Is the Blackmar Diemer opening really that unsound?

1. You're full of crap

2. Do you play in FIDE tournaments? In that setting the Blackmar Diemer would easily be picked apart, but not in online blitz

Precisely.

If you have never felt the immense time pressure of a Bullet or Blitz game when your opponent plays an unorthodox opening, you'll never understand why it can be so utterly powerful.

The psychological aspect of it is truly menacing and it makes time itself the greatest weapon in these scenarios.

I too would never play such a gambit in an official match with a loose time limit, but it is simply perfect for fast paced games. 

Albin Counter/ Traxler for Black and BDG/Evans for White has been my formula so far.🤫

Yes, sir.

My FIDE rating is 2185 and I do not use this opening in official tournaments as I have explained above.

However, I have on multiple occasions successfully employed the Albin Counter Gambit in various tournaments, as the Queen's gambit has basically become a default opening for White nowadays.

OP doesnt play games longer than 3 minutes.

He is literally a gambit bullet video game player not a chess player

Its a troll account getting exactly what they crave....attention.

I do play official tournaments with conventional time limits, but I'm done arguing with a beginner who does not understand the merits of Blitz/Bullet games, because he does not play at a high level.

But I'll humor you in a different way, I will grant you two 10min games against me.😁

You can challenge me in approx. 1 hour.

It seems to me that the main point of the IM Collins quote is the "objectively bad" BDG idea.

hakkyakky28:  … most amateurs don't have enough theoretical knowledge to be sure of meeting the BDG comfortably, and Collins' book does not give them the resources to do so. ...

That seems to me to be a comment on the book. If IM Collins misjudged what was appropriate to put on the BDG page, it doesn't change that he is an IM and hence probably among those who you apparently believe to be able to correctly perceive the BDG as "objectively bad".

hakkyakky28:  … I said "Wish he'd put that analysis in his book rather than just telling everyone not to play it, though". … My last remark, the one you seem to have focused on, was intended as a semi-humorous add on ...

Do you see anything In the post to indicate that you were not seriously indicating something about what IM Collins wrote?

hakkyakky28 wrote:  ... I don't think the sentence as it stands necessarily implies that Collins gives absolutely no lines in this particular opening, rather that he "just" gives people the conclusion of his detailed analysis, without giving the analysis in full, which I don't believe is terribly helpful. ...

Your original sentence did not refer to

IM Collins just telling everyone not to play the BDG "without giving the analysis in full". You referred to

him "just" telling everyone not to play it.

hakkyakky28 wrote:  … I think most people reading this are going to be familiar enough with chess literature that they are not going to expect to open the page on the BDG and just find the words "Do not play this line" printed there, with no actual moves whatever.

Was it your post that referred to a "page on the BDG" or was that something subsequently indicated by me?

You did address your "too seriously" comment to me and indicate "honestly" an approval of that view. In view of that, it seems to me to have been reasonable for me to give some clarification of my attitude towards what what Collins wrote.

I've been playing chess for almost 50 years, and I had met the BDG just once OTB.

My opponent was a well-known BDG lover, but I did not bother to prepare anything: I just played 2...c6 and won in 19 moves.

Of course while 2...c6 is far from being any kind of refutation, my choice was out of pure laziness to work that day. This silly gambit is genuinely unsound- Black can get the advantage with some 5, or 6 different ways.

But, even the fact that after 1.d4 d5 2.e4?! dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 (not Black's best option, but a mighty good reply) white has to play extremely accurately to reach an acceptable position with very poor winning chances, is enough to discourage any non-delusional player from using it.

Avrukh has offered a mighty good recipe in his d4 sidelines repertoire book, and Ntirlis another very good one in his 1.d4 d5 monograph. And it is not difficult to spot some 3-4 more lines where white is doing poorly.

The fact that you "do not not know anyone who could show move by move why the BDG is bad" just shows that you have not looked at it seriously.

pfrens comments alone make the diamond membership worth it.

It is usurprising that you haven't encountered the BDG too much, seeing as you preferably play Rapid games according to your profile, but I can assure you that it is used regulalry in Blitz and Bullet games such as any other high risk gambit.

Since you are convinced of its illegitimacy in any possible setting I would like to challenge you to a 5 or 3 min game starting from a BDG position of your choosing and post the results in this thread.

Again, I won't dispute that this gambit probably won't work in a 15 minute game against a seasoned player, but I can almost guarantee my victory in a Blitz game, especially if you still have not bothered to study it.

The word, "that", was not emphasized in the original. Where, in the original, is there a reference to possible analysis being "fuller" than analysis on a Collins page on the BDG? All I see is you referring to Collins "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG.

Is this a discussion of the book? Again, Collins is an IM and hence probably among those who you apparently believe to be able to correctly perceive the BDG as "objectively bad".

I never take into account all my online games, and I also do not count my official OTB rapid and blitz games. Also, the official correspondence stuff is used just as reference material, as it is not real chess.

REAL chess games are the OTB ones with regular time controls.

Everything else is either for research, or fun. Blitz games at any playing level prove nothing, and that is that.

For the record, my official FIDE blitz rating is 2375, which is nothing to be proud, or sad about. It is just a measure of a few blitz games I have played OTB, and not indicative of any strength.

I thoroughly disagree with that, infact I would respectfully like to ask you and this entire community of esteemed chess connaiseurs who seem to promote this ignorant and rather arrogant idea, who you think you are to tell anyone what "real" chess is?

Just beause there is a general consensus among oldtimers and conceited Grandmasters certainly does not grant them the authority to dictate the definition of chess or the value of a game based on a time limit.

But again, since you are so sure of yourself and the banality of Blitz games, especially in conjunction with the BDG, I urge you to accept my challenge, as you will certainly be able to make quick work of me.

I will personally post the result in this thread, no matter the outcome. You are rated 1700 in Blitz here, so you really have nothing to lose.

You are referring to the last sentence from the IM Collins quote. My belief ("it seems to me") about the main point was that it was what was suggested by the earlier "the opening isn’t good" Collins exposition.

It does not seem to me to be clear from your original sentence that any other analysis was involved. However, there was a reference by you to Collins "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG.

Since your original "just" post made no reference to "three lines of seven moves" in the book, I see no way that the readers of that post could be realistically expected to interpret it as an expression of a wish that there had been an elaboration of the analysis in the book.

I am not sure, if I should love or hate the fact, that in this forum are a lot of guys, who wants to make a claim about the correctness of a certain opening line- and then all they deliver is a good score in blitz and bullet against amateur players. In 3+0 you can play every opening. It really is that simple. And if you specialise in one opening, you might have an even bigger score compared to "normal" openings.

If we talk about the value of an opening, we should take into account its evaluation for classical and correspondence chess. That doesn´t mean, that blitz is no real chess. But you can´t use blitz game to make an objective statement about an opening.

TBH I would say, the Blackmar Diemer is not a bad opening for young players. You learn how to attack and that material is not everything. If you are new to chess and want to improve it is certainly better to play the Blackmar Diemer than to play the London System. But if we talk about soundness of the opening, I think we all agree, that you should not play it in classical OTB.