Hübsch Gambit Vs. Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

[Eric le Diemerophile]

Hello

Two years since my adventure in writing has emerged with the
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Modus Operandi. The main defenses against this
aggressive opening were shelled, with the motto "get to the point":
analysis of 287 games and assimilation of the mechanisms behind this
opening. An English translation also followed.

Today marks an important moment in my work, and learning this incredible
opening. Looked at more closely, one book dedicated to the Hübsch Gambit
existed. 40 pages co-written by Rasmus Pape, Niels Jorgen Jensen and
Dietrich Burk is out of stock for many years. Although many books
dedicated to the BDG approach, none offers a comprehensive line ... and
this defense is yet known for refuting the BDG.

Thus I looked for a whole year on it to bring you today's study. You'll
find 122 games shelled in a more accomplished than my previous works.
You will be guided through the different variants, accompanied by an
introduction and a conclusion of each chapter.

You like the Method of Operating of the BDG, do not be hesitant with it,
treat yourself! You hesitate for even more educational format you need,
there is no doubt that the plans and ideas that are put forward will
convince you. You use it ... but as black, be sure you are not
forgotten, the gambit of this study was conducted objectively. You are
fans of gambits, this book in French will please you. You doubt the
validity of the BDG or Hübsch Gambit, tell yourself that you can allow
11 transpositions to face these openings (Caro-Kann, French, Veresov,
Trompowsky, Scandinavian, English ...), also have available this book
could help!

This book of 124 pages dedicated to the Hübsch Gambit will bring the
expected answers on the supposed refutation established in the BDG. But
beware, 2012 will be the only year you find my 3 books because my
adventure as a self-editor will take end! You can see an extract via my
bookstore http://gambit-blackmar-diemer.cabanova.fr/ !

Hope to read you
Eric le Diemerophile




--
Eric le Diemerophile

[ChessFire]

>
> Hope to read you
> Eric le Diemerophile
>
>
>
>
> --
> Eric le Diemerophile

It is interesting but black may be up a pawn by move 5 with no weaknesses, and illustrated games have 2200 players defeating 2100 players in main lines where options for black are absent. I think this is not so convincing. Still, for shock value and initiative will perhaps appeal to average club players circa 1600-1800 Fide. I think stronger black players will find stronger moves, and keep their pawn too. Phil Innes

[Eric le Diemerophile]

Thanks for your answer

Yes I understand... but it is considered as the BDG refutation. And what
we see is that stronger players prefer not to enter a Hubsch gambit. So
why if it is bad for White ??? As in a BDG, a pawn is sacrificed and
results are good for White too.

Now I would like to clearly precise I write this book for bothside ! I
check each line and made a feeling about each one, explain the plan to
use according Black and White move choosen.

It is not important if you play it as White or Black. To know which
player rating is the right target, I think it will be usefull as far as
2000 Fide. Same for my first book dedicated to BDG.




--
Eric le Diemerophile

[ChessFire]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:42:15 PM UTC-4, Eric le Diemerophile wrote:
> Thanks for your answer
>
> Yes I understand... but it is considered as the BDG refutation.

Considered so by whom? And if so, are there are many GM games, eg?

> And what
> we see is that stronger players prefer not to enter a Hubsch gambit. So
> why if it is bad for White ???

I am stronger than both these players, and I say take the pawn and you are a pawn up with no weaknesses. White has no more initiative than at move 1, except you may argue that by loss of a pawn he now has an open line for a potential rook.

> As in a BDG, a pawn is sacrificed and
> results are good for White too.

? Perhaps white retains his initial initiative, but intellectually this must be admitted to be a good result, since white is now a pawn down.

> Now I would like to clearly precise I write this book for bothside ! I
> check each line and made a feeling about each one, explain the plan to
> use according Black and White move choosen.
>
> It is not important if you play it as White or Black. To know which
> player rating is the right target, I think it will be usefull as far as
> 2000 Fide. Same for my first book dedicated to BDG.

Well, Eric,

many books can describe a path to winning but whether these are necessary books is unclear, as if I for example, have massive confidence about playing a pawn up with no weaknesses, then becomes a 'technical opening' against sub 2000 players who buy such books, whose opponents oblige them by losing despite this advantage, and as it were, by force? If only opponent doesn't play good moves? Can you write another book against your own title, showing how to win with a pawn up, no weaknesses from the opening? Or is this too harsh a comment?


Phil Innes

>
>
>
> --
> Eric le Diemerophile

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 26, 3:17 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:42:15 PM UTC-4, Eric le Diemerophile wrote:
> > Thanks for your answer
>
> > Yes I understand... but it is considered as the BDG refutation.
>
> Considered so by whom?

Phil, I think what he is saying is that the Hubsch Gambit (1.d4 Nf6
2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4) is considered a worse bet for White than the
Blackmar-Diemer (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6).
Statistics would seem to bear this out. Doing a couple searches on
my CB Mega Database, I got these results:

Hubsch Gambit: White scored +55 -90 =22 in 182 games, 36.2%

BDG: White scored +799 -769 =366 in 1935 games, 50.7%

These are just raw totals, not controlling for ratings or any other
relevant factors. But a 14.5% difference seems quite big enough to be
significant.

[ChessFire]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:47:49 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jun 26, 3:17 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:42:15 PM UTC-4, Eric le Diemerophile wrote:
> > > Thanks for your answer
> >
> > > Yes I understand... but it is considered as the BDG refutation.
> >
> > Considered so by whom?
>
> Phil, I think what he is saying is that the Hubsch Gambit (1.d4 Nf6
> 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4) is considered a worse bet for White than the
> Blackmar-Diemer (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6).
> Statistics would seem to bear this out. Doing a couple searches on
> my CB Mega Database, I got these results:

Dear Taylor,

What do you think this sentence indicates:

"This book of 124 pages dedicated to the Hübsch Gambit will bring the
expected answers on the supposed refutation established in the BDG."

Who is the author hooting for, black or white, and if black why is it necessary to do so if scoring 65% already?

No, I sense these books are intended to encourage White, despite these stats, which are only mean measures against all players, what of 2000+ play? Who can give a pawn in the opening for no compensation in the opening at that level?

Of course, it may be as you intimate that this encourages black, I am uncertain from the author's own writing.

Cordially Phil

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 27, 4:19 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:47:49 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 3:17 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:42:15 PM UTC-4, Eric le Diemerophile wrote:
> > > > Thanks for your answer
>
> > > > Yes I understand... but it is considered as the BDG refutation.
>
> > > Considered so by whom?
>
> >   Phil, I think what he is saying is that the Hubsch Gambit (1.d4 Nf6
> > 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4) is considered a worse bet for White than the
> > Blackmar-Diemer (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6).
> >   Statistics would seem to bear this out. Doing a couple searches on
> > my CB Mega Database, I got these results:
>
> Dear Taylor,
>
> What do you think this sentence indicates:
>
> "This book of 124 pages dedicated to the Hübsch Gambit will bring the
> expected answers on the supposed refutation established in the BDG."
>
> Who is the author hooting for, black or white, and if black why is it necessary to do so if scoring 65% already?
>
> No, I sense these books are intended to encourage White, despite these stats, which are only mean measures against all players, what of 2000+ play? Who can give a pawn in the opening for no compensation in the opening at that level?
>
> Of course, it may be as you intimate that this encourages black, I am uncertain from the author's own writing.
>
> Cordially Phil

I guess the "Diemerophile" will have to answer that.

[Eric le Diemerophile]

Dear Phil and Taylor

1/ Considered so by whom? And if so, are there are many GM games, eg?
GM Prié Vs IM Lane as eg... http://tinyurl.com/82aqok4 and
http://tinyurl.com/75ah6b6

More details on french forum too. Now games I have show me that both
side fight with equal possibilities.

2/ I am stronger than both these players, and I say take the pawn and

you are a pawn up with no weaknesses. White has no more initiative than
at move 1, except you may argue that by loss of a pawn he now has an
open line for a potential rook.

Clearly we used to read that the best way to refute a gambit is to
accept the pawn. I agree with you when telling initiative is not white's
own in the Hubsch, but as eg NM Diebert 2275 drawn GM Bisguier 2552 and
NM Davis 2352 defeated IM Whitehead 2550. And I can tell you that no
blunder were played by Black. So why usually GMs prefer enter a full BDG
and not a Hübsch, as the first leave initiative to White, not the second
?

3/ many books can describe a path to winning but whether these are

necessary books is unclear, as if I for example, have massive confidence
about playing a pawn up with no weaknesses, then becomes a 'technical
opening' against sub 2000 players who buy such books, whose opponents
oblige them by losing despite this advantage, and as it were, by force?
If only opponent doesn't play good moves? Can you write another book
against your own title, showing how to win with a pawn up, no weaknesses
from the opening? Or is this too harsh a comment?

In fact I first write a book dedicated to the BDG, for White players and
how to play the BDG perfectly to favors good results. As IM Welling told
me, the important is to learn from this opening the tactical patterns.
The opening only is secondary. As I saw some comments about the so
called refutation Hübsch gambit, I decided to work on with the goal to
check each line. One more time with analyses, plans, conclusions... and
here strategical patterns are my priority. So if mid level player can
improve his chess strengh, my little contribution helps me to be happy,
if he only takes pleasure by reading such a book... too! Now, yes, he
often will loose against better rated player, but I am sure it helps him
to grow up his chess knowledge. May be you didn't understand the
translation of my title book : it means "antidote or lure" ! So my work
is to explain and allow the reader to have the answer. I didn't want to
demonstrate that it is good absolutely for White. It is not !

Sorry if I explain not as well as I would like. it is easier for me in
french :)




--
Eric le Diemerophile

[None]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:47:49 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

http://www.belkaplan.de/chess/bdg/diemer/budzinski_ueber_bdg_und_huebsch-gambit_en.html

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 28, 12:03 pm, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.belkaplan.de/chess/bdg/diemer/budzinski_ueber_bdg_und_hueb...

Hmmm. This was originally a ChessCafe.com article, and is still
under that site's copyright. What's it doing on a German website?

[Eric le Diemerophile]

Hello ! It seems you didn't see my answer... so to the questions >

> 1/ Considered so by whom? And if so, are there are many GM games, eg?

> 2/ I am stronger than both these players, and I say take the pawn and
> you are a pawn up with no weaknesses. White has no more initiative than
> at move 1, except you may argue that by loss of a pawn he now has an
> open line for a potential rook.

> 3/ many books can describe a path to winning but whether these are
> necessary books is unclear, as if I for example, have massive confidence
> about playing a pawn up with no weaknesses, then becomes a 'technical
> opening' against sub 2000 players who buy such books, whose opponents
> oblige them by losing despite this advantage, and as it were, by force?
> If only opponent doesn't play good moves? Can you write another book
> against your own title, showing how to win with a pawn up, no weaknesses
> from the opening? Or is this too harsh a comment?

.. I answered :

1/ GM Prié Vs IM Lane as eg... http://tinyurl.com/82aqok4 and
http://tinyurl.com/75ah6b6. More details on french forum too. Now games

I have show me that both side fight with equal possibilities.

2/ Clearly we used to read that the best way to refute a gambit is to

accept the pawn. I agree with you when telling initiative is not white's
own in the Hubsch, but as eg NM Diebert 2275 drawn GM Bisguier 2552 and
NM Davis 2352 defeated IM Whitehead 2550. And I can tell you that no
blunder were played by Black. So why usually GMs prefer enter a full BDG
and not a Hübsch, as the first leave initiative to White, not the second
?

3/ In fact I first write a book dedicated to the BDG, for White players

and how to play the BDG perfectly to favors good results. As IM Welling
told me, the important is to learn from this opening the tactical
patterns. The opening only is secondary. As I saw some comments about
the so called refutation Hübsch gambit, I decided to work on with the
goal to check each line. One more time with analyses, plans,
conclusions... and here strategical patterns are my priority. So if mid
level player can improve his chess strengh, my little contribution helps
me to be happy, if he only takes pleasure by reading such a book... too!
Now, yes, he often will loose against better rated player, but I am sure
it helps him to grow up his chess knowledge. May be you didn't
understand the translation of my title book : it means "antidote or
lure" ! So my work is to explain and allow the reader to have the
answer. I didn't want to demonstrate that it is good absolutely for
White. It is not !

Sorry if I explain not as well as I would like. it is easier for me in
french :)

But Phil you add

> What do you think this sentence indicates:

> "This book of 124 pages dedicated to the Hübsch Gambit will bring the
> expected answers on the supposed refutation established in the BDG."

> Who is the author hooting for, black or white, and if black why is it
> necessary to do so if scoring 65% already?
> No, I sense these books are intended to encourage White, despite these
> stats, which are only mean measures against all players, what of 2000+
> play? Who can give a pawn in the opening for no compensation in the
> opening at that level?
> Of course, it may be as you intimate that this encourages black, I am
> uncertain from the author's own writing.
> Cordially Phil
>
> I guess the "Diemerophile" will have to answer that.

So I have to add...

The sentence means that Black thinks the opening is BDG's refutation and
White are sure not ! So I worked a lot to check whose is right. Each
line were decorticated, so some are good for White and some are good for
Black. We can tell it is a refutation if we consider every BDG's
advantages is cancelled in the Hübsch and the game stand equal. But if
Black consider it is a refutation because Black should win by using this
gambit... I am sorry, Black blunders.

My databasis for Hubsch Gambit are 1131 games : White scored +481 -431
=218, or +42% -38% =19%
My databasis for BDG are 22048 games : White scored +11393 -7134 =3171,
or +52% -32% =14%

But it is significant that high rated player enter both BDG and Hübsch
as White : GM Kasparov G. for the best one. NM Diebert,IM Tripoteau, IM
Houska, IM Welling, IM Lane, GM Kislinsky, Tartakover, IM Meszaros, IM
Berkes, IM Hommeles, IM Onkoud, GM Velimirovic, GM Dimitrov, GM
Apicella, IM Shirazi, IM Guidarelli, GM Gelfand, GM Lobron, GM Serper...
for the others ! And I don't think you and you better rated 2200+ can
tell they are crazy !

Yes my first book was for White specifically but the other on the Hübsch
was clearly to identify for both side how to use this dangerous weapon.

Hope everything is clear now.
Best regards - Eric




--
Eric le Diemerophile

[micky]

It is the German right to rape und pillage the untermensch!..

.

[chessparrot]

Happy to review in 'The British Chess Magazine'. Please get in touch!
James Pratt <chess...@hotmail.com>