Quote:


I suppose not dear friend, but it seems only to increase the complications in debate.

Out of curiousity TopNotch...why would you post such a caustic remark and not expect me to respond to it....

And so the never ending cycle continues.

Tops

Quote:


Lev, with the greatest respect, there is truth in chess.

There is a true, though often unknown, evaluation of any given position that depends on the assumption that both sides will their best moves henceforth.  So then, the question here is not whether the BDG is a good system at speed (personally, against someone not throughly prepared for it, I think it may be).  The question here is, is it a good system objectively? 

So your observations about cc versus speed chess really are beside the point on this particular thread.   And unless the moves played shed light on particular positions considered here, the many games you have won with the BDG shed no light at all on this topic.

What do we have to do to get you talking about the objective truth of these positions, grab you by the ears and bang your head against the baseboard?

Now you are guilty of bad reading, Teyko. Both Bonsai and Markovich have repeatedly showed lines for Black, which seriously question White's compensation.

"any time the playability of an entire Opening hangs on one move, then that system for want of a better word, is junk"
Do you also apply this on say the Polugajevsky Variation of the Najdorf?

I think you are not fair. Alchemy Variation is an extremely difficult line with great complications. There is no IM on the earth who can evaluate it correctly simply by looking on it for three second. No chance.
And be sure, I´m not a kind of guy who thinks that a gambit is ok when you have an equality. It is true, when you´re black but not when you´re white.
Of course, nowadays chess is full of "equalities". See ECO books, there are almost some say 60% full of =, 30% unclear, some 10% with compensation and just 10% are other possibilities. It seems that today´s chess is leading to equality whatever opening you´re playing. Don´t you see this? Ruy Lopez is =, King´s Indian is =, I can draw even all my corresp. games in Benoni and Rajmund can play 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6!? without any worry at high-level corr. chess. This is the reality.
I don´t think black is better in BDG. Rajmund Emanuel proved =/+ in so-called Martin´s Refutation line long time before Martin even started to write the article. Then he has proposed the Alchemy Variant because (yes!) BDG was in trouble. Ziegler Variation is (according to me) the best choice for black and the most difficult for white, therefore we picked it up for our Experimentum Crucis 2004 Project on Rajmund´s website. Result is (for me) still not clear. All attempts to refute Alchemy were succesfully passed but... position (as in so-called Sun Variant) looks very, very suspicious even for those (like me) who believe in this line. But no concrete line is available.
I´m not fan of 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 as black is at least equal here. As far as I remember I sent some analysis somewhere on a forum.
On the other hand, this move is perfectly playable in OTB chess.
You´re also reffering to "BDG fanatics".. Frankly, based on my experience here, I know more people here who are fanatically opposed to BDG than those who vote for the another cause.

The current claim by the BDG crowd that the Alchemy variation is playable for white seems to rely very much on 1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5 Bg6 9.Ne2 Bd6 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4 Nd5 12.Bc1 being okay for white (with various variation of the a2-a4 and then Ra1-a3 maneuver to follow, see http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/ec_ena_alch.htm).

That's one of the places where I have strong suspicions that black should be able to find something. Maybe we should have a closer look at this subvariation?

If I have understood all postings correctly, also the Alchemy Variation is close to refutation.
Concerning 6.Bd3: after g6 Black transposes to the Bogoljubov Defense and the White bishop is misplaced on d3. Moreover Black has 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5.
As 7.Ne5 e6 8.o-o Bg6! leaves White a pawn down with nothing, White's last vague hope indeed is 7.o-o e6 8.Ng5.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.O-O e6 8.Ng5.

So after six very long pages what is the final verdict on the above line. White seems to be losing at best and already dead lost at worse.

It could well be that the future of the BDG rests squarely on the shoulders of one move: 8.Ng5. Thats a tall order for any move, but such as life in the Gambit fast lane.

According to Arkhein 6.Bd3 is an interesting alternative, but once again its just a pawn down with inadequate compensation. Besides, if black likes he can simply use the O'Kelly move order and 'force' you into the dodgy 8.Ng5 business. Alchemy indeed, in fact you do have a better chance of turning base metal into gold than making this junk viable.

The strongest argument I've seen so far for the BDG is that its fun. So we can safely conclude that the BDG is fun for White but a point for Black.

I'll take the point thank you.

Toppylov

I think MNb means 7.O-O e6 8.Ng5.

In that case the answer is no.  TopNotch is just being provocative again.  Curious post, since it was exactly that article that generated interest in this thread.  (Read the first post.)

I've lost track, has Martin's REFUTATION been refuted?

Or are the BDGeers still shopping for tombstones.

Tops  

What do you think of the material imbalance after

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5 Bxc2 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qxc2 Qxd4+ 11.Be3 Qxc4 12.Rf4! Qxf4 13.Bxf4 Bc5+ 14.Kf1 Nbd7 ?

I think black is at least equal here.

OK, so 16...0-0?? is a total blunder.  17.Nxg6! was kind of an obvious move to miss.  I'm sorry, I don't use computers to check my analysis.  I suppose I should buy an engine for this purpose.  I have a tendency to sometimes make stupid mistakes like this, especially when I am exploring a line of play too deeply, before checking the alternatives.  I hope you excuse this, because this is a learning process for me.  Sometimes I get carried away when I see an interesting idea.  Sometimes, an idea that fails to tactical refutation can fail in one line, but work in another.  Other times, it just doesn't work.   But for me that's part of learning.  I don't expect perfection on the first attempt.  Only here, it's very embarassing to miss such a simple combination.  (Not like I haven't done it before.)  All I can say is that when I see an idea that looks promising, I post it for discussion, hoping that it will add greater insight to the position.  Perhaps, I should be more careful, but my time is limited.  If I tried to put the same quality in replies, as though I were writing a book, I probably would not post at all (or there would be a lengthy delay).  Contrary to what my posts may suggest, I actually do have a high standard on quality.  However, in a discussion I feel that mistakes are an inevitable part of the process.  Though perhaps, I should be a little more careful at times...

As far as the position after 16.Qd3 goes, I am out of ideas for black!  16...Rh6 seems like the best move, but it seems too awkward for it be good for black.  I think white has real pressure.  To be honest, I have doubts about 9...Nd5 in general.  I think the only chance left to show something for black is the more natural 12...Qd8, but still I think white has strong pressure here.  My original intention behind 9...Nd5 was to avoid the complications of the other lines, but without conceding the dark-squared bishop.  However, it seems that black has to make too many awkward moves.  I started to feel very suspicious when black was making the moves Nf6-d5-f6, Qd8-d6-d7, Na6-c7.  Sure, black is interfering with white's plans, but at what cost?  I am reaching the conclusion that the cost is too great.  So maybe someone else can find an idea to make 9...Nd5 work.  Now my impression is that maybe black's best is to enter the direct complications associated with the sacrifices on e6.  

This is my analysis of the continuation with 16.Qd3 0-0 17.Qh3 Nh5:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5 Bg6 9.Ne2 Nd5!? 10.Bd3 Qd6 11.c4 Nf6 12.Bf4 Qd7!? 13.Be5 Be7 14.Nf4 Na6 15.Bxg6 hxg6 16.Qd3

16...0-0! 17.Qh3 Nh5! 18.Bxg7

  [18.Nxh5 Bxg5 19.Nxg7 f6!µ;
   18.Nf3 Nxf4 19.Bxf4 Rad8 20.Rad1 c5µ]

18...Bxg5!

  [18...Kxg7? 19.Nxh5+ gxh5 20.Qxh5 Qxd4+ 21.Kh1  Bxg5 22.Qxg5+ Kh8 23.Rf6]

19.Nxh5 [19.Bxf8 Nxf4µ] 19...gxh5 20.Qxh5 f6 21.Qh8+ Kf7 22.Bxf8 [22.Qh7 Qxd4+ 23.Kh1 Qh4-+] 22...Rxf8 [22...Qxd4+? 23.Kh1 Rxf8 24.Qh7+ Ke8 25.Rad1] 23.Qh7+ Ke8 24.Qe4 f5 25.Qd3 Nc5µ

I think, the variant 12...Qd7 is good for White too.

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5 Bg6 9.Ne2 Nd5 10.Bd3 Qd6 11.c4 Nf6 12.Bf4 Qd7 13.Be5 Be7 [13...Bd6 14.Bxg6 hxg6 15.Qb3 Bc7 16.Rad1 Qc8 17.Qg3 Na6 18.Qf3+/-] 14.Nf4 Na6 15.Bxg6 hxg6 16.Qd3 Rh6

[16...Rf8? 17.Nxg6 (or 17.Nfxe6+- ) 17...fxg6 18.Qxg6+ Kd8 19.Qxg7+-;

16...Nb4 17.Qg3 Rf8 18.Ngxe6 fxe6 19.Qxg6+ Kd8 20.Qxg7 Ne8 21.Qg6 Nc7 22.Bxc7+ Kxc7 23.Nxe6+ Kb6 24.a3+/-]

17.Qe2 Nc7 18.Rad1 Qd8 19.Nd3 Rh5 20.Qe3 Na6 [20...Ng4 21.Qf4 Nxe5 22.dxe5+/-] 21.Qg3 Qd7 22.Kh1 Rd8 23.Rde1 Kf8 24.Bxf6 gxf6 25.Nxe6+ fxe6 26.Qxg6+/-

@ Markovich:

Yes, I think 5...Bf5 is strong also.  I simply chose to examine two lines that seemed promising after reading a post of Top Notch, a section of Larry Kaufman's repertoire book, and the article by Andrew Martin.  I think 5...c6 is sometimes preferred to avoid tactics based on the b7 weakness, and also it is a useful waiting move to see which setup white commits to.  Also, it is of some importance to Caro-Kann players from the black side.  Though certainly, it is useful to compare 5...Bf5 to 5...c6.  Not that I'll be starting a new thread on that anytime soon.  Maybe you will lead the way?

@ Rajmund Emanuel:

When I analyzed this line, I came to the conclusion that 10...Qd6 was the best move.  After 11.c4 Nf6 12.Bf4, I think 12...Qd7 is strong (this was the idea I was referring to in my last post), with the unusual plan of Na6-c7.  Black keeps his option open for castling to either side, while covering his weaknesses.  It may seem strange, but I think it is a constructive development.  I don't see a good way for white to counter this plan, though the position needs to be looked at a little further.  At the very least, I think it deserves consideration, despite its awkward appearance.

To make matters worse 9...Nd5...

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5 Bg6 9.Ne2 Nd5 10.Bd3

[10...Bd6 11.Bxg6 hxg6 12.Rxf7 Bxh2+ 13.Kf2 Nd7
(13...Nf4 14.Bxf4 Bxf4 15.Nxf4 Qxg5 16.Qe2+-;
13...Bf4 14.Bxf4 Nxf4 15.Nxf4 Qxg5 16.Qe2+-)
14.g3 N5f6 15.Qd3 Qb6 (15...Qa5 16.Bd2 Qf5+ 17.Kg2 Qd5+ 18.Qf3 Qxf3+ 19.Kxf3 e5 20.Kg2+-) 16.Rxf6 gxf6 17.Qxg6+ Kd8 18.Nf7+ Kc7 19.Nxh8 Rxh8 20.Bh6+/-

10...Qc7 11.c4 Nf6 12.Nf4! Bxd3 13.Qxd3 Bd6 14.Nfxe6+-

10...Qd6 11.c4 Nf6 12.Bf4 Qd8 13.Bxg6 hxg6 14.Qd3 Be7 15.Rae1 Nbd7
[15...0-0 16.Qh3 Nh5 (16...Nbd7 17.Be3 Nh5 18.Qh4 c5 19.g4+-) 17.Qh4 Nd7 18.g4+-]
16.Nc3 Nb6
[16...0-0 17.Qh3 Qb6 18.Nce4 Rfe8N (18...Nh5 19.g4+-) 19.Nxf6+ Nxf6 20.Be5+-]
17.Rxe6 fxe6 18.Nxe6 Qc8 19.Qxg6+ Kd7 20.Re1+/-

Yes, 12.Rxf7! complicates things a little.  Though maybe the same idea works with a queen move as you suggest.  I guess the idea of 10...Qd6 is to add protecttion to d6, but it seems to a little awkward, as you mentioned, when white play c4 and Bf4.  I wonder if black can get away with 10...Qc7, so that Bf4 can be met with ...Bd6.

Or at worst you could have a Zaitsev-like repetition 10...Nf6 11.Bc4 Nd5.  

In the 10.Nf4 line, I think black is fine as long as does he does not create targets for white, and prepares carefully to break in the center.  When looking at the positions here, it seemed that if white restrains himself with c3, then black should not be in a hurry with ...c5 (as it can allow white to take positive actions by placing the knight on d4).  The ...c5 break is more of deterrant against white's actions.  If white just sits still, then black can also adopt the idea of Rae8, Kh8, Nd7, f6, and breaking in the center with ...e5.  Black doesn't seem to have problems defending here.

10.Bd3 seems like the critical challenge to black's idea, so 10...Qc7 or 10...Qd6 need to be examined carefully (if black is not content with a repetition ).

Currently, my preference is for 10...Qc7, when I think black should be doing well.  (When I have the time, I'll post some analysis.)  Actually, when I first looked at line, I think I was deciding between 10...Bd6 and 10...Qc7, but I was unaware of the danger of 12.Rxf7 in the 10...Bd6 line.  So I think the general idea (countering with a check on h2) works, but I made an incorrect decision on which piece to use.

In the Alchemy Variation of the Ziegler Defense, I think I have found a move (9...Nd5) in the 8...Bg6 line that causes problems for white.  An important aspect of this move is that it seems to prevent white's plans, while avoiding immense tactical complications without an important stategic concession (such as the loss of dark-squared bishop in the 9...Bd6 line).  Here's my analysis of the move.  See what you think.

Alchemy - 9...Nd5!? [D00]

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5 Bg6

 9.Ne2 Nd5!
Has this move been considered?  I can't find it on Rajmund's website, yet the move seems very logical, in that it interferes with white's plans.  I don't see a convincing answer for white.  This move seems to avoid unnecessary tactical sequences, without unfavorably conceding the bishop pair.  With 9...Nd5, black argues that without a successful implementation of the Nf4 plan, white's setup is not so threatening.

 10.Nf4
 
[10.Bd3 Perhaps the most principled move to take advantage of the uncovering of f7, but black has a surprising resource. 10...Bd6!

11.Bxg6 hxg6

A) 12.Nxf7? Bxh2+ 13.Kf2 (13.Kh1? Bg3+ 14.Kg1 Rh1+ 15.Kxh1 Qh4+ 16.Kg1 Qh2#) 13...Qf6+! 14.Ke1 (14.Nf4? Qxf7 15.g3 g5-+) 14...Qh4+ 15.Kd2 (15.g3? Bxg3+ 16.Nxg3 Qxg3+ 17.Ke2 Rh2+-+) 15...0-0 16.Nh8 (16.Ne5 Bxe5 17.dxe5 Qg5+µ) 16...Qg5+ 17.Kd3 Nf4+ 18.Kc3 (18.Nxf4 Bxf4-+) 18...Nxe2+ 19.Qxe2 Rxf1 20.Qxf1 Qg3+ 21.Kd2 Qf4+ 22.Qxf4 Bxf4+ 23.Kd3 Bxc1 24.Rxc1 Kxh8-+;

B) 12.h3 12...Nf6 13.Nf4 Na6! 14.Qe2 (14.Nfxe6? fxe6 15.Nxe6 Qd7 16.Re1 Kf7-+) 14...Nc7 15.Bd2 Qd7µ followed by castling queenside]

 10...Nxf4 11.Bxf4 Be7

[11...Bd6?! 12.Bxe6 fxe6 (12...Bxf4 13.Rxf4 fxe6 14.Nxe6 Qd7 15.Qg4) 13.Nxe6 Qd7 14.Bxd6 Qxd6 15.Nxg7+ Kd7 16.Qg4+ This seems to lead to unnecessary complications, so I prefer 11...Be7.  Anyway the whole idea of this line is to defuse white's attack before it even strikes.]

 12.Nf3

[12.Bxe6 Bxg5-+;
12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Bxe6 Bf6!? 14.Be5 (14.c3 Bf7 15.Bxf7+ Kxf7 16.Bg5 Nd7-+) 14...Bxe5 15.dxe5 Na6-+]

 12...Nd7 13.Qe2 Nb6! This move allows black to meet Rae1 with ...Bd6.

[13...0-0 14.Rae1 Nb6? 15.Bxe6!]

 14.Bb3 0-0 15.Rae1 Bd6 16.Bg5 [16.Bxd6 Qxd6µ]

 16...Qc7 17.c4

[17.Ne5?! c5

A) 18.c3 c4! 19.Nxg6 (19.Bc2 Bxc2 20.Qxc2 f6-+) 19...hxg6 20.Bc2 Bxh2+-+;

B) 18.dxc5 18...Qxc5+! 19.Kh1 Qxe5 20.Qxe5 Bxe5 21.Rxe5 f6 22.Rxe6 Bf7-+]

 17...c5 18.d5 exd5 19.cxd5 c4 20.Bc2 [20.Rc1? Bd3] 20...Nxd5µ It's probably best to leave the bishop on g6 to defend the f5 square if necessary.  For example: 21.Bxg6 hxg6 22.Rc1 b5 23.Nd4 a6-+ and f5 is defended.

Quote:


A1) - I'd enough agree. (perhaps even better: 18.Be5!?)
A2) - but I'd somewhat jar, after 17...Nd7 18.Ng5 Raf8 = I see only a equalization - the move 14.Bg5(?!) arrange a rate to development Be7!

Alas Rajmund has not incorporated my comments on 9.Nxf7 above.

And for Lev Zilbermint:
1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 g6 6 Bc4 Bg7 7 00 00 8 h3! yes, this idea is remarkable, but...
7.0-0 Bg4! is the very best continuation transposing to drawish Qe1 vs Nc6, Bg4 setup lines. It is a very subtle thing but it actually works for black. Would I play BDG in my corr. play, I will pick up 6.Bf4!? Long-Bogo line suggested by Rajmund here
http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/ec_ena_bo.htm
For OTB chess, I would go for classical Studier Attack probably crushing my opponent in 30 moves.
Patrik

Dear friends,
   It is pleasure for me to send this reaction to Teyko´s suggestion of 6.Bd3 in 5.Nxf3 c6 Ziegler Variation. I hope it will give some fresh new insights in the line and that we can together reach a conlusion whether this line is playable or not. It seems to me for now that it is almost playable. Of course, I´m speaking from a viewpoint of high-level correspondence play (and in view of 7..Bxf3!? continuation below), for over the board chess, this variation is sufficient enough as it gives good practical chances and is easy to learn.

With best wishes
Patrik Schoupal a.k.a. Sevenviolets

BDG Ziegler defence [D00] 5..c6 6.Bd3!?
26.02.2005
[Patrik Schoupal]

1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6

[3...c6 4.f3! (4.Nxe4 This is a normal Caro Kann.) 4...exf3 (4...Nf6!?) 5.Nxf3 Transposes into the main line.]

4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6

This line is called Ziegler defence. It is considered to be one of the most solid systems against BDG (in addition to e.g. Euwe def., Lemberger Countergambit and Vienna def.). It resembles Caro Kann defence. First, let me think about this move for a while. What does it do? What ideas lie behind it? Black´s plan is (based on experience) Bf5, e6, Be7, 0–0. But why is he playing c6, when  he can simply play Bf5, e6, Be7 immediately? Is he simply waiting to learn more about how white is going to develop his pieces?  It resembles not only Caro-Kann but also some kind of Slav def. (if e6 would be played) or some position from Qa5 Scandinavian as black has this possibility now. Let see what white can play now.

6.Bd3 This move prevents black to play Bf5.  6...Bg4 The most logical move though there are not much alternatives.

[a) 6...e6?! Now, Bc8 bishop is "bad". White has compensation for a pawn. There is plenty of possibilities e.g. 7.Bg5 or 7.0–0. 7.Bg5 Qb6 8.Qd2 Offering yet another pawn for deadly development advantage. 8...Qxb2?! (8...Nbd7 9.0–0–0© with compensation.) 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.Rb3 Qa5 11.0–0 Nbd7 12.Qf4 White has all pieces ready to attack. Black´s king  is stuck in the middle. Just  little example: 12...h6 13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.Ne5 Be7 15.g4!? 0–0 (15...Qd8 16.h4 Rf8 17.g5 hxg5 18.hxg5 Nh5 19.Qg4 Bxg5 20.Nxf7 Nf6 21.Qxg5 Qxd4+ 22.Kg2 Kxf7 23.Bg6+ Ke7 (23...Kg8 24.Ne4+-) 24.Bh5+-) 16.g5 hxg5 17.Qxg5 c5 18.Rf3 Qd8 (18...cxd4 19.Rg3+-) 19.Ne2 Ne4 20.Qh5 Ng5 21.Rg3+-;

b) 6...g6?! Can black play such slow-paced chess without being punished with quick crush? No. 
7.Be3 Of course there are other possibilities including 0–0. 7...Bg7 (7...Ng4 8.Bf4 Bg7 9.h3 Nf6 is no problem.) 8.Qd2 0–0 9.0–0–0 Nd5 10.Nxd5 cxd5 11.h4! followed by h5.]

7.0–0

[7.h3 Bh5 (7...Bxf3 8.Qxf3 and white has good compensation. Compare with 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 where white is usually playing 7.Be3 classical main line or 7.g4 Hara-Kiri variation. Here, 7.Bd3!? is rarely played, transposing to this line. 8...Qxd4 9.Be3© with compensation.) 8.0–0 a) 8.g4?! Bg6 Now, black seems to be OK, although the position remains unclear. 9.0–0 Nbd7!? (9...e6?! transposes to 8.0–0; 9...Bxd3 10.Qxd3) ; b) 8.Be3 e6 9.0–0 Bd6 10.g4 Bg6; 8...e6 (8...Bxf3? 9.Qxf3 Qxd4+ 10.Be3© with compensation.) 9.g4 Bg6 10.g5 Nfd7 (10...Nd5 11.Bxg6 hxg6 12.Ne5 f5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.c4±) 11.Bf4 Na6 (11...Qb6 12.a3 Be7 13.Qd2 Bxd3 14.Qxd3©) 12.a3 Be7 13.Ne4 c5 unclear.; 7.Be3 e6! (7...Qb6 8.Qd2 Bxf3 9.gxf3 Nbd7 10.0–0–0 e6 11.Rhg1 Nd5 12.Nxd5 cxd5 unclear.) ]

7...e6

[7...Bxf3!N Teyko, what´s your continuation here? 8.Qxf3 Qxd4+ 9.Be3 Qg4 10.Qf2 with some compensation but probably not enough.]

8.Be3

[8.h3!? Teyko´s suggestion. Introductory move to the Curry Attack. 8...Bh5 (8...Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Qxd4+ (9...Be7 10.Be3 0–0 11.g4 with attack.) 10.Be3 well, seems like having compensation.) 9.g4 Bg6 10.g5 Nfd7 11.Nh4! Well, the "Curry Attack" variation, proposed by Teyko. Let´s see how black can face it. 11...Bxd3 Why not? 12.Qxd3 Now, there are some threats on kingside.  12...Be7!? Perhaps this is the only playable move for black. I let Teyko pleasure to refute it himself. I´m looking forward to his response.

a) 12...Bd6?! 13.Ne4 Bc7 and black position seems weird. I wonder if there is anybody who will prefer playing black now. 14.g6!! f6 (14...Qxh4 15.Bg5+-) 15.gxh7 (15.Qb3!? is also winning.) 15...Nf8 16.Ng6!! Nxg6 17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Qxg6+ Kd7 19.Rxf6 Kc8 20.Rxe6 with attack.;

b) 12...Na6?! with a plan to castle queenside. 13.Qf3 Qe7 14.Ne4 0–0–0 15.Qxf7 Qxf7 16.Rxf7 e5 17.Nf5 white seems to be better.; ]

8...Nbd7

[8...Bd6 9.Qe1 Bxf3 10.Rxf3 Nbd7 11.Qh4 transposing into the main line!]

9.Qe1 in fashion of Bogoljubow Studier attack. 9...Bxf3 10.Rxf3 Bd6 11.Qh4 Nd5 12.Qg4 N7f6

[12...Nxe3!? 13.Qxg7 Rf8 14.Ne4 (14.Rxe3 Qb6 15.Rae1 0–0–0 16.Bxh7÷ unclear.) 14...Nf5 (14...Bxh2+ 15.Kxh2 Qc7+ 16.Kg1 (16.g3 Nf5 17.Rxf5 exf5 18.Nf6+ Nxf6 19.Qxf6 Rg8 20.Re1+ Kf8) 16...Nf5 17.Nf6+ Nxf6 18.Qxf6 Qe7 19.Qxe7+ Nxe7 20.Bxh7=) 15.Rxf5 Bxh2+ 16.Kxh2 Qh4+ 17.Kg1 exf5 18.Nd6+ Kd8 19.Nxf5 Qf6 20.Qg3 h5 21.c3÷ unclear.]

13.Qxg7 Rg8 14.Nxd5 Rxg7 15.Nxf6+ Ke7 16.Bh6 Qh8 17.Raf1 Rg6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Bg5 Bxh2+ 20.Kf2 Bc7 21.Ke2+- Line


P.S.
1.e4 d5 2.d4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 Bg4 7.0-0 Bxf3! 8.Qxf3 Qxd4+ 9.Be3 Qg4 10.Qf2 and now 10..e6 11.h3 Qh5 12.Ne4 Nbd7! 13.Rad1 Be7! and despite the fact that white´s pieces are developed and well and actively placed, black position seems to be secure enough. Worse is 12..Nxe4?! 13.Bxe4 Nbd7 14.Rad1 Bc5? which offers some tactical fireworks for white after 15.Rxd7! Bxe3 16.Qxe3 Kxd7 17.g4 Qb5 18.c4! and white is winning here, believe or not. Still, 14..0-0-0!? seems to be o.k. here. I hope I reproduced these lines correctly because I´m putting them down by hearth.

Interesting analysis from Rajmund. Though I am not convinced of White's advantage after 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 (Von Hennig-Milner Barry Gambit) exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.o-o e6 8.Ng5 Bxc2 9.Nf7 Bxd1 10.Nxd8 Kxd8 11.Rxd1 Nd5 12.Re1 Kd7 13.Rf1 Ke8 14.Bd2 Be7 15.Rae1 Nc7 16.Bxe6 Nxe6 17.Rxe6 Kd7.
But maybe White can improve with 14.Bg5
A1) 14...h6 15.Bd2! (the pawn on h6 benefits White) Be7 16.Rae1 Nc7 17.Bf4 Nba6 18.Bxa6 Nxa6 19.Rxe6 Kd7 20.Rg6! (that is why).
A2) 14...Be7 15.Bxe7 Kxe7 16.Rae1 Nc7 17.Ne4 seems to favour White as well.

"The curry attack", hot and spicy

Quote:


Good grief!!!  Must we go around and around and around and around this same, tiresome mulberry bush?  Below is a verbatim quote of the analysis Bonsai posted in the thread (now fairly old) on the so-called "Gunderam Defense," and to which I pointed in my earlier post on this thread.

I would have thought that you'd have dealt with this before claiming how hunky dory 10. Bd3 is.

Quotation of Bonsai begins.

1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 Bf5 6. Ne5 e6 7. g4 Bg6 8.Qf3 c6 9. g5 Nh5 10. Bd3 Qxd4 11. Bxg6 Qxe5+ 12. Be4 Why on earth would black let white get the kind of attacking chances he gets in the main game? It seems more sensible to keep white from getting too much play with 12...Bb4, doesn't it? 

A. 13. Bd2 Bxc3 14. Bxc3 Qxg5 doesn't look great for white.

B. 13. O-O f5 14. Qxh5+ g6 15. Qf3 Bxc3 16. bxc3 Qxe4 17. Qxe4 fxe4 18. Rf6 Nd7 19. Rxe6+ Kf7 20. Rxe4 Rhe8 This endgame is clearly better for black, but maybe white can draw it.

Quotation of Bonsai ends.

As for 7...Ne4, why would Black want to seek complications when he's a pawn up in a position with no weaknesses?

Quote:



I love you too MNB. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my first post. I should have said that the three most problematic variations in which compensation for the pawn is most unclear is the Bogo, the Ziegler and the Variation of the Hubsch advocated by GM Prie.

Secondly, I believe the Zilbermints gambit in the Nc6 lines actually hold up. After some extensive analysis it seems to pan out.

Thirdly, in the variation you were speaking of in the piece sac line, white is winning if you are talking about the main line where 12. a3!! was discovered, but if you are talking about the line you sent me months prior I believe that white was slightly better if black does not take the draw by repetition. I believe you argued that your queen side pawns would win it, but I believed that the open lines and the two bishops gave me plenty of chances for an attack.

Fourthly, zeigler variation is well met by 6. Bd3!. This is Stummer's move, and can be worked out in whites favor, if you ignore his games.

Okay, I am going to post some of my personal analysis here, against my better judgement, GM Prie if you are watching I totally want credit for this novelty. Maybe call it Teyko's Tempo or the curry attack.

[White "Stummer Attack"]
[Black "Junior 9"]
[Result "1-0"]


1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 dxe4 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 c6 6. Bd3 Bg4 7. O-O e6 8. h3 Bh5 9. g4 Bg6 10. g5!? Nfd7 11. Nh4!

I will extend the analysis as the board replies.

Quote:



I believe so. I mean white is actually only down a pawn, and I think in the variation

[White "J., Tommy"]
[Black "Junior 9"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4 dxe4 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 Bf5 6. Ne5 e6 7. g4 Bg6 8. Qf3 c6 9. g5 Nh5 10. Bd3 Qxd4 11. Bxg6 Qxe5+ 12. Be4 g6 13. Rf1!? white is doing well.



13...Bb4 14.Be3!

13...f5 14.gxf6 Kf7 15.Bd2 with the idea of castling. White has to be better in this position.

I only know of two variations that seem to test the Blacmar Diemar Gambit. I have spent hours analyzing this thing, and to be very honest. White is just equal in the best lines. In the Bogolijubov defense white gets his pawn back and the lines are just equal. In grand master Prie's lines of the Hubsch white is just equal, with equal material, and in the zeigler white has the initiative, but is just equal.

I have recently taken up the scotch and found that there are positions that I would be down a pawn with the attack than equal and defending black's initiative. I suppose it is a matter of taste, but the Blackmar Diemar Gambit is not dead, or in trouble. It just bothers people that you can give up a pawn from move two and attack the hell out of them. But as I have said in the 3 previous lines, a draw is a probable outcome, but how is that not true in most analyzed openings.

If you guys want some analysis or to chat hit me at Teyko@mchsi.com, or ICC under teyko.

Peace.

Quote:


In the above line I believe that white could play 10.Bd3 immediately. White can't take the bishop because of the mate on f7, and 10...Qxd4 is easily met with 11.Bxg6 Qxe5+ 12. Be4 and now where can black's knight go?

1. d4 d5  2. e4 dxe4  3. Nc3 Nf6  4. f3 exf3  5. Nxf3 Bf5  (of course technically this shouldn't be in the Ziegler thread) 6. Ne5 e6  7. g4 Bg6 8. Qf3 c6  9. g5 Nh5 10.Be3 Nd7 12.Nxg6 hxg6

Here I would have thought that White had full compensation for his pawn.  I think White should start with 13.Bd3 to discourage ...f6 breaks then castle kingside.  He can pressure f7 and may follow with Rf2/Raf1 and/or advance his queenside pawns if Black were to castle ...0-0-0.

See the thing is, not even grandmasters know which variations are good, which are bad, and which are completely busted. When I played GM Henrik Danielsen last year he chose the Bogoljubow defence. Stupid as I was I refrained from playing 6.Bc4 because it has been busted (but what is the chance that he would know of that bust, probably he faces the BDG once a year). So instead I chose 6.Bf4, but of course he did not castle kingside into the Dragonkiller. Still I got a reasonable position and only lost due to later errors.

However, this is not the reason I gave up the BDG. The reason was that less good players tend to play more careful, and there is one line that is very careful which also happens to be Black's best defence. 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 and now what do you do?
5.fxe4 e5! is only equal and in a very boring way (McGrews articles on chesscafe where full of holes)5.Nxe4 Bf5 is a bad Caro-Kann,
5.Bc4 Bf5 is a bad version of the Vienna defence.

I could not break the Ziegler defence 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 or the Tartakower-Gunderam 5...Bf5 either. I have tried the "Alchemy variation" a few times in blitz. I think it works there but a 2h/40 against someone who knows how to defend - no way!

Using computer engines only makes things worse. They tend to find the "only" moves for Black that defend, while always trying to regain material for White which is most likely to yield a bad endgame.

Still, when I play blitz or meet someone rated below 1900 the BDG works fine.

In this thread it became clear, that the Alchemy Variation is White's only chance after 5...c6.
<You need to focus more on the Alchemy Variation>
Why does LDZ recommend this, if he does not play it himself?

I have to agree with MNB on this one Lev D. Zilbermints.
The variation that Markovich is talking about specifically is not covered very well in the BDG handbook. I have both and the games are not very convincing. THe DMC has given some variations that look much more promising and in fact are more concrete answers to his concerns.

This is nonsense, guys. You keep talking about the Tartakower-Gunderan Defense, 5...Bf5 , as if it was something so special. Why don't you pick up a copy of Rev. Timothy Sawyer's Blackmar- Diemer Gambit Keybook II (Pickard & Son, Publishers 1999) in any decent bookstore? Barnes and Nobles? Or order it through the USCF catalogue?

All these lines can be easily found in old issues of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World Magazine, 1983-1998.
You need to focus more on the Alchemy Variation and less on lines that are already well-known.

I must point out that all your analyses are great for correspondence chess, where you have DAYS to analyse. In over-the-board chess, it is a vastly different story.

So, when you analyze, specify if this is for correspondence or OTB play. The reason? Most players in OTB play  won't find a lot of these variations.

Markovich,

The name of that variation is the Tartakower-Gunderam, and if you think that Black has a chance in these lines you are sadly mistaken.

On this site, you are encouraged to give lines, if you can't or won't do that your posts will not be given much credence here.

Yes Bonsai it does.
I have made a personal decision not to post anymore analysis on the board because it seems to me that it is unfair and not very prudent for Blackmar Diemar specialists and players to put all their hard work on the forums where anyone without a subscription can just pull it off and play.

I hope that perhaps GM Prie could oblige the Blackmar Diemar players here and have us send him he analysis were he can remark upon the finding in an update. In this way we can still present our analysis monthly and he would not have to find games.

Just email me Bonsai, and I will give you the moves and send you some pgn.

Teyko@mchsi.com

I feel like a complete idiot. After having the Blackmar Diemar Gambit world cd for almost 6 months, I never thought to look at it seriously until now.

These guys are the bomb, and by the way it has been established for almost a decade that 6.Bc4 is inferior because of Bf5.

We are reinventing the wheel guys. The Pape Attack in volume 52 and Stummer's attack in Volume 59 deserve attention.

Hi Teyko, hi friends,
  I´m sorry, unfortunately I have so little time nowadays as I´m finishing my B.C. degree thesis and also working as tournament director of a Trinec OPEN 2004 FIDE tournament. It is a lot of work. And no time to analyse anything. Unfortunately, Rajmund and I have thought that Alchemy line is in BIG danger. Too many lines aren´t working properly to be it only a coincidence. The crisis of BDG has come nowadays as also the Bogoljubow line is threatened by Nc6, Bg4 setup. Leisebein´s 10.Ne2!? doesn´t seem to be working. It is = when black playing the best moves. There might be some line in the Alchemy, of course, which can save the day but it would be very, very difficult to find it... if there is any. But nothing is lost, I analysed one Bogo position for over 3 days some time ago and I was almost convinced that white has only = here but after 3 days of really hard work I´ve finally found the line. So, there might be "saving a day" line in the Alchemy, but since now, it is in danger. Of course, for OTB play it is completely playable. I mean for high-level correspondence chess. Hope I will have better news next time.
Patrik

Quote:


Well I 've seen variations in the Scandinavian that according on the move order we reach the same position with one tempo lost for black (in comparison with one another) Well I don't see any point of adopting the second try, BDG, if you know that your opponent will play this line of the Scandinavian, as except for the open f-file you don't have any other compensation for the pawn. Not even a tempo 

I do not quite see how 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 Be6 8.g5 Be6xh1 is possible.
Some other food for thought: compare
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.d4 Nf6 5.Bc4 c6 6.Nf3 Bf5
with 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5.

Response to Bonsai, 30-11:
Variation A1: <8.Ng5 Bg6 .......... 18.Qf1 b5 19.Bxb5 Rxe6 20.Rxe6 Kxe6 21.Bxc6 Bd6 22.Bg5, why do you think black cannot simply play 22...Qxd4?>
23.Re1+ Kf7 24.Be3 and Fritz' evaluation goes down, which is usually a sign, that the gambiteer has long term compensation. The centralized Black king and the passive Black rook do not feel good.
Variation A2: in general I agree, though some might argue that the pair of bishop's, the half open f-file and the slight dominance in the centre offer some compensation. But I must admit that Bg6 (again) is a very strong defender.
Variation B: 8.Ng5 Bxc2 and there seems to be concensus that White must be satisfied with
the transposition and play 9.Nxf7 in stead of 9.Qe2.

After 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 c6 Diemer played 7.g4 Bg6 8.g5 Nd5. I will leave it to others to evaluate this.

After 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 BDG-fanatics will continue with 6.Ne5 (all other moves lead to an improved Ziegler-Defence or - from White's point of view - a bad Von Hennig-Milner Barry Gambit) e6 7.g4 when I like the ultra-sharp Ne4! 8.gxf5 Qh4+ best. There is some analysis on this in one of the many other BDG-threads.

My suggestion as a better defense (in comparison to 8..Bg6)against the BDG is 7..Bg6 more for phychological reasons than practical. As I said, I believe that 7..e6 firstly is well-known to BDG players, secondly gives a target (the pawn itself) and finaly loses time as we do not bring a defender. So I sugested 7..Bg6 and then Nbd7. In a previous post I have a more analytical explanation but my idea is to play Nb6 threatening the bishop on c4 and then Nbd5. After Nbd7 we cover the extremely important e5 square where a bishop from there can do a lot of damage. If 8.Bf4 (if I remember well my post) e6 in order to bring our bishop either on e7 or d6 and exchange the bishops. In general I do not agree with most variations that place the white knight on f4, the black bishop on d6 and they exchange as the white bishop will become too powerful.

Inn2,

I would reserve my argument as to the Blackmar Diemar Gambit being busted. The fact of the matter is that the Alchemy variation is a system created by Rajumde and Patrik.

Thus, I believe it is only far that they are given a chance to respond. I have on the other hand tried to give a response to everyone elses attacks on various lines from the gunderam, to the vienna and at present I am working on the Hubsch, so if I finish with this analysis I will respond to your question.

Quote:


So I think we agree then that so far, with the up-to-date correct play, this line is drawish. The main variation you gave, which was where I agreed to a draw with Fritz actually, is a draw no question about it. The 30..Ng6 line is also a draw but not with the 33..Kb8? blunder but with 33..Nc6 instead covering all threats
the 30..Be7 is ok but I would prefer 32..Bb4 instead of comitting my rook for the guarding of that pawn. And finally 30..a4 is probably losing for black but I don't know anyone that would prefer this line of defense, as it takes away all the black defenders

Also the 20..Nf8 is a little suspicious to me as it places the knight to an awkward square without any good reason. Unfortunately I don't have time to check this interesting line as if I do that I'll fail my exams starting on Monday  But I'll keep an eye on this variation as there is poison in it. Hope you find a strong continuation somewhere in this line cause I am really having fun here! 

Hey micheal here is what I came up with for the double sac line in the ziegler.

1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 dxe4 4. f3 exf3 5. Nxf3 c6 6. Bc4 Bf5 7. Ne5 e6 8. O-O Bxc2 9. Nxf7 Kxf7 10. Bxe6+ Kxe6 11. Qxc2 Kd7 12. Bg5 Kc8 13. d5 Bd6 14. Kh1 Be5 15. Qf5+ Nbd7 16. Rac1 Re8 17.Ne4 Qc7 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Rfd1 Re5 20. Qxh7 Nf8 21. Qh3+ Kb8 22. dxc6 bxc6 23.Nd6 a5 {The move advocated by Tzanidakis.} 24. Qb3+ Ka7 25. Qf3 Rd8 26. Rxc6 Qxd6 27. Rcxd6 Rxd6 28. Qf2+ Rb6 {This is where Tzanidakis analysis stops.} 29.Rd6 {A great move, because the queen on f2 stops the mate threat.} Reb5 30. b3 Ka6 31. Rxb6+ Rxb6 32. Qf1+ Ka7 33. Qf5 *

(30... Ng6 31. Rd7+ Ka8 32. Qc2 Ne7 33. Qe4+ Kb8 34. Rxe7 Bxe7 35. Qxe7)

(30... Be7 31. Rxb6 Rxb6 32. Qf5 Ra6 33. h4 g6 34. Qc8 )

(30... a4 31. g4 axb3 32. axb3 Rxb3 33. Qa2+ Kb8 34. Rxb6+ Rxb6 35. Qg8 Be7 36. Qxg7)