Things I’ll Write Someday
The previous story about the BDG is part of a much larger piece I should really write sometime. The reason I was doing the computer work on the BDG is because nearly every book ever written about it (or even just mentioning it) is either wrong, dishonest, or both.
Since I realize this is a bit of a large bite to swallow without evdence, I’ll adduce some data. Gary Lane’s 1995 book on the BDG was highly recommended to me by a local BDG expert. I hadn’t made it more than 12 pages into the book before I was throwing it across the room. The amount of either wrong or misleading analysis in it was horrifying.
In response to a possible 7th move by Black in the first stem game he presents, he quotes the first 26 moves of Humphrey-Thomas and blithely announces “White is winning.” Of course White is winning, but only because back on move 11 Thomas made the absolutely inexplicable move 11…e5??, allowing White to post a Knight on f5 and launch an attack. Had Black even made the simple move 11…Nd5 to clear the way to completing his development and clear the way for more defensive help to arrive on the scene, White’s game is probably no better than even.
Then, later on in the same stem game he gives the continuation 10. … 0-0 11. Qh4 Nxe5 12. Bf4! claiming an edge for White, when after 12. Ng6 Black is the one sitting pretty while White looks for compensation for the pawn minus, and if 12. de5 Qxe5 13. Rxf6! h6 and he says White is winning, a conclusion I find remarkable and unsupportable, but even if we grant it, 12. … h5 keeps the pawn off the h6 target square and still holds on to the pin on f6.
There are similar bits of optimism scatttered all through the analysis. I’ve just covered two of the ones I found in the first 12 pages of the book. Other books aren’t much better, with the exception possibly of Tim Sawyer’s Keybooks, partly because as they are collections of example games, rather than a treatise on the opening, they might possibly be excused from the requirement to examine improvements for Black’s play.
The root cause is the fact the BDG has no objective reporters. Either they’re madly in love with the opening, or they’re adamant that it’s a joke opening with a known refutation. In the first instance, best play for Black will be absent, either by intent (dishonesty) or because they don’t believe it exists (wrong, incomplete, overly optimistic) while in the second instance White will be afforded the same treatment. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. It’s a sharp, complicated opening, requiring a lot of tactical vision and calculation ability, and if you’re long on that, you’ll probably be able to overcome the lack of complete compensation for the pawn. White probably gets 75% of a pawn in objective compensation, meaning it’s quite a playable opening if you personally have the tools to support it. Just don’t rely on a book to teach you about it. Do game collections and your own analysis.
(Actually, this latter idea is probably why the opening attracts so many fervent followers. Everyone loves the idea of developing new opening theory, and the BDG is very fertile ground for doing so, because the published work on it is so incomplete.)
BTW, don’t take this as a rejection of the BDG. I have played it in the past and will probably do so again in the future. A friend once observed that I don’t seem to be able to concentrate on my game unless I’m a pawn down! I just don’t trust the books on it. (NB: I have Diemer’s biography, but not his book on the gambit, but if the quotes I’ve seen from it are any indication, I don’t exempt it from the criticism I’ve offered here.)