Is A Blackmar-Diemer Repertoire More Work Than Just Playing 1.e4?

Assuming that White plays the Blackmar-Diemer with all that theory, the Trompowsky against 1.d4 Nf6, again with all that theory,  and some king's pawn opening when Black plays pawn moves that aren't 1...d5 and 1...f5 (purposely avoiding or delaying ...Nf6), isn't this potentially more work than just playing 1.e4? I assumed that the point of playing such systems was to avoid theory but it seems like this doesn't actually do anything more than avoid certain queens pawn openings that you wouldn't deal with if you just played 1.e4 anyway.

Also I've seen much simpler ways people avoid having to learn much theory by playing stuff like stonewall/Torre, London, Veresov etc; What's the benefit of using the Blackmar-Diemer?

I often think that theory as in chess theory elevates chess it beyond it's real importance and 'theory"  is more properly used in mathematical/science theory etc Perhaps because the few people who are fortunate to make a living from the game - the designation raises their self esteem. It also makes us geeks feel cleverer than we are we we speak of chess theory  to our fellow geeks.

Perhaps it's also misleading as well, because opening theory  typically analyses an opening for best play by computers as well as human scrutiny. If anything, we have chess evaluations and not chess theory.

The BDG is not an opening repertoire for the purpose of reducing study. It's a not a "set it and forget it" system like the Colle or King's Indian Attack. Black has plenty of ways to avoid the BDG, as well as several solid defenses to the BDG proper.

The BDG is a somewhat dubious gambit for White players who like gambits and attacks.

You will soon pick up the theory though. It daunting to start with, but many of those possible black replies you will never see

True. The BDG, assuming Black cooperates, isn't as daunting to learn as, say, the King's Gambit, which is amazingly tactical and wacky.

My main point: the BDG is really not a solution to concerns about how much theory 1.e4 entails. Maybe there are people pushing the BDG as a one-size-fits-all repertoire for White to save time on theory, but that strikes me as a bizarre idea.

FWIW I occasionally play the BDG to surprise my opponent and to challenge myself tactically.

Yes, objectively speaking the BDG is rather dubious, but you have to factor in the surprise value. I used to play it OTB all the time, and I have never ever met anyone who was "booked up" on the opening -- including to IMs.

Aganist 1. ...Nf6 you can always play 2. Nc3 hoping for a transposition after 2. d5. In this line, black can instead take the pawn with the knight, which, arguably, is much better for black. But if it's anything to go by, 90% of my opponents (including said IMs who ended up with inferior positions, though I lost in the end) will capture with the pawn, in which case you're back on terra firma. Even if black captures with the knight, you still get some compensation for the pawn. If you know what you are doing, you can probably play the BDG against anyone rated below 2400 USCF. But you might not be able to repeat the feat against the same player. :)

Having said that, there are a couple of major caveats:

1. Black can avoid all major complications by giving back the pawn with e3 or a timely e5 (although not after white has played Nc3).

2. Many lines are very theoretical; you can't just wing it and hope for the best.

Look at the explorer, White is winning around 60% of BDG games, higher than just about any other opening. Many are old games though. Although what the super GMS play should have no bearing on your own moves.

   At club level people beat themselves and the BDG sets more problems than most openings

BDG was good in the days before databases and computers, back in the 19th century when people played a few games a month and hadn't a good opportunity to mop up all their mistakes. It makes little sense today. 

Yes, objectively speaking the BDG is rather dubious, but you have to factor in the surprise value.

Blougram: Absolutely! A pleasure to hear from you.

I think too many class players are intimidated by praxis at the GM level. From what I can tell, anecdotally and statistically, gambits work wonderfully well below 2000 and even higher, as you say. An old friend of mine played gambits all the way up to achieving 2200.

That said, I've bashed my head against Scheerer's BDG book and the Avrukh's 1.d4 volume enough to see that with good play Black is well-positioned. But that's not the standard of play you will encounter OTB unless someone expects you to play the BDG.

At club level people beat themselves and the BDG sets more problems than most openings.

triggerlips: Well said.

I'll put a reminder in my tickler file not to play the BDG against Magnus Carlsen. And I definitely won't play it in correspondence.

How many Black players at the class level are prepared to meet the BDG over the board?

Also with todays faster time limits things like the BDG make much more sense, the time gained on the clock, and pressure on the opponent will often make them crack, whatever the objective position on the board.

The worst that can happen is you end up a pawn down, even then endings are played so poorly below master level that even that is not the end of the world.    Biggest problem with BDG is people declining the damn thing

I suppose the main issue is that most of the players that you would want to play it against will turn it into a caro cann or french, while the sharp tactical players who accept it are more likely to be upto the job

Back in the day the BDG was heavily played in high level correspondence, Gambits could be analysed deeply and great novelties found. Of course computers ruined all that, and venturing it now is just an invitation for the cheats to switch the engine on

trigger: My trick in the Caro-Kann is to offer the BDG and watch their heads explode. Sadly the transposition from the C-K turns out to be one of the strongest replies to the BDG, but most C-K players don't know that.

The main issue I see with gambits is that they are not durable past 2200. So if you are a young, ambitious player hoping to go beyond master, you are looking at a big overhaul of your opening repertoire at some point if you've been playing gambits.

Gambits are also a problem if you are an older player and tactical play is not your sweet spot anymore.

The prejudice against gambits is not as well-founded as the conventional wisdom dictates, but it has its points.

It is more work to play any gambit in the long run. At first it bypasses a lot of theory, and players will frequently get caught in the traps. But when the theoretical challenges start showing up in every game... you can still play it of course, but you will have to keep going back to your openings and modifying them and repairing them, as the theory won't be as well-defined and the punishment for deviating can mean a lost position.

That said, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to learn a gambit or two. I think it can help a player tremendously with their tactics down the line even if they switch openings later.