A Bust to the Paleface Attack! (1.d4 Nf6 2.f3) A new original gambit idea for Black!
Jeff Anderson
against 1.d4.
1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 is Schiller's suggestion to get into the feared
Blackmar-Diemer gambit when Black decides to adopt an indian setup.
2.f3 is even used as a transpotional weapon, without any desire to go
into the BDG.
I believe I have 2.f3 massacred with my gambit new gambit. If you play
the BDG I would forget 2.f3 as a way to get into the BDG after 1...Nf6.
I would stick with 2.Nc3. If you ever see 2.f3 as Black try this out.
It looks very strong.
In Rev. Tim Sawyer's excellent book, he too likes 2.f3. He says 2.Nc3
and 2.f3 are of roughly equal value, but I beg to differ.
Here is the e-mail I sent to Mr. Schiller, it contains all my analysis.
Please tell me what you think. I would love to hear all your comments
or improvements.
My new idea is:
1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 e5!
------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Schiller:
In your book 'The Blackmar Diemer Gambit' you suggest 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 as a
way of getting into the BDG. This move has actually been played by
Benjamin, so he must have considered it playable. A few other strong
players have played 2.f3, though it has never been tried by any other
GM's. You have a page on it with some light analysis and short
discussion of Black's possible 2nd moves.
A simple move which I have discovered, which you failed to mention is
2...e5! In my opinion it may even refute 2.f3. Now I am only a class
player, but this looks sound to me.
1.d4 Nf6
2.f3 e5!
3.dxe5 The only playable possibility of declining the gambit seems to
be 3.d5. I imagine this might lead to equality for white. Other
declining moves surely give black the clear advantage.
3...Nh5
White is now basically limited to 4 rather ugly choices.
4.Nh3 d5!(4...Nc6 looks good too) Black is better in my humble
opinion. He has many tactical possibilities it seem. One important
note that I have discovered in my analysis that trying to trap the
knight at different points (With g4) fails everytime. One example when
white tries to do right away is 5.g4 Qh5+ 6.Nf2 Bc5 7.e3 (forced) Nf4
and the Black knight only joins the attack. It fails after 4...Nc6 too.
4.g3 d6 5.exd6 Bxd6 with obvious compensation.
4.Qd4 Nc6 5.Qg4 (Anyother move and Black's game is VERY easy.) This
moves forces the sligthly akward 5...g6, but black will get another
tempo on White's queen with the push of the d-pawn.
4.Be3 This is probably white's best try. But still, Black's game seems
strong. The point is that after 4.Be3 White's threat to trap the knight
at h5 is very real. 4...Qh4+ 5.Bf2 Now black wins his pawn back with
either 5...Qb4+ or 5...Qg5
Even if this is not quite sound(which i think it is), it should be noted
that those trying to get into a BDG would not be very happy playing the
White side of this (though I'm sure they would be very pleased playing
the white side).
I would love to hear what you think. I will also post this to
rec.games.chess.analysis.
Jeff
Jeff Anderson
White is very happy!". 5...Qe7 wins the pawn back, but Black's
development becomes rather akward. I like 5...Bc5 with the idea of Qe7,
or with the idea of O-O. I don't think white's pawn can be held, and
when black gets it in a few moves he will have good development and a
better position.
Fred Galvin
> 1.d4 Nf6
> 2.f3 e5!
> 3.dxe5 The only playable possibility of declining the gambit seems to
> be 3.d5. I imagine this might lead to equality for white. Other
> declining moves surely give black the clear advantage.
>
> 3...Nh5
> White is now basically limited to 4 rather ugly choices.
>
> 4.Nh3 d5!(4...Nc6 looks good too) Black is better in my humble
> opinion. He has many tactical possibilities it seem. One important
> note that I have discovered in my analysis that trying to trap the
> knight at different points (With g4) fails everytime. One example when
> white tries to do right away is 5.g4 Qh5+ 6.Nf2 Bc5 7.e3 (forced) Nf4
> and the Black knight only joins the attack. It fails after 4...Nc6 too.
Why 6. Nf2? What's wrong with 6. Kd2?
Jeff Anderson
I found something else. Black can also try 5...d6 6.exd6 Be6 7.dxc7
Qxc7 with a massive lead in development.
Jeff Anderson
>>1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 e5 3.dxe5 Nh5 4.Nh3 d5 5.g4 Qh5+ 6.Nf2
> Why 6. Nf2? What's wrong with 6. Kd2?
6...Bc5 and if 7.gxh5?! (if else Black should get back to development,
probably with Nc6) then 7...Bxh3 (7...Qe4+ is nothing but a draw)
8.Bxh3 Qxh3 and white gets his pawn back and probably much more due to
white's attrocious king position.
Jeff
Jeff Anderson
> I think you might be being too pessimistic about white's chances.
> He doesn't worry about the pawn, plays Nc3, Bd2, and 0-0-0 and I
> don't see anything approaching a bust.
>
> Black is going to have to waste time getting his knight back
> into the game. This may not be a serious try for the advantage as
> white, but I don't see a "bust."
>
> -Ron
Ok, it's hard to debate unless we have an actual variation or position,
but that is my fault. Let's say 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 e5 3.dxe5 Nh5 4.Qd4 Nc6
5.Qe4 Bc5 6.Nc3 O-O 7.Bd2, I believe this is what you had in mind.
After 7...Re8 Black looks excellent.
"Bust" might have been too optimistic, but 2...e5 still looks like a
very promising line against 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3.
Ron Moskovitz
Jeff Anderson <chixd...@foxinternet.net> wrote:
>Mr Schiller replied and said "3.dxe5 Nh5 4.Qd4 Nc6 5.Qe4 and I think
>White is very happy!". 5...Qe7 wins the pawn back, but Black's
>development becomes rather akward. I like 5...Bc5 with the idea of Qe7,
>or with the idea of O-O. I don't think white's pawn can be held, and
>when black gets it in a few moves he will have good development and a
>better position.
I think you might be being too pessimistic about white's chances.
Tim Eberly
Jeff Anderson <chixd...@foxinternet.net> wrote in message
news:377C14...@foxinternet.net...
> This is very important for anyone who plays the BDG, or play 1...Nf6
> against 1.d4.
> Jeff
I tried this and had a fine game:
1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 e5 3.c3
Jeff Anderson
> I tried this and had a fine game:
> 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 e5 3.c3
After 3...exd4 4.cxd4 d5 Black is better.
Just to get an idea of how ridiculous White's position is here imagine a
queens gambit declined exchange variation with the insertion of the move
f3. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.cxd5 exd5 4.f3 Nf6. This gives us the same
position as above. Now note how 4.f3 is ridicously out of place. Your
suggestion 3.c3 is a mistake.
Jeff
Michael J Fitch
I've been playing chess off & on for about 16 years(more off than on)
and i've never seen these opening moves before.1.d4 Nf6 2.f3???????.
why would anyone play this ugly move?what does this move accomplish?
It retards your King-side development.It exposes your King to some
early tactics on the dark squares.It gives black the initiative after
the second move.etc.etc.etc.VERY GOOD FOR BLACK.REALLY STUPID FOR WHITE.
--
Michael J Fitch
INDIAN SARCASM: Once there were no Taxes,No
police and no Crime,Women did all the work,Then
the White man came along to improve things.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Tim Eberly
I agree with you. Why learn to play weak openings?
Michael J Fitch <michae...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ll2em$6ef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Jeff Anderson
>
> Hi Jeff,
> I agree with you. Why learn to play weak openings?
I think you are missing the point. 1.d4 Nf6 2.f3 is not my suggestion.
It is a move suggested by Eric Schiller to transpose in the the Blackmar
Diemer attack (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3) by (1.d4 Nf6 2.f3
d5 3.e4 dxe4 4.Nc3 exf3). Furthermore Joel Benjamin, one of the
strongest players in the in the United States has played 2.f3 before. I
agree with you that is seems ridiculous and weakening, that's why I
began looking for a gambit idea to try to punish those playing the move
2.f3, and that's what I have done. So I'm not advocating 2.f3, but
rather finding a way to tear it apart if you ever see it.
Jeff
Earl Neville Roberts
Michael J Fitch <michae...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7ll2em$6ef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <377D56...@foxinternet.net>,
> chixd...@foxinternet.net wrote:
> I've been playing chess off & on for about 16 years(more off than on)
> and i've never seen these opening moves before.1.d4 Nf6 2.f3???????.
> why would anyone play this ugly move?what does this move accomplish?
> It retards your King-side development.It exposes your King to some
> early tactics on the dark squares.It gives black the initiative after
> the second move.etc.etc.etc.VERY GOOD FOR BLACK.REALLY STUPID FOR WHITE.
> Michael J Fitch
Hello Mr Fitch,
For a person with so much playing experience, 16 years or so, I find your
comments to be with respect, quite strange.
For starters, what is an ugly move? A move is either playable or
unplayable, whether it looks good or not is wholly irrelevant.You may indeed
one day need to play a so called "ugly" move to save a game.
Second question, why would anyone play this ugly move? The Paleface Attack
is a rather lame attempt to transpose in to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
While 2.f3 is sensibly motivated in intending the pawn sacfice 3.e4, it is
less forth right then the other attempt at tranposing to the BDG, the
Huebsch Gambit. (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4!?).
Third question, What does it accomplish ? If black plays 2...d5, quite alot
if you a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit player. I would respectfully refer you games
7 through 11 of Rev. Sawyers, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook 1. This ugly
move (as you put it) was tried by a no lesser light than Emil Diemer
himself. Rev Sawyer has also played this move and according to his keybook,
he has a ICCF Masters certificate as well.
I really do not want to debate with you your other comments because they are
your opinion and I have not meet you and or played you to make any sort of
judgment on your playing ability or your chess ability in general.
Regards
Earl N Roberts. (Levin, NewZealand)
Earl Neville Roberts
Regards
Earl (Levin, New Zealand)
Ron Moskovitz <rm...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7lhcl1$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com...
Michael J Fitch
opening"DEVELOPMENT"and trying to keep the"INITIATIVE".Now if your
second move as white,retards your development,exposes your king to
tatics,and hands the initiative to black after the second move.Well
thats what i call an UGLY move.
I will check out those games,but i doubt that my opinion will change.
Dennis M. Robles
Michael J Fitch wrote:
Ugly or not in over the board play you still have to deal with it and if you
don't know what you are dealing with, you will get trounced, even by the
wings gambit, grob, orangutan, etc. Incidentally Joel loves to play
unorthodox
openings he had a series in Chess Life a couple of years back. He wrote one
on the Prybl, I believe.
by the third article he got seriously trounced in a game and ended the
article by saying something like having to go back to the tool shed and fix
it. He never published another article or commentary on the opening since,
that I am aware of. And finally the real purpose of these games is to give
a surprise Just like when Anand played the Center-Counter, and after that
Gary had the number down on that defense.
dmr