The OP's point is that the BDG can work very well in bullet and blitz games, especially if you have experience playing the opening. He is not recommending it as a good opening for long time control games. It's important to recognize and consider the context of his perspective.
Is the Blackmar Diemer opening really that unsound?
Sort:
TickTricknTrack wrote:
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.
Just to clarify, I never claimed that Blitz games were the ultimate benchmark to evaluate an opening's merit, it was merely the conceited manner in which pfren explained to me the meaning of real chess that rubbed me the wrong way.
However I do disagree with your final point.
As you have correctly pointed out, there is no wrong opening in a Blitz or Bullet game, since the time limit makes it almost impossible for an opponent to calculate all the possible lines against someone who has memorized and studied the best moves. But then you continue on to say that the BDG is better suited for kids and beginners, contradicting your original statement.
I offer you the same courtesy as I did pfren, in order to prove to you that just like with any other opening, one must be more than equipped with the basics in order to survive a Blitz game against a particular opening specialist.
RussBell wrote:
The OP's point is the the BDG can work very well in bullet and blitz games, especially if you have experience playing the opening. He is not recommending it as a good opening for long time control games. It's important to recognize and consider the context of his perspective.
Thank you very much for recognizing my point, I have really tried to make that clear.
Colby-Covington wrote:
RussBell wrote:
The OP's point is the the BDG can work very well in bullet and blitz games, especially if you have experience playing the opening. He is not recommending it as a good opening for long time control games. It's important to recognize and consider the context of his perspective.
Thank you very much for recognizing my point, I have really tried to make that clear.
Many on these forums don't, or choose not to understand or care what you mean. It's better to not waste too much time or energy responding to these people.
Pepega_Maximum wrote:
I always call it the blackmar s***mar opening because it is exactly that.
Quite humorous. What opening would you attribute your success to?
Nov 29, 2019
0
#67
RussBell wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:
RussBell wrote:
The OP's point is the the BDG can work very well in bullet and blitz games, especially if you have experience playing the opening. He is not recommending it as a good opening for long time control games. It's important to recognize and consider the context of his perspective.
Thank you very much for recognizing my point, I have really tried to make that clear.
Many on these forums don't, or choose not to understand or care what you mean. It's better to not waste too much time or energy responding to these people.
Agreed.
hakkyhakky28 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"@ kindaspongey I have that Collins book and honestly I wouldn't take his pronouncements there too seriously. There are ..." hakkyakky28 ...
"... 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?" - kindaspongey ...
hakkyakky28 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
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.
Where is the admonishment to you in saying *I* wouldn't take Collins pronouncements in a particular book too seriously? I just commented on my own attitudes toward his writing, I said absolutely nothing about whether you should or should not share them. ...
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 addressed the 'too seriously' comment to you because you were the one who had quoted Collins. I still don't see any reason to interpret what I said there as an admonition if (as you keep insisting) you are just quoting those views for the interest of others without subscribing to them yourself. In fact even if you are, I am struggling to see how you could see that post as anything other than a straightforward statement of my opinion - which is what starting a sentence with the word 'honestly' is typically intended to indicate.
You addressed to me a post, that expressed your view, assured me of your honesty in the matter, and appeared to me to attempt to provide justification for the view. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that it was reasonable for me to clarify my view of the Collins quote, in the hope of indicating that there was no reason to fear that I was taking it too seriously. I, of course, did not know what would count as "too seriously" for you.
hakkyakky28 wrote:
This is from the section of the book on the Najdorf (6.Bc4 variant). Collins remark on it is that he would "prefer black's chances in a practical game". The computers disagree - my own Fritz gives white +1.2, the chess.com computer says its +1. Also I've played this line in a couple of my own OTB games and been destroyed as black.
I know this variant very well, in fact I'll actually find and post some of my own games winning after reaching this very point. It certainly looks bad to the untrained eye, but White has a slight edge here. Still, the real advantage is gained when your opponent makes an inaccurate move because they simply cannot calculate all possible outcomes without having studied this position, especially under time pressure.
hakkyakky28 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Wish he'd put that analysis in his book rather than just telling everyone not to play it, though." - hackyakky28 ...
hakkyakky28 wrote:
… Now, I'll ask you again because you keep dodging this question: Do you really think that three lines of seven moves is enough to reach such a conclusion? Would a player as talented as Collins really jump to such a conclusion after exploring an opening so little? If not it should be obvious that he has more analysis of the line which does not appear in the book, and my post, rightly or wrongly, simply expresses the wish that he had made more of that analysis available to the reader.
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.
My original posts made the point that I regard the evidence presented by Collins in the form of cold hard analysis as inadequate to support his contention that the Blackmar Diemar was so bad that no one who played it could be categorized as a good player. In our subsequent conversation I have clarified what exactly I mean and what evidence he does give more than enough to clear up any confusion caused by the fact that - incredible as it might seem - not everything that everyone posts in an internet discussion is exhaustively checked to make sure its not open to a slightly mistaken interpretation. ...
In the original "just" post, I see no reference to "evidence presented by Collins" in the book. I do see a reference to Collins "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG. Consequently, it seems to me to be unlikely that a reader would take it as saying anything other than the idea that Collins was "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG. In addition to making the original misleading statement, you subsequently write misleadingly about the original post. When you do that, it seems reasonable to me to respond.
hakkyakky28 wrote:
… You, on the other hand will not answer even the most direct and straightforward questions. So yet again (for at least the third time) I'll ask: Do you think what Collins gives in the BDG section is enough for an impartial judge to decide the opening is as bad as he says it is?
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 said that I didn't know anyone who can show why the BDG is objectively bad, although I'm sure most master players can. ..." - hakkyakky28
hakkyakky28 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
hakkyakky28rote:
kindaspongey wrote:
"... Wish he'd put that analysis in his book rather than just telling everyone not to play it, though." - hackyakky28 ...
hakkyakky28 wrote:
… Now, I'll ask you again because you keep dodging this question: Do you really think that three lines of seven moves is enough to reach such a conclusion? Would a player as talented as Collins really jump to such a conclusion after exploring an opening so little? If not it should be obvious that he has more analysis of the line which does not appear in the book, and my post, rightly or wrongly, simply expresses the wish that he had made more of that analysis available to the reader.
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.
My original posts made the point that I regard the evidence presented by Collins in the form of cold hard analysis as inadequate to support his contention that the Blackmar Diemar was so bad that no one who played it could be categorized as a good player. ...
In the original "just" post, I see no reference to "evidence presented by Collins" in the book. I do see a reference to Collins "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG. Consequently, it seems to me to be unlikely that a reader would take it as saying anything other than the idea that Collins was "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG. ...
… I think its's obvious enough that I meant what Collins presents in that line is not ...
In the original "just" post, I see no reference to "what Coliins presents in that line". I do see a reference to Collins "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG. Consequently, it seems to me to be unlikely that a reader would take it as saying anything other than the idea that Collins was "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG.
Why has no one took OP’s offer on a game if they dislike this opening so much?
hakkyakky28 wrote:
... I'll see if I can post a couple of positions where the evaluation given in the book seems a bit fishy...
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 said that I didn't know anyone who can show why the BDG is objectively bad, although I'm sure most master players can. ..." - hakkyakky28
While I certainly see the advantage of being booked up in unusual openings for blitz and bullet, does not the same apply to your opponents who are of similar rating? In other words, do they not have their defense lines against unusual gambits, especially the higher ratings? Isn't it frustrating to see your initiative fizzle out in the middlegame and you are holding on for the draw with less material and a weaker pawn structure?
hakkyakky28 wrote:
... To be honest I'm still not clear what you think about the Collins book, ...
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 said that I didn't know anyone who can show why the BDG is objectively bad, although I'm sure most master players can. ..." - hakkyakky28
dannyhume wrote:
While I certainly see the advantage of being booked up in unusual openings for blitz and bullet, does not the same apply to your opponents who are of similar rating? In other words, do they not have their defense lines against unusual gambits, especially the higher ratings? Isn't it frustrating to see your initiative fizzle out in the middlegame and you are holding on for the draw with less material and a weaker pawn structure?
If you are going to play an "unusual" opening especially, I think you would want to be booked up on it......of course, why would you not want to be booked up on ANY opening you play frequently...
carlosdanger99 wrote:
Why has no one took OP’s offer on a game if they dislike this opening so much?
Exactly.
My offer still stands, especially towards pfren.
I am happy to demonstrate that any opening when thoroughly studied can be absolutely lethal in a Blitz game.
hakkyakky28 wrote:
... what Collins presents in that line is not enough to support his conclusion. I'm still kind of curious what you think about that, which seems to me like the actual central point of our discussion, but it doesn't seem like you're interested in giving an answer.
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 said that I didn't know anyone who can show why the BDG is objectively bad, although I'm sure most master players can. ..." - hakkyakky28
With regard to your curiosity, I do not feel qualified to make a conclusion about whether or not the Collins book presented enough to support a conclusion that the BDG is "obviously bad".
... I had other criticisms of the book which you refuse to address and which I believe remain significant. …
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".
Again though, he doesn't just claim it's objectively bad, he says no good player will ever play it. And other criticisms of the book are relevant in as much as if the analysis seems a bit off in other places (and I think it is, although I acknowledge I could be wrong) it suggests that maybe there was less careful thought given to the writing overall, including the BDG section, than we might have hoped for.
Have you given us anything specific other than your comments on one page? Is that really enough basis to form an opinion of the writing overall? In any event, this seems to me to be a discussion of the BDG, not 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 said that I didn't know anyone who can show why the BDG is objectively bad, although I'm sure most master players can. ..." - hakkyakky28