Is the Blackmar Diemer opening really that unsound?

Win or lose, sound or shaky,  it's fun. That's enough for me.

I play four gambits during Blitz games of which I have truly studied 99% of all possible variations.

The Albin Counter Gambit, Traxler Gambit, BDG and Evans Gambit.

Whenever I play these gambits I premove the first 10 - 15 moves which usually intimidates the opponent and grants me a time advantage. Later on this marginal time advantage turns into severe time pressure, especially if the opponent is not well versed in the gambit and used up additional time to think. The psychological aspect of the time pressure combined with being in an unfamiliar position often leads to inaccurate moves or even mistakes which I capitalize on to secure a win. Being down a couple pawns or even a full minor piece simply is not as relevant as it would be in a regular match because time is the most important piece on the board. The combined, relentless pressure of being down a minute, exposed to multiple attacks and unsure of one's position can be truly overwhelming. 

I absolutely enjoy putting my opponents in such hopeless scenarios, quietly observing their ever so slightly growing despair until finally they are forced to resign or just sacrifice a peace in order to alleviate the pressure. 

To me that's the most entertaining aspect about chess.

I owe the only tournament I've won in my life (OTB rapid with 45 people) to two won games as white playing the BDG (against a 1800 FIDE player and a 1900 FIDE player; other stuff include Halloween gambit and scandinavian 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 bg4 as black).

I also played BDG in long controls once and won.

Most of my opening repertoire (I do more "normal" moves too) depends on what happens to me rather than dogmatism found here and here.

If you make comments such as "My original posts made the point that …", then it seems to me to be appropriate to comment about what point was not (in my opinion) made by the reference to Collins "just telling everyone not to play" the BDG. I am not making any claims about what would or would not be worse. I am simply trying to keep the record straight about what point was not made by the original "just" post.

I am not sure what comment by me would feel like an accusation of deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the Collins book. Perhaps it would help if I post a reminder of my original reaction (~11 hours ago) to the "just" sentence. See above.

Agreed. The Open Sicilian is very common in the US for us. I play Caro-Kann as of now though.

There was a random guy who claimed some years ago that Blitz chess kills your ideas.

That very same guy had won some top world blitz events with fantastic scores. He never made it to something more that the World Championship though in real chess, so you may well be right to dismiss his verdict on blitz. And anyway, his claim does not seem to apply in your case- nothing to be killed here.

I imagine that IM Collins was thinking in terms of slow games. Also, do you have a Collins quote advising readers to choose to decline the gambit?

Surely nobody would want to avoid playing such a sparkling personality who loves shirtless MMA fighters as much as the OP...and then there's the bonus of you hanging around, too.  Enticing.

It is irrelevant what some random guy once said, I only care about what you said.

And you made it very clear, in the most dismissive and patronizing way possible, what "real" chess ought to be.

I simply take issue with this type of supercilious intellectualism which is why I once again have to raise the question who you think you are to tell anyone what real chess is?

Let's focus on the main issue at hand, I want to demonstrate to you first hand the immense pressure of playing someone in a Blitz game who has truly mastered an opening. Since you are convinced of that opening's illegitimacy and don't consider Blitz Games to be actual chess, you should have no issues playing me in a 3 min game. Simply accept the challenge already which I must now have sent for the 5th time and I promise to post the result right here in this thread.

You are rated 1700 in Blitz so it is me who's taking all the risk anyways.

Just accept the challenge, please.

Personal attacks are not necessary, please be civil.

Unless you can recognize and appreciate the art of Mixed Martial Arts, I think it'd be best to leave it out of this discussion.

TBH I don´t see the point of the challenge. Some people say: "It is not a good opening, because you can´t play it in slower time controls", while other players (like the OP) says " It is a good opening, because it works in blitz and bullet"

I see no contradiction there. If you are mainly playing bullet, you can study the BDG. Just like every other opening it is playable then. If you mainly play OTB, it makes little sense to study an opening you can´t use there.

And just in general: I am always very suspicious, if a challenge is created in this forum with so many readers watching. The likelihood of one player cheating, just to prove a point to the community, is clearly increasing. (No accusation towards the OP here. It´s more a general assumption.) 

I see a great bit of controversy, given the fact that this gentleman took it upon himself to lecture us lesser Blitz players about the inadequacy of our game style while asserting the one true meaning of real chess.

He then continues to explain why using the BDG in any setting is utterly futile.

Perfect opportunity to prove his point, seeing as a passionate Blitz player and BDG specialist is challenging him.

Additionally, I am rated 500 points above him in Blitz, so I honestly do not see a valid reason why he won't accept the challenge if he is so utterly sure of himself.

I would actually like to play a live game against him that can be joined by spectators, I am sure that can be arranged.

I am an honest player and absolutely positive that I will crush him.

Once he feels the speed and and immense time pressure exerted by multiple consecutive premoves with a 3min limit he'll crack, I know he will.

Sent the challenge for the 8th time now, and still waiting.

3 minute game is practically a long bullet game not a blitz game.

Bullet chess is more akin to a first person shooter video game than real chess.

OP admits he cant play 10,15 or 30 min minute games because he only plays memorized bullet lines like a cheap computer.

A monkey could learn that

pfren is one of the most active titled players in this forum. And we can all be happy, that he is so active. He has a clear classical understanding of chess openings and while others make their claims based on bullet games, he gives his opinion based on classical games, which is much more important for tournament players.

Yes, he is saying, that he doesn´t see blitz as real chess. So what? That has nothing to do with this discussion. 

If I would tell the world, that I don´t see 15 seconds-chess as real chess and then someone with a much lower Elo rating challenges me in this - with the main idea of flagging me in every game - I would also decline I mean whats the point? Yes, most likely I´d lose, but that wouldn´t change my opinion at all

I have some sympathy for wanting to rebel against "supercilious intellectualism", but it seems to me to be desirable to strive to distinguish between the quality of exposition and the merit of an idea. I, of course, am not in a position to know what anyone else is thinking, but it strikes me as a good guess that there is not an intention to tell you that any one person can decide what real chess is. What one person can do is give you a view of the attitude that has prevailed in the chess world for centuries. That attitude has valued stuff like planning, playing long endgames, finding deep combinations, evaluating openings, etc. Consider the vast amount of writing that has been produced on such subjects. Does Blitz foster that sort of chess?

"... the kind of thinking it takes to plan, evaluate, play long endgames, and find deep combinations is just not possible in quick chess. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf

Think NM Heisman is putting you on? Perhaps it isn't quite as absolute as NM Heisman made it sound, but do you have any doubt that planning and the other stuff is going to be of much higher quality in a slow game? And what about openings? Haven't you yourself written this?

"... Blackmar Diemer ... Obviously in a 30min game one might be able to pick it apart, but in 1 or 3 min games it is simply impossible for the opponent to calculate the countless possible lines, ..."

Aren't you, in effect, acknowledging that the quality of the moves is going to be higher in the slower game? I would not want to claim that you are completely out-of-step in placing value on the "pressure of playing". After all, the chess world wants to see battle in the arena of over-the-board play, where there is some sacrifice of deep computation, etc. in comparison with correspondence chess. However, what reason is there to believe that the chess world, as a whole, wants to make the greater sacrifice of putting the focus on Blitz? Perhaps you do believe that. In any event, is it an issue that is plausibly settled by the outcome of "a 3 min game"?

The concept of blitz just reduces depth in the middle and endgame. It shouldn't affect opening play. If you can develop a sound system by the opening, then by all means it is good. Whatever works for you to be comfortable in a chess game.

If opening play were entirely a matter of memory, then I would perhaps somewhat agree. However, my understanding is that opening play involves the ability to make quality moves in reaction to possibilities that one has not seen before. (Especially at the amateur level,)

I am not good at FPS video games so I am not good at bullet or 3 minute games.

You clearly only play bullet on this site, so you are garbage at chess too then.

Bullet chess is not chess, it is a video game