OpenChess

Because although according to my SCID statistics that show 4...Nf6 is the overwhelming response to facing 4.d4 in the Scandinavian, 4...e5 scores a whopping 45% for Black even though it's only seen an avg of 3% of the time on the board. So clearly this line holds some sting. And, BTW, I did a search last night and found out another way of declining the BDG...and that's the Hubsch variation. Normally that line goes..1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 trying to get the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. So in this line...you decline the offer to the BDG by 3...Nxe4!

The point being is if White responds with 4.Bd3 Black can destroy White's pawn structure with 4...Nxc3 and there goes White's chances to trap Black with the BDG. However, there is a tricky line that experienced BDG Gambit players can resort to using to getting their line in. And it's called the Paleface Attack (I kid you not...you can't make up these names for variations). It goes 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 avoiding the Hubsch variation that Black employs when facing the naked attempt to get into the BDG from the normal line.

But the sneakiest way for White to enter the BDG is undoubtedly the Caro Kann Defense. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 and White gets his/her BDG Gambit line snuck in. So, do Jovanka Houska's book and the others tell how to decline this gambit line? No they don't. For instance, in the Jovanka Houska book, she doesn't mention the 4..e5 line to decline it. It's just one line of comment mentioning this line and she doesn't do it. Obviously she's probably biased against this line for White and is fully able to refute it because she's a much better chess player than most mortals but clearly there are some people who are uncomfortable getting into wild lines and the option to decline gambits should at least be mentioned even if they can't find the space to get into the lines describing them.

Hagen wrote:I love the Caro Kan defense. Unfortunately I'm being forced to avoid using it because it can transpose to the BDG Gambit if White wants to force the issue.

Funny, I used to love the BDG but I was forced to abandon it because (among other things) c6 is so annoying.

Hi Hagen, I have a Caro-Kann book by Eric Schiller and he recommends 4...e5 against this gambit.

Hagen wrote:I love the Caro Kan defense. Unfortunately I'm being forced to avoid using it because it can transpose to the BDG Gambit if White wants to force the issue. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 and we're off to the races in the BDG Gambit. T.

Again what is the problem with 4...exf3 5.Nf3 e6 etc? Schandorff book in the caro recommends this line, (he evens quotes a Vempele game I think from 2005 in this line as ok for black)

P.d. By the way there are various articles in chess cafe column Opening Lanes about the Black Diemer. Search it.

Hagen wrote:As you can see from looking at this game by Ivanchuk, this is extremely wild. But notice, 5.Qe2 would have stopped Black cold and forced Black on the defensive. All of that could have been given by analysis had both the Houska and Bauer books bothered to mention the Anderssen Counterattack in the Scandinavian. But I've clearly shown by this game the Anderssen Counterattack should have been mentioned as a sideline in the books. The lack of acknowledging this sideline is clearly inexcusable. But they can also be faulted for failing to mention the ...e5 line to declining the BDG gambit as well.

Probably because a book on the Scandinavian is likely a black repertoire book, and thus mentioning moves that are widely considered unacceptable for black (the very idea of 4. d4 instead of other natural moves is to prevent 4 ... e5) is not in their interest. If you were looking at a white repertoire book, how to refute 4 ... e5 might be deemed worth a quick line.

As for the BDG, one would expect the d4 d5 e4 dxe4 Nc3 e5 line to be mentioned in a book on it. If it's not, it's a pretty poor book. If on the other hand you are again reading a black repertoire book on how to beat the BDG, they only need to show one line that can beat it, not every line that can beat it.