trying to create a 1.d4 gambit repertoire around Trompowsky & Blackmar-Diemer

This is a flawed thought process.

Most Dutch players that play 1...e6 specifically play 1...e6 because they are also French players.

Same thing goes for some Nimzo-Indian Players that play it via 1...e6 and 2...Nf6.  They wouldn't play it in that order if they weren't also French players.

When I played the Dutch and when I played the Nimzo, I myself played 1...e6, being the French player that I am.  It avoids the Trompowsky.

Now, and for the majority of the last decade or so, I've been a King's Indian player, and so I play 1...Nf6 rather than 1...e6.

However, any French player that plays the QGD, Nimzo, or Classical or Stonewall Dutch will usually only play 1...e6 if they are also French players.

I see 2.e4 as the best move against 1...e6, but the reasoning has nothing to do with Black's familiarity with the opening.  I assume they know what they are doing.  If they don't know, the win becomes easy!

BDG is looking totally solid in the accepted "main lines" I like lichess' database because it lets you see what players under 2000 are doing for building out of book theory

white's 51% wins 3% draws 46% losses are THE BEST black is faring. there might be trap lines further down, but overall, the stats are looking good to me. i was just hoping for some beestyle explanations of the differences between lines to chose or reject. the raw stats don't tell you anything about aggression, clarity, initiative or even position other than how drawish (boring) an opening is. 3% draws and 51%+ wins sounds like gambit heaven to me. I bet smith morra stats are just as good if not better. if a 1750 can take a 2500 out with it, it can't be unsound. my stats were phenomenal. it seemed like no matter WHAT black did, my pieces were ready to pounce on ANY mistake he made. i have no clue what the POSITIONS meant, but memorizing and waiting for opportunities were good enough to +400 against italy.

i might end up hating the BDG like the stonewall, advance scandinavian, fisher defense and nimzowitsch etc., but only after studying and playing if my studies look promising.

i was winging it in latvian gambit (reversed king's gambit) and even racking up miniatures for a minute, but when i looked at book theory, most of it was white developing and chasing black's queen all over the board while he DOESN'T develop ANYTHING... the point of gambits. i was desperate to get out of 1.e4 d5 2.e5 heck. BDG is looking like an in between for king's knight gambit and smith morra... opening up a rook file... OK if i can learn the theory, i can get into those positions.

I played stonewall attack AND defense against pretty much ANYTHING but grobs and that annoying 2 or 3 e5 via d4/e3/f4 as white and same reversed or c6 before e6 as black against queen's gambit & english. never played french, just Nf3 center counter after starting out with Qxd5 and HATED 2.e5 precisely because it transposes into advanced french or sicilians, though my orange book gave 3...Bf5 as a way to "free up the trapped bishop in the french advance". i still hated it... blocking my Nf6 is not an option. 

fugly Nf1 in the king's gambit fisher is one of the main reasons i'm dropping KG for now. i'd rather trade that knight for two castle pawns than EVER retreat like a trench weasel.

GO GIANTS!!!

Q: what's the difference between a DOLLAR bill and a BUFFALO BILL?

A: you can always get 4 quarters out of a dollar

"I'd rather give up a piece than keep my piece!!"

*loses*

absolutely NOT! this is how leela chess zero has "infinite strength". it knows the FULL potential of gambits. it sacked a rook in a winning game just to get it out of the way.

the cave man carokann sacks a rook and might even be WINNING in those lines, or at WORST, =.

never played TRIPLE muzio gambit king's gambit, but the attacks are VICIOUS and deadly if you're facing a real world opponent.

gambit haters'll just never understand "eff it... i'm going for it initiative". that's how "the fisher" underestimated me and let me get my pieces swinging on him. gambits claim scalps in my world.

1.e4 e5

2.f4 Bc5

3.Nf3 d6 Declined Classical Variation

4.Bc4?! Bg4 (4.c3 looks ugly, but is best and scores much better even at lower levels)

5.Bxf7+?? Kxf7 (-3.27 5.h3)

6.Ng5+?? Kf8?? (-7.84 6.fxe5)

7.Qxg4 Qf6?? (+10.3)

8.Ne6+? Ke7? (+6.54 8.Qc8+)

very ugly with blunders on both sides, but Bxf7+ is WHY i play king's gambit, and it worked that day

Ok but we're not talking about some Leela positional sacrifice in some complex Catalan game, we're talking about just giving up a piece because you don't want to follow theory

Remind me of the 1600 blitz players I've played who go "hehe this will make me win right??"

It's playable. Leela gives it -0.17 and it drew in TCEC (upsetting many chess.com regulars no doubt). As someone who played the BDG for a long time, I'd agree White's the one with the harder task finding good moves in some lines, which is not ideal in a gambit position. Though it won't matter below 2000.

However...

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 is a very interesting rare line. White will either get an attack (which is just as dangerous as the f3 lines), or get the pawn back. I would absolutely take it over the Levitsky (1.d4 d5 2.Bg5?!) which is a free center for Black for... nothing in return as far as I can tell. Only possible against 1...d5 (the Huebsch Nxe4 prevents it against Nf6).

i didn't literally mean i'd do that. i'd just drop king's gambit and find an opening that DOESN'T involve any piece EVER wasting moves (Qxd5-Qa5-Q back to d8 scandinavian) getting back to where it started. that's what i love about smith morra, it gets all of one's pieces activated asap and the bishop retreat to b3 in smith morra still targets that juicy f7 square.

i WISH i was back to 1650. I'm 1400ish now, if that yet. i WILL sack a knight for 2 pawns to open a castle up if i have forces ready. i nearly mated a player once like that, but he found the ONLY way out of my mating net. he answered my "wanna see something crazy" with "i like the way your mind works". there were 8 ways for him to lose. 

me, i like the thrill of the hunt. forget ratings. they're only a gauge for improvement. forget winning boring games too. oh i hate 40 move+ games! winning in the stonewall feels like losing to me

[quote]I would absolutely take it over the Levitsky (1.d4 d5 2.Bg5?!) which is a free center for Black for... nothing in return as far as I can tell. [/quote]

see? that's the stuff that eludes me... "free center". i just can't visualize such things. i see pieces and what they can do. that's all. i'm a very good tactician. i beat a snotty 2200 in a mainline center counter once when he taunted "where's your gambit?" as he tore my queenside apart one pawn at a time until i could finally evade check, activate my rook, check, force a retreat and queen check an x-ray on his rook won after another rook check. he forced a queen trade and logged off when he couldn't queen on my ranks or stop me from queening on his.

Nope. Many repertoire books on Dutch recommend 1...e6 and 2...f5. This avoids a lot of White's aggressive possibilities. And you can safely play this as Black as almost no White players play 1.d4 followed by 2.e4.

You are wasting your time on something so meaningless at your rating. Games are decided by blunders (missing simple tactics and hanging pieces for free - one move mistakes) and openings have almost nothing to do with that so looking at the databases under 2000 is not a real picture what your opening repertoire is actually like. Not understanding simple transpositions makes me think you are just memorizing opening moves without any understanding at all. It can only hurt your chess. Don't be offended :)

Different people learn different ways. I didn't make much progress until I put serious effort into learning openings. If someone is just falling into opponents' opening traps constantly and never getting a game of chess then that is where they should start. If one move blunders are the main thing then it is too early to focus on openings, sure. On the other hand, if they are blundering because it is easy to blunder because their position is horrible from the opening, then a bit of opening knowledge can help.

Says the guy who recommended the Levitsky a page ago.

Its better than the bdg

levitsky isn't good but white won't be worse

I'm liking monte carlo french

1.d4 e6 2.e4 d4 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4

to quote kenworthian,

"an ideal short-cut or low-theory line for those who like a wide-open game with plenty of piece play."

which is why i was interested in it before. it looks more my style than orthoschnapp, and yes, i want to rip every pawn in my way out of it in the french. i don't want to see any pawn chaining. studying the database, i like the center open positions i'm seeing and have done best in regular exchange french before. when i switch to 1.e4, i'll be booked up on french and scandinavian already even if they would have been last on my list. 

low theory, out of book... we'll see how it plays. in the meantime, there's an AWESOME resource i'm going to build my monte carlo book out of:
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2009/fr-ex-c4.htm

i'll have to work sidelines out for the french now. i hope the sample games fill some of those in.

QUOTE: You are wasting your time on something so meaningless at your rating. Games are decided by blunders (missing simple tactics and hanging pieces for free - one move mistakes) and openings have almost nothing to do with that so looking at the databases under 2000 is not a real picture what your opening repertoire is actually like. Not understanding simple transpositions makes me think you are just memorizing opening moves without any understanding at all. It can only hurt your chess. Don't be offended

i'm not. i am at peace with my ZERO understanding of positional (I CAN'T PICTURE IT!) mumbo jumbo. yes, i'm just a trained chicken playing tic tac toe in openings HOPING to see tactical opportunities to pounce on and initiative to make opponents crack under.

more than ANYTHING, i just want to HAVE FUN playing chess, the way i like, out in the open swinging pieces at whatever isn't locked down. it's a style. not worried about grandmasters. i never play them.

my position blindness (and recent failing memory) are WHY i want a simple repertoire i can just keep drilling at so i can survive the openings. i get into losing positions QUICK without theory to fall back on. i'm telling you... just FOURTY lines of smith morra and study of my games to build book from, and i was +400 points right away.  i NEVER felt so alive playing chess... hating fairing worse in everything else i was only vaguely booked up on.

it's what works for ME. no tactics or a wall of ANYONE's pawns in the way of munching gives me a case of the sads, and likely an eventual surrender. oh i hate surrendering!

besides studying openings, i need to start tactical training again as i quit that last year and just get my eye on again like when i had 1650 focus. i'm just a spaz right now. facts are facts.

I spent yesterday STARTING a book on the owns defense, having actually faced it last month in a french game, for 1.d4 e6 2.e4 b6, have decided to play the monte carlo exchange french (in part, because it transposes to "anti-icelandic gambit" in the center counter, and i still play the OLD scandinavian gambit) and in looking at the theory for transpositions... 1.d4 e6 2.e4 c5!? 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.c3, I can get into my FAVORITE chess opening, smith morra. i never pictured so much of my 1.d4 repertoire actually being 1.e4 transpositions. once I lean the monte carlo, smith morra & BDG, I can keep them for when i decide to tackle king's gambit unless i find i'm really liking BDG positions.

there's still a lot of sidestepping i need to book up for even in the variations i'm looking into.

THIS is why i use lichess for book building. i'm looking for the strongest lines amateurs ACTUALLY PLAY, most of which isn't in books. i was seeing too that particularly in the owens, bad moves are common and so far, most lines lead to += or better by move 15. if i can just make it to move 15 in most of my games without blundering, my rating will improve much as it did with smith morra.