Is the Blackmar Diemer opening really that unsound?

Any opening is playable in bullet.

Even those who have specialized in the Blackmar Diemer?

I have not advocated taking 2005 IM Collins as gospel, but would it be too serious to be inspired by the quote to look for other indications of how the BDG has been viewed?

I’m still a beginner but I love playing against the BDG. I just fianchetto and usually win. It’s amazing to reach 2200 blitz btw congrats that’s awesome. Let’s play some 10 minute blitz sometime. I’d love to see what a high level BDG is doing.

I was addressing your "just telling everyone not to play it" characterization. Again, you no longer want to describe IM Collins as "just telling everyone not to play it"? Again, I imagine that an author has to keep space limitations in mind when deciding how much to say on any given opening. Some authors have chosen not to mention the BDG.

In your "just telling" comment (about 2 hours ago), was there anything to indicate that you were not being literal?

 

hakkyakky28 wrote:  … Is his analysis (as published) so thin that its not much better than just doing that? Yes. I'll try to remember to be more literal if I'm interacting with you again. ...

 

Are you only interacting with me when you post here?

However, you did admonish me to not take Collins pronouncements too seriously without identifying any specific supposedly too serious sentence by me. Consequently, it seemed to me to be a good idea to try to clarify my attitude.

Thank you, this is my secondary account though. I am currently rated 2387 in Blitz and would love to play a couple games some time.

Absolutely fruitless to argue with this individual. 

Not only is he very low rated, but it's obvious that he does not possess the necessary chess experience to formulate an actual argument which is why he continues to repeat the same flawed points and quote the opinions of others.

Anyone with an ounce of nous would sidestep this opening with, 1 ...nf6. And run a kid defense.

Aficionados of the BDG, or any other less often played opening, often do not “figure out” how to beat their opponent by their own skills under a time limit ... they have simply memorized the lines far more often than their opponents (nothing wrong with that, that is part of the game and preparation, but we can call it what it is which is not the same as purely deducing the answers through computational logic and understanding).

White has a potent initiative but can’t force a win, and is down a pawn against an equally-booked up and equally-rated opponent. Black’s play is easier when s/he knows how to defend. That is the gist of GM Avrukh’s analysis in many lines in Beating 1.d4 Sidelines.

 

Colby-Covington wrote (~13 minutes ago):  … Absolutely fruitless to argue with this individual. ...

 

So, it is not to be expected that you will ever identify a specific sentence by me that expresses a "misconception"?

 Likely to identify a specific repeated flawed point?

The BDG is best used as a surprise weapon.  But most experienced players, who answer 1. d4 with d5 are not surprised.   But try it against the player who wants to play  Scandinavian defense.. 1.e4 e5 2.d4, and you might surprise a few more.  But, overall, if you know it, the BDG is not that hard to play against... and you have to know less as Black then you do as White.

Reported for multiple accounts. Enjoy your ban

 I was refering to an account on a different website, but I'm still glad that you are making sure the rules are being followed.😂

3 minute "blitz" is basically bullet chess.

 

Play 10 minute blitz for 25 games and see how far your manipulated rating falls

The BDG was the first opening that I used when I started playing.

As with any opening that you study extensively, you'll eventually start to memorize a certain number of traditional moves and alternative lines. I would consider myself quite well versed in the diemer and I am routinely playing fairly high rated opponents ranging from 2200-2400 with a far better success rate than most BDG opposers would have you believe.

Out of experience I can tell you that high risk openings like the diemer only fare well in fast paced games like 3 and 1 min. When I play it in Blitz and my opponent accepts the gambit, I'll simply premove the next 15 moves, because I know exactly what possible lines could ensue from whatever position we're in. I have found that the speed of the moves and confidence you play them with usually overwhelms the opponent if they don't know exactly how to counter the gambit.

I attribute my success with the diemer, even at a higher level, to precisely the kind of propaganda IM Collins and others are spreading while advising players not to bother with this gambit and simply learn the basics to decline it.

Of course I would never play it against a 2500 GM during a 15min game, but it definitely has its merits in Blitz and Bullet, especially if the opponent doesn't know exactly what they're doing.

 

I would love to know what your rating would sink to if you did not play dmg for next 30 games with 10/0.

 

I think we both know why you are rated that high

Lots of openings work well in blitz and bullet but are less sound for classical. For a while I played the so-called Hillbilly Attack against the CK in blitz: 1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 d5 3.Bb3 dxe4 4.Qh5. And it wins a lot of games in blitz. But I would never play it in a tournament with a slow time control. The BDG is kind of like that. I've played against it with black several times in tournaments and, if memory serves, have a perfect 100% record against it. How well an opening works in speed chess and its objective merit (given enough time for the opponent to think) are completely different things.

Not trying to be mean, but you are rated 1400/782.

You obviously lack the experience to even understand what you are talking about here.

Anybody can play comfortably with enough time, but it is only under time pressure that one's tactical proficiency and knowledge of the game are truly tested and hardened.

This principle of applying stress to measure accurate results can virtually be observed in all aspects of life.

I have been playing for several years and definitely earned my place with hard work and determination.

I'm sure you'll get there too one day, but people with this kind of attitude usually blame others for their own lack of success.