Untill recently, I believed that Euwe's refutation of the Blackmar Diemer gambit was refuted. Indeed, Euwe suggested to counter white's centre quickly with a counterattack 6...c5 after the moves 1.d4 d5 2.e4 exd4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5.
Diemer disregarded this threat and focused on the weak f7 pawn and continued 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Bb5+
When I loaded this position in my chess computer recently, I saw - to my horror - that it gave equality after the traditional 8...Bd7 9.Ne5 Bd6 10.Rf1 Qe7 11.Rxf7 Qh4+ 12.Rf2 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Nc6 14.Qd6 000 15.Qxc5 Qxh2 ( diagram ) with only a minor advantage after 16.Ne4 Qg1+ 17.Bf1 Kb8
Also, the line 8...Nd7 9.00 cxd4 10.Ne4 Qf5 11.Bxd7+ Bxd7 12.Nfg5 Qe5 13.Nxf7 Qxe4 14.Nxh8 g6 15.Qd3 seems to bring not much for white.
This seems like a shock to me - is this really the refutation of the Blackmar Diemer gambit ? If we can't find any better continuation for white, then this line seems like a simple continuation for black - allowing him a comfortable draw. The defender just has to memorise this simple line and obtain a playable game. Or he could learn a more complicated defense ( like the Bogoljubow ) with potential winning chance. But this simple defense greatly reduces white's winning chances.
Please let me know your ideas on how to improve white's game.