Hubsch gambit

is the hubsch gambit sound?

partially inspired by another topic i decided to give the BDG another shot. I have scheerer's book on the BDG and it has a section dedicated to the hubsch gambit:

Something that struck me as odd, is compared to the rediculously, undeservingly high statistics on the BDG (even unsound variations such as the ryder have a 70% win rate for white) this, by comparison has something like a 13% win rate.

Now statistics dont mean much, but this is a HUGE gap, is it really THAT bad. 

No, it cannot really be that bad because in reality the BDG  itself is unsound despite what the statistics show.

If you play a gambit you want to keep as many pieces on the board as possible and feasible.  If you defend a gambit often you want to trade pieces to later realize your material advantage.

In case of the Hubsch it has the theoretical disadvantage that a pair of knights is traded off right away.

Note this is general principals without doing theory and sometimes general principals lose out.

I much prefer this to the real BDG as white. The f6 knight helps out a lot in the defense of the kingside. For instance 

or

hope this helps :D

Huh?

5.f3 is a well-known mistake- Black is already clearly better after 5...e5!

The only idea is 5.Bf4 to stop ...e5, but then simply 5...Nc6 6.c3 e6 leaves white wondering where his pawn has gone.

I played the BDG a lot as white, and it's mostly because of this line that I stopped. The positions that arise without the knights on c3 and f6 are radically different than what I normally played. I would say that the Hubsch Gambit is definitely sound for black; it is generally what I play against the BDG. Because of how many losses I suffered against the Hubsch Gambit, I now play the BDG if 1.d4 d5, but I switched to the Veresov (a similar opening) if 1.d4 Nf6.

And statistics actually do make a difference. While the BDG will almost certainly give away the point to good people (IMs, GMs, and pretty much any opponent that is expecting to face it), it does lead to a ridiculous amount of wins at my level. I know a NM that got started with the BDG; it took him from 1200 to 1800 in a year, but it didn't work after that.

yeah, i usually play the trompowsky, but was interested in looking into this. 

im suprised by this, im currently 1800 OTB and ive been victim to the BDG quite a few times online. Also, i dont believe anyone at my level is good enough tactically, or prepared to the point that the BDG stops working,

Maybe at 2000-2100 imo.

i thought the chess com database was master games?
fair enough, but i am low rated so doesnt bother me 

I doubt that a player went from 1200 to 1800 in a year Because of the BMD.

Regarding the Hubsch Gambit it seems to me that players who like this gambit [and other gambits as well] seem to have the idea in thier heads that after they play f3 [or in other gambits c3] that their opponent is always or most always going to take the gambit Pawn.

But why should they?  Against the Hubsch [ as pfren states] the best

move after 5. f3? [phren gives this a ?] is   5. ...e5 and already

Black has the better game.

If you want to play a gambit you should have responses to the declined versions of the gambit.  If you do not have good responses then the gambit is not very sound.

No.

If you play bad moves like 5.f3 you will get a bad position...so if you wanna judge about a gambit, you must play the best moves and not the worst...5.Bf4

The Hübsch-Gambit cannot be compared with the BDG, so you cant automatically play the same moves...stay with the Ponziani, where you are an expert.

I agree 5. Bf4 is a better try. But what I said about f3 and c3 in these gambits is correct.

Was referring to 5. f3 as that was being discussed.  I think pfren gave the follow up on 5. Bf4 already.

Who said anything about playing the same moves with the Hubsch as with the BDG? Each gambit has different "best" or "good" responses.

So, what is your reply to  5. Bf5  Nc6  6. c3  e6 [per pfren]

There are a few gambits where the "best moves" are academic.

 c3 isnt the only reply, i prefer bb5

That said, the position in a whole isnt so appealing to me

Great analysis, although 6...Bf5 is a tad less radical than 6...Qxd4 which no doubt has occured in several "illustrative" games...

I guess that 6...e6 intending simply ...Be7 and ...0-0, when white will have either to play c3 after all, or "destroying" Black's queenside by the deeply sophisticated move Bxc6 should be considered too cowardly- no?

Can I have my "experts license" back in some things other than the Ponziani now?

I have my own line vs BDG but that is not the subject of the conversation here. Since I play the Center Counter the BDG comes up often

1. e4  d5 2.d4  dxe4 3. Nc3  Nf6 4.f3

So far, it appears the Hubsch while maybe might work at the lower levels--is "unsound" against correct play.  My definition of "unsound" means "should lose with best play from both sides"

By the way, what is the definition of "unsound" by most chess players?

Unsound = my opening repertoire.

... but yeah, "should lose with best play on both sides" works for me.

Good morning,

I just only play the BDG with white since quite a long time, and I still don't know what to do against the Hübsch.

For those who say that the BDG is not sound and only works on low rated players, please refer to Petter Leisebein.

There are many lines on the BDG that even a grand master would fail for, for example, you have the "Perfect Defense" situation on the Bogoljubob line where black must play 6 only-moves that are not easy to find, no matter the level.

The reason the BDG is not played on high level is not the unsoundness, is the fact that you risk a lot being white... you can lose against a lower rated opponent quite easy in the BDG. This is not suitable for GM's, they just want to positionaly win against lower rated players.

Best regards.

The Huebsch should be avoided. 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 is unsound. There's little to no attack for White in those positions. Better to just play Richter-Veresov mainlines should your opponent play 2...d5, which means you'll have to learn another opening but that's chess. There are further chances to transpose to a BDG later on in the Veresov, which will happen in maybe a quarter of your games that go there. 

If you really *really* want to play a BDG against a 1...Nf6 player then 2.f3 d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 can transpose, while ruling out the Huebsch. That has its own drawbacks, like getting stuck with a silly pawn in the French, but those are still vastly preferrable to White's prospects in the Huebsch.

Along with the Huebsch, necromancing 3-year-old threads should also be avoided!

Bees The problem with 1. d4  Nf6 2. f3 is Black can reply e6 and now it is Black who has an advantage and only on the 2nd move. He is playing the French Defense with an extra move. The French Defense is a strong opening--with an extra move--it is even stronger...