OEU2200 Book Analysis of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
D.Regis
>BLACKMAR-DIEMER GAMBIT
The material below is Ryan's (RR), edited by me (DR) and with comments
based on Gary Lane's book (GL). [To find out what I've added either
run Unix diff or grep for GL/DR or just print them both out
single-sided and hold them up to the light!] The GL book I found
maddening - see separate post.
All unattributed text is Ryan's/MCO/BCO 1(?) It would be helpful if
Ryan or someone else with these books could mark up the lines.
1.d4 d5 2.e4!?
(I give the move e4 !? because this opening
is under a persistent cloud.)
(0) Attempts at avoiding the Gambit after 1.d4 d5 2.e4!?
(In practical play Black often tries to avoid the Gambit with
2...e6, the French Defence, or 2...c6, The Caro-Kann.
The French may be met by 3. Be3, the Alapin Gambit. DR)
2...dxe4 3.Nc3
(3.f3 is refuted by 3...e5! 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4
Nge7 with an advantage for black.)
3...Nf6
(0A Popiel's Lember Counter Gambit 3...e5 is met by Be3 exd4
5.Bxd4! Nc6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7. Nge2 Nxd4
(7...Qh4 = GL)
8.Qxd4 c6 9.Bc4 Nf6
10.0-0-0 Be7 11.Rhe1 0-0 12.Ng3 with an advantage for white.)
(0B 3...Nc6 leads to a well-known line of the Nimzovitch Defence)
(0C 3...e6 offers transposition to the Rubinstein French 4. f3)
(0D 3...c6 offers transposition to the main lines of the Caro-Kann:
4. Bc4 Nf6 5. f3 keeps the Gambit offer going. )
4.f3
(1) The Gambit Declined
(2) The Gambit Accepted
(1) The Gambit Declined
A 4...Bf5 {Vienna Defence}
(also known are:
B. 4...e3
C. 4...Nf6
D. 4...Nc6)
5.fxe4!
(5.g4 Bg6 6.h4
(6. g5 GL)
6...h6 with an unclear position)
5...Nxe4
(5...Bxe4 GL)
6.Qf3 Nd6
(6...Nxc3 7. bxc3 Qc8 GL)
7.Bf4 e6 (Unzicker) 8.0-0-0 c6 and now:
<A1> 9.d5? cxd5 10.Nxd5 Be4
(10...exd5 11.Bxd6 with a better position for white)
11.Qe3 exd5 12.Rxd5 f5 13.Bb5+ Nc6
14.Nf3 Be7 15.Rxd6 Bxd6 16.Rd1 0-0 with an unclear position.
<A2> 9.g4 (Strobel) 9...Bg6 10.Qe3 Be7 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.d5 cxd5 13.Nxd5 exd5
14.Bxd6 Rc8
(14...Be6 GL)
15.Rxd5 Bxc2 16.Kd1 with slightly better chances
for white.)
(2) The Gambit Accepted
4...exf3
Here are many forks in the road. You can either continue
Nxf3, or Qxf3. Both continuations lead to interesting
positions which allow for further research and improvements.
1A. 5. Nxf3
A1 5. Nxf3 Bf5
A2 5. Nxf3 Bg4
A3 5. Nxf3 e6
A4 5. Nxf3 g6
1B. 5. Qxf3
A. 5. Nxf3
A1. 5.Nxf3 Bf5
5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6
(7...Be4 8.Nxe4
(8.Rg1 Bb4 9.d3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Bxd3=)
8...Nxe4 9.Qf3 Qxd4! 10.Qxf7+ Kd8 11.Qf4 Bb4+
(11...g5? 12.c3 Qd5 13.Nf7+ Ke8 14.Qf3 Rg8 15.Bg2
with an advantage for white.
Leisebein-Petzold (Corr 1989) went only as far as
15...Nd6 16. Qe2 1-0 GL)
12.c3 Bxc3(? GL)
(12...g5 (! GL) 13.Qe3)
13.bxc3 Qxc3+ 14.Kd1 with an advantage for white)
8.Qf3 c6
(8...Nbd7 GL)
9.g5 Ng8 (Taimanov)
(9...Nd5)
10.Bd3 Qxd4 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Bf4 c5
(typo? 12...Bc5 is given by GL)
13.Rf1 e5 14.Qe2 Ne7 15.Bxe5 Qe3 16.Qxe3?! (16.Ne4 += GL)
16...Bxe3 with an unclear position)
A2. 5.Nxf3 Bg4
5.Nxf3 Bg4
(Other defenses are:
<A3> 5...e6 6.Bg5 h6 (or...c5) 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
(GL gives 8. Qd2 and 8. Bb5+ as better)
8.Bc4 Bd6 9.0-0 Qd8 10.Qe2 advantage for white.
<A4> 5...g6 6.Bc4 (not e4! DR) 6...Bg7 7.Ne5
(GL gives 7. Bg5 and 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Qe1)
7...0-0 8.Bg5 Nd7
(8...Nc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10/11. Qd2/0-0-0 advantage for white - RR,
= GL as in a Diemer-Studier game)
9.0-0 c6 10.Kh1 (?! GL)
(10. Bb3 GL)
10...Nb6 11.Nb3 a5 =)
6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Be3 e6 9. Bd3 and now:
<A21> 9...Be7 10.g4 Nd5 11.Rf1 0-0 12.Ne4 Nd7 =
<A22> 9...Nbd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Rf2 Qa5 12.g4 0-0 =
B. 5.Qxf3
5.Qxf3 g6
(5...Qxd4 is double-edged and not fully explored 6.Be3
(6.Nb5 Qe5+ 7.Be2 Na6 with the advantage to white)
6...Qb4 (? GL)
(6...Qg4! e.g. 7. Qf2 e5 8. a3 Nc6 9. Nf3 Bd6 10. 0-0-0 a6 GL)
7.a3
(7. 0-0-0 e.g. 7...Bg4? 8. Nb5!! GL)
7...Qb6 8.Bc4 Bg4 9.Qg3 Nxc6 with an unclear
position.)
6.Be3
(6...Bg7 7. 0-0 GL)
6...c6 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 Nb6 10.Bb3 a5 11.a3
Bg4 with advantage to black)
====================================================================
Bibliography:
BCO Batsford Chess Openings, first edition, Kasparov/Keene (Batsford)
MCO Modern Chess Openings, 11th edition, Korn ().
GL The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Gary Lane (Batsford).
--
May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and
your sacrifices be sound in all variations
D _
/ "()/~ Dave Regis &8^D* WWW: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html
|| \_/| = DrDave on BICS
~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
_|||__SHEU: ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV
D.Regis
Before I get stuck in, this thread surely belongs in
rec.games.chess.analysis. Please follow-up there and not
rec.games.chess.misc.
I have three follow-ups
1. editing only
2. editing with alternatives given in Gary Lane's book
3. review of GL book
>BLACKMAR-DIEMER GAMBIT
Firstly:
a. can we lay this out more like a tree in a book? I've had a go!
b. names and references would also be helpful when quoting from other
sources
c. the size of advantage is important: I suggest the ASCII scale
= equal
+= slight plus
+/- clear plus
+- large plus, probably winning
& unclear
&/= with compensation
d. for consistency, should it be O-O (letters) or 0-0 (zeroes)?
So: all the material below is Ryan's, edited by me
All unattributed text is Ryan's/MCO/BCO 1(?)
1.d4 d5 2.e4!? (I give the move e4 !? because this opening
is under a persistent cloud.) 2...dxe4 3.Nc3
(3.f3 is refuted by 3...e5! 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4
Nge7 with an advantage for black.)
3...Nf6
(Popiel's Lember Counter Gambit 3...e5 is met by Be3 exd4
5.Bxd4! Nc6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7. Nge2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 c6 9.Bc4 Nf6
10.0-0-0 Be7 11.Rhe1 0-0 12.Ng3 with an advantage for white.)
4.f3
(1) The Gambit Declined
(2) The Gambit Accepted
(1) The Gambit Declined
A 4...Bf5 5.fxe4!
(5.g4 Bg6 6.h4 h6 with an unclear posistion)
5...Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nd6 7.Bf4 e6 8.0-0-0 c6 and now:
<A1> 9.d5? cxd5 10.Nxd5 Be4
(10...exd5 11.Bxd6 with a better position for white)
11.Qe3 exd5 12.Rxd5 f5 13.Bb5+ Nc6
14.Nf3 Be7 15.Rxd6 Bxd6 16.Rd1 0-0 with an unclear position.
<A2> 9.g4 Bg6 10.Qe3 Be7 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.d5 cxd5 13.Nxd5 exd5
14.Bxd6 Rc8 15.Rxd5 Bxc2 16.Kd1 with slightly better chances
for white.)
(2) The Gambit Accepted
4...exf3
Here are many forks in the road. You can either continue
Nxf3, or Qxf3. Both continuations lead to interesting
positions which allow for further research and improvements.
1A. 5. Nxf3
A1 5. Nxf3 Bf5
A2 5. Nxf3 Bg4
A3 5. Nxf3 e6
A4 5. Nxf3 g6
1B. 5. Qxf3
A. 5. Nxf3
A1. 5.Nxf3 Bf5
5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6
(7...Be4 8.Nxe4
(8.Rg1 Bb4 9.d3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Bxd3=)
8...Nxe4 9.Qf3 Qxd4! 10.Qxf7+ Kd8 11.Qf4 Bb4+
(11...g5? 12.c3 Qd5 13.Nf7+ Ke8 14.Qf3 Rg8 15.Bg2
with an advantage for white)
12.c3 Bxc3
(12...g5 13.Qe3)
13.bxc3 Qxc3+ 14.Kd1 with an advantage for white)
8.Qf3 c6 9.g5 Ng8 10.Bd3 Qxd4 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Bf4 c5
13.Rf1 e5 14.Qe2 Ne7 15.Bxe5 Qe3 16.Qxe3?! (16.Ne4)
16...Bxe3 with an unclear position)
A2. 5.Nxf3 Bg4
5.Nxf3 Bg4
(Other defenses are:
<A3> 5...e6 6.Bg5 h6 (or...c5) 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Bc4 Bd6 9.0-0
Qd8 10.Qe2 advantage for white.
<A4> 5...g6 6.Be4 Bg7 7.Ne5 0-0 8.Bg5 Nd7
(8...Nc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.0-0-0 advantage for white)
9.0-0 c6 10.Kh1 Nb6 11.Nb3 a5 =)
6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Be3 e6 and now:
<A21> 9.Bd3 Be7 10.g4 Nd5 11.Rf1 0-0 12.Ne4 Nd7 =
<A22> 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Rf2 Qa5 12.g4 0-0 =
B. 5.Qxf3
5.Qxf3 g6
(5...Qxd4 is double-edged and not fully explored 6.Be3
(6.Nb5 Qe5+ 7.Be2 Na6 with the advantage to white)
6...Qb4 7.a3 Qb6 8.Bc4 Bg4 9.Qg3 Nxc6 with an unclear
position.)
6.Be3 c6 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 Nb6 10.Bb3 a5 11.a3
Bg4 with advantage to black)
D.Regis
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit by Gary Lane (Batsford 1995)
===================================
I've just posted a follow-up to Ryan Ripley's collection of variations
on the BDG, mostly by comparing his variations to those given in Gary
Lane's (GL) book on the Gambit published by Batsford.
Throughout I gave only the alternative, rather than trying to suggest
a preference. I found it absolutely maddening to try and decide
whether any of the GL alternatives were better than the ones given in
Ryan's books. Simply, it was too difficult to see what GL thinks are
the best defences or attacking strategies. Instead the reader often
learns only which are "fashionable" or "rare".
The book is supposed to be (back cover) the first survey by a player
of international class "who can look at the opening objectively" but I
really don't think that's what has happened.
I got interested in the BDG when our local gambiteer John Walker of
Teignmouth beat my colleague Mark Abbott with it, a game which found
its way into the national press (Guardian). I since learn from the GL
book that the BDG has a venerable collection of master scalps, but the
key issue is: why did the masters lose? Are the positions you get out
of the BDG really so strong, or is the art of defence really so
difficult to master, or did they all choose plausible-but-dubious
defences, or what? Sadly, after buying and studying the GL book for a
while, I don't think I can answer that at all.
The key flaw in the book is the fact that it is bung-full of White
wins. There are hundreds of games cited, nearly all 20-30 moves long,
nearly all White wins. In no other opening book have I ever seen
anything like this. Is the BDG a forced win? [Has GL adjusted his
opening repertoire so he never has to face the BDG?] Rather than
comment on this dramatic feature GL just reports them blandly as
relevant experience.
What on earth am I supposed to do with these games? They are very
often uncommented, apart from a closing 1-0 or +- assessment at move
26. Only rarely does GL flag a Black move with a "?" but even then he
usually doesn't give any alternatives, or an assessment of the
position before the error. Instead of "19...a5?" I need "19...a5?
(19...Re8 =)". What I have is hardly any use at all. I wish GL had
cut out at least half the games in the book, and stopped the rest at
move 19 with a quantitative and verbal assessment like:
"+= White has compensation for the pawn in pressure against the light
squares, but the outcome should be a draw".
"-/+ White still enjoys a lead in development, but after an eventual
...c5 the game will turn in Black's favour"
That I can use.
Obviously there is some analysis of critical positions in the book,
some of which is both original and important, but mostly it's in the
stamp-collecting mould. The difference between a book and a database
is the difference between science and stamp-collecting. The former
should have analysis, theory, judgements, criticism. The latter is
just a collection any monkey like me can put together with a pile of
old magazines and a photocopier, requiring work but not skill.
Now, given that I read in another thread that Tim Sawyer has a
700-game "keybook" out, the stamp collection has clearly already been
assembled. What we need is the master touch: masterly judgements,
practical advice for both sides, promising untested alternatives (the
joy of John Watson's books) and so on (*).
Instead, the GL book too often reads like a giant "Trends" pamphlet,
giving you a cheerful collection of the latest news and gossip, but
expecting most of the analytical notes and integration to be done by
the reader.
For example, on one page he criticises 8. Qe2 as probably time-wasting
(as Qe2-f2 may follow), but gives three White wins as examples. In
the main line (where White gains a tempo) he gives a critical game
which turned out well for Black. And that's it! Is this eighth move
position some bizarre zugzwang, so that by triangulating White wins?
Of course not, but the work needed here is all left to you. If 8. Qe2
is time wasting it should have been noted as such and the three games
left out. If these games have important or original attacking ideas
then we should be given them, but also be told what to look for.
In another key line (recommended by Euwe and Brinckmann) he gives a
game with an uncommon move, 12. Ne2. He then gives the whole main
game (a win for White in about 30 moves I think) without any better
moves being suggested for Black. Do we assume 12. Ne2 is a forced
win? No. But beyond noting it as an alternative, that I might have
come across without any annotation in a database or magazine, I am
hardly better off.
Part of the excuse may be that this is such untrodden ground that none
of the questions I have can be answered. But if we look at the end of
the book, we learn that after 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dex4 3. Nc3 Nc6 leads to
a well-known line of the Nimzovitch Defence. Now, this is a critical
line of this defence and is far from untrodden, but even here we only
get a 20-odd move White win or two, and the only positional assessment
is at the end by which time White is clearly winning.
I think the real problem with this book is that there are so few games
by IM Gary Lane in it. If he had practiced the BDG for a year or two
against other IMs, we would I'm sure have a run-down on attacking
themes, when to adjust your usual piece placements, warning signs for
duff combinations, the best Black defensive set-ups, whether Black
should go for a central break with ...c5 or keep it closed, and so on.
It's not impossible that the amateurs have got it right all along,
that the BDG really is an important winning attempt which gives
excellent practical chances, even against an expert or master who
knows how to defend. [I am reminded of the Morra Gambit, where there
was some grudging acceptance of its soundness when Murray Chandler had
a go with it at GM level.] But I don't feel much nearer a conclusion
on this issue.
(*) Re: the master touch - My apologies to Tim if that's what he is
and what he's done!
David Flude
My web page at werple.net.au/~fludy has information on the
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. So far just some information about Diemer,
lists of books and magazines.
The problem with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is that it has not been
exhaustively tested by grandmasters. Furthermore there are so many
variations and possibilities for both sides that errors tend to occur
in analysis.
I shall be updating my web site over the next day or so with a
diagrammed position where Gary Lane got it wrong. (mostly he gets it
right). But remember the theory is still developing, is in a state of
flux, any no-one has found a cut and dried refutation as yet.
David Flude