closed opening? Chess is a two player game. Play the way you want to play and they will do the same. Just don’t expect your knowledge of the game to improve by only playing trappy lines.

I'm sick and tired of hater trolls spouting GM lies, namely, that gambits are unsound when in the real world they decimate, quite literally, with +10% being common. I have issues with greedy SOBs taking my money for theory books and providing nothing of value

that lousy falling apart at the binder on day 1 tennison gambit book

the lousy 5 pages of wing gambit theory and 20 pages of something unusable

the lousy scandinavian book that told me "thanks for your money sucker... i don't need to give you theory for the advanced scandinavian if i don't want to"

the lousy dozen handpicked unrelated pet sidelines book claiming to be a repertoire book

and don't get me started on those lousy gambit "repertoire as black and white" books that have as much actual theory as an annotated game

 

all of the adherence to their BS has gotten in the way of building a gambit repertoire as long as i've been trying to build one with every thread a soap box for haters to attempt to talk down to me which makes me want to hurt a person.

 

as to this theory, i went where the games went unless a line shows up less than 1/5th or so often as the main line reply in a position. i consider it to be extremely thorough, tracking the theory down to the last half dozen or less players in many lines from what i remember.

 

i agree that the main line is super performing, but the ice queen stats are about 10% better. i'll take that edge. it also gives me a novelty advantage. the theory's just here for any gambiteers that want to go full on kamikaze and rack quick points up, especially in blitz, in a variation that shows up in about 1 game in 8.

 

i don't see anyone getting any advantage as black in this theory. any actual strong moves are so far down in the sidelines as to not even be worth wasting time on.

 

i'm going to plug that line into the database and see why i criminally ignored it.

 

OK, I see 

 

 

7.Bf4 is both the strongest performing line for white and is stockfish's choice as well, but there's only 32 games in the entire database for that move. it was 29 when i did this. the other reason is there's a really strong line in that that only possibly one person in the world knows. it's in my personal theory, but for a mere 32 games, i'm not going to have it used against me. that's black's job. i just wrote this! i'm not insta-refuting it! hahahaha

 

this is written entirely for white's benefit. i don't see any for black in any of the common theory other than finding creative new ways to lose.

 

it is a bit of a blind spot when you back up a ply as 7...Nc6 does lead to 863 games in which there are not one, but two mates in one that each have 300+ each victims. 

 

database saavy? me? i have name & number dyslexia which might be related to my position blindness. i can look at bar graphs and see which line performs best in a position. it's easy. mind numbing, but easy.

 

when i just went back to look at the main line, 7.Nb5, black is winning 59% of his games with 7...Nd5 in 217 games and 52% of the time with 7...Rc8 at 206 games making it a real dog in my book, pun intended. the stats for 7.Nb5 look better than they are because 7...d5 is 86% winning for white in 97 games. that red meat is too far down in sidelinesville  for my tastes, especially when it's not even the strongest move or performer.

OK... I went back and completed the "actual main line" so that anyone playing this as white won't be completely flat footed. the upside of a line that's -2.7, I guess, is that almost any game will be out of book. there's no way black's book is bigger as there are only 32 games on the entire internet, and anyone making a book for black in this line really has way too much time on their hands inventing theory that might never get tested.

 

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Qe2!? Nf6 5.Qb5+ Bd7 6.Qxb7 Nc6 7.Bf4

                             58:31@26 -2.8 the ONLY critical line!

7…Rb8 8.Qxc7 40:40@10 -2.9

    8…Qxc7 9.Bxc7 -2.7

        9…Rxb2 10.0-0-0  20:60@5 -3.2 ****

            10…Rb7 11.Bf4 -3.0

                11…e6 12.Nge2 -3.1

                    12…Na5 13.Ng3

                        13…Bb4? 14.Ncxe4 -0.2 

                            14…Nd5 15.Bd6 Rb6 16.Bc5 Bxc5 17.Nxc5 Nc3 18.Re1 +0.1

                            14…Ke7 15.Nxf6 gxf6 16.Ne4 Bc6 17.Nxf5 -0.2

                        13… Bc6 14.Bg5 Ba3+ 15.Kd2 Bb4 16.Ba6 -2.8

                    12…Nb4 13.g3 Nbd5 14.bg2 Nxf4 15.Nxf4 Bc6 16.Nb1 -3.8

                11…e5 12.dxe5 -0.9

                    12…Ba3+ 13.Kd2 Ng4 14.Nxe4 0-0 15.h3 Ngxe5 16.Nf3 -0.8

                    12…Ng4 13.Nxe4 Ba3+ 14.Kd2 0-0 15.h3 -0.9

               10…e6? 11.Kxb2 Bb4 12.Nge2! 0-0 13.a3 Be7 14.Nc1 Rc8 15.Bg3 +7.6

        9…Rb7? 10.Bf4 Rxb2 11.0-0-0 Rb7 12.d5 -0.6 

    8…Rxb2? 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 10.0-0-0 Rb6 11.d5 e5 12.dxc6 -0.6

7…Nxd4? 8.0-0-0 70:30@10 +0.4

    8…Ne6 9.Be3 Rb8 10.Qxa7 Ra8 11.Rxd7 +0.3

    8…c5? 9.Nb5 +4.0

        9…Nxb5? 10.Bxb5 +7.9

            10…Qc8? 11.Rxd7 Nxd7 12.Bxd7+ Nxd7 13.Qxa8+ +7.7

            10…g6 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.Rxd7 Qxd7 13.Qxa8+ +7.7

        9…Rc8 10.Nxa7 g5 11.Nxc8 gxf4 12.Nb6 +4.1

    8…Rb8 9.Qxc7 Qxc7 10.Bxc7 Rb7 11.Be5 +0.9

        11…Ne6 12.Ba6 Rb6 13.Bc4 h5 14.h3 h4 15.f4 Nc5 16.Nge2 +1.2

        11…Nb5 12.Bxb5 Bxb5 13.Bd4 Bc6 14.Nge2 +0.9

7…Rc8? 8.d5 +1.8

    8…Nd4 9.0-0-0 +2.3

        9…Nf5 10.f3 Nd6 11.Qxa7 exf3 12.Nxf3 g6 13.Bd3 +2.3

        9…e5? 10.Bxe5 Nf5 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nxe4 Bh6+ 13.Kb1 +3.5

    8…Na5 9.Qa6 c6 10.0-0-0 g6 11.Nh3 Bg7 12.d6 e6 13.Be5 +1.9

7…e5 8.Bxe5 Rb8 9.Qxc7 Qxc7 10.Bxc7 Rxb2 11.Nge2 Rxc2 12.a3 -1.1

 

a lot of this theory was generated by stockfish as an improvement over the games this game from. I wen back to look for 2000+ theory, and didn't find anything new in maybe 10 games except the 7...e5 line. none of this showed up in any other database.

 

i don't like handing the refutation out here, but it's full disclosure and anyone that would use it against me would need to go looking for this thread to even find it. one critical line is a small price to pay for so much carnage in the other lines, and at -2.7, it isn't exactly losing yet either. there's a whole new set of mistakes for black to make here. i only wish i had a computer i could install junior on for maximum kamikaze analysis. i just don't trust stockfish to play an opening aggressively at all. junior is bonkers if only 2400 or so. 

this is kinda like a englund reversed mixed with budapest

3…Nf6 and black is the one with prep.

3...Nf6 is the blackmar diemer.  4.f3 is the main line and scores 53% wins to 44% losses for white under 2000 for the "standard 8% gambit edge". the zeller is a 1 in 8 BDG sideline and requires theory. that's what this is. the  4.f3 main line scores 56 to 41 and is far from shabby, but a 63 to 34 stat is that much stronger. the main line has a 9% edge, but the ice queen has a 29% edge! i'd be a fool to go with the less winning alternative.

 

BTW, I came back today as I shared a link to this theory while watching a von popiel gambit theory video on youtube that also features Qe2 and something like 60% winning stats from the start. i might try that instead of the BDG main line. i'm still building my BDG book. this is the first chapter i've completed because i got so excited by all of the carnage I saw once I checked Qe2 out.

in THEORY, the ziegler is the strongest reply to the BDG, but i've been annoyed by the teichmann too. still, even without studying yet, i have a winning score in the BDG. i only play it against the scandinavian via 1.e4 d5 2.d4!? anyways. as a scandinavian player myself, NO ONE expects the BDG! i see more (actually unsound) tennison gambits. i used to play that myself after a few losses against it, but once enough people got used to it, i quit. the BDG is much stronger and especially against the scandinavian has surprise value.

 

i'm just trying to offer other BDG players a complete Qe2 system. anyone that wants to stick to 4.f3 can and should, but as i'm starting from scratch, i'll take the line that claims more scalps and has a few mates in under 10 that trip higher rated than me (1600s to 2000s) up hard. it's just an option. i've already kicked a few butts with my theory without much study.

 

if it gets popular enough, the ...Nc6 variation will effectively refute this theory... but not today, and not tomorrow. for now, it's free points. so what if it's a sneaky trick. it's my opponent's job to prepare for just as it's mine to study every major BDG reply.

 

of course -2.7 is only going to get worse. that's what advantages do, but it's worth it NOW because it's less popular than stomping higher rated players in the opening most of the time. i wouldn't have even found this theory had I not tracked highest performing lines.

 

there are only 29 games in the 6...Nc6 7.Bf4 "main line", so at least i'll be on equal ground or better against opponents who don't have ANY of this theory yet and it's WORTH those games because the variation is STILL 65% wins to 32% losses from Qe2. that's the big picture. it's the price one has to pay for all those juicy +5s in the rest of the theory. 

 

haters want players to run from a variation because 1 player in 10 knows how to refute your line. that makes no sense to me. they'd rather play lines that are 49:49 and considered sound by bean counting GMs. that makes less sense to me. i'll take +8% gambits every time.

 

as a gambiteer, i LIVE to miniature higher rated players and this theory gives me 2 to 1 odds with amazing evaluations MOST of the time. so what... i'll have to earn my mainline wins. I'm fine with it because i'll have 2 wins under my belt for every loss at my rating. casinos WISH they had those odds. if you of any lines that put so many intermediates in serious trouble this quick, please share. i'll take all the poison I can carry.

 

how the heck is a 2 to 1 winning stat UNSOUND?! really... explain it in a way that doesn't involve flying spaghetti monsters and woulda coulda should but didn'ts. 2 to 1 stats are monster.

 

you're either a gambit hater, or blindly believe what every grandmaster tells you even if it doesn't work that way in the real world.

 

63% wins to 34% losses is OBJECTIVELY the opposite of unsound. an opening is only unsound if you lose more than you win. i'm not a slave to stockfish evaluations. besides, even in the -2.7 line, white has good chances. I might have dismissed the Be3 variation which looks good for white. i need to go back and check that i have the right position on lichess. i don't know why I chose 6.Qxb7 unless it's popularity or lichess' tendency to change game numbers every time you re-search.

 

oops, i just wrong moved with Nc6 on move 5. that's why the redundant theory i thought was fixing the 6...Nc6 variation looked so juicy. oh well. i'll still take every juicy mate in 8 i can get.

 

despite the -3 points, white is still winning 38% to 50% in 8 games after

1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. Qe2 Nf6 5. Qb5+ Bd7 6. Qxb7 Nc6 7. Bf4 Rb8 8. Qxc7 Qxc7 9. Bxc7 -2.8

 

white's hurting in this one line, but not destroyed. it has potential for wins, and the 38:50 is still better for white than the more popular 70% winning lines are for black. kicking the most butts is my point, not doing it with grandmaster and stockfish approved lines. i see so many stockfish lines that lose over the board. i'll stick with the most reliable metric, performance stats.

 

63:34 is better than 49:49 any day regardless of how weak 6...Nc6 7.Bf4 is. it isn't statistically relevant in light of all the ways white can punish black. 70% wins in a majority of lines? 

 

this is why everyone must chose their own lines. 

 

don't forget... Bf5  is only a 1 in 8 side line anyways. so it's starting off statistically not a big thing. the winning percentages are all that matters, not hyperventilating on a minority of losses.

 

that's like dropping out of drag racing because you can beat every competitor but 1