Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (Read 35987 times)
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #41 - 07/30/08 at 01:55:36
Post Tools
8...Bb4 seems to be a novelty and indeed a nasty one. Indeed 9.a3 Bxc3+ (but is Be7 10.0-0-0 really sufficient? My fear for b7-b5-b4 is a bit hard to suppress) 10.bxc3 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0 might be best, after which I propose 12.Nh4. That other bishop is Black's most annoying piece and getting two bishops vs two knights improves White's prospects for the endgame. After 12.Nh4 Bg4 13.Qe3 the plan is 14.h3 and 15.g4 of course.
As the Dutch expression goes: White is searching for compensation - which usually means (s)he still has to find it, but who knows (s)he will after 12.Nh4.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #40 - 07/28/08 at 21:39:15
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/23/08 at 23:44:33:
SWJediknight wrote on 07/23/08 at 10:04:46:

I think the plan with Qe2, Bg5 and 0-0-0 is probably a better try for White than the standard kingside castling, but I still feel Black has the edge- just that White has more chances to mix it with the kings castled on opposite wings.


Lines please.

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Bf5 4.f3 c6 5.e4 dxe4 6.Bc4 exf3 7.Nxf3 e6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Bxf6!? Nxf6 11.Ne5 Nd5 might favour Black, eg 12.Nxd5 exd5 13.Rhf1 Bg6 and now what?
At the moment I like 10.Rhf1 best, after Nd5 11.Bd2 Qc7 12.Bb3 0-0 (see my previous post) 13.h3 Bg6 14.g4 a5 15.h4 h6 16.h5 Nxc3 17.Bxc3 Bh7 White should play 18.Bd2 again with reasonable chances.


Yes, after 10 Rhf1 White appears to have good play.  It's one of those cases where I placed too much trust in Fritz's evaluation of near -1.00, failing to spot White's long-term attacking chances.  This is, incidentally, the way I usually play the BDG when I get it via transposition from e4-openings- castle queenside, aim for kingside expansion and look out for a d4-d5 push in some lines.

I looked at 10 Rhf1 Nb6, inviting exchanges in lines such as 11 Ne5 Nfd5 12 Bxe7 Nxc3 13 Qe1 Qxe7 14 Qxc3 0-0 =+, but again White can avoid the exchanges:  11 Bb3 Nfd5 12 Bd2 leads to similar play.  Perhaps 11...0-0 12 Ne5 Nbd5 instead, but again 13 Bd2 looks OK for White.

However, I'm finding 8...Bb4 much harder to crack, as it thwarts White's plans of castling queenside.  After 9 0-0 Nbd7, I'm not sure how White continues after 10 d5 Qb6+ 11 Kh1 exd5 12 Nxd5 Nxd5 13 Bxd5 0-0, 10 Bd3 Bxd3 11 Qxd3 Bxc3 12 bxc3 (12 Qxc3 Ne4 precipitates exchanges) likewise, and 10 a3 Be7 likewise. 
 
Perhaps 9 a3 may be a better try, e.g. 9...Bxc3+ (9...Be7 10 0-0-0) 10 bxc3 Nbd7 11 0-0 0-0, but again I'm not sure how White continues from here in order to compensate for the pawn.  White has some compensation in all the lines I've given, but is it close to being enough?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #39 - 07/28/08 at 12:41:13
Post Tools
I am not afraid to play gambits in correspondence play -- in fact, I have played a few myself! It is just that these days, players tend to use computers rather than their own brains to do all the analyzing for them.

That I deem unfair.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #38 - 07/27/08 at 21:42:38
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 07/26/08 at 03:44:57:
Hey, Markovich and MNb,

When I say 'noisemaker' it means that you do not have a point.


Hey LDZ,

granted and that also means you are the biggest noisemaker of this site (I still love your posts - well, usually), as proven by your hammering on a completely irrelevant Alekhine game.
And you are according to your own definition a coward as well - afraid to test your gambits in corr. play. Afraid of objectivity, that's it. Not that I blame you for it, it's just a fact.

Already played through this game?

http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/files/biel2008_rd6.htm

Click Bacrot - Alekseev.
I bet you had not even noticed it.
« Last Edit: 07/28/08 at 01:06:43 by MNb »  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #37 - 07/26/08 at 03:44:57
Post Tools
Hey, Markovich and MNb,

When I say 'noisemaker' it means that you do not have a point and I am not admitting anything. So stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say.

Cowardice to me means being afraid to play gambits.

Simple as that.

As far as the Alekhine-Morelle game is concerned, well... The Italian player did kick Alekhine's ass with his reversed Danish Gambit, didn't he?

  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #36 - 07/24/08 at 00:28:26
Post Tools
Yes MNb, 10.Bxf6 is still "experimental", it as been tried only a few time by Leisebein recently and his opponent played 13..Be6 instead of 13..Bg6, the game ended by a draw but I believe 13..Bg6 may be stronger, and I would myself take Black. 10.Rhe1 seems interesting, I will have a look at it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #35 - 07/23/08 at 23:44:33
Post Tools
SWJediknight wrote on 07/23/08 at 10:04:46:

I think the plan with Qe2, Bg5 and 0-0-0 is probably a better try for White than the standard kingside castling, but I still feel Black has the edge- just that White has more chances to mix it with the kings castled on opposite wings.


Lines please.

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Bf5 4.f3 c6 5.e4 dxe4 6.Bc4 exf3 7.Nxf3 e6 8.Qe2 Be7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Bxf6!? Nxf6 11.Ne5 Nd5 might favour Black, eg 12.Nxd5 exd5 13.Rhf1 Bg6 and now what?
At the moment I like 10.Rhf1 best, after Nd5 11.Bd2 Qc7 12.Bb3 0-0 (see my previous post) 13.h3 Bg6 14.g4 a5 15.h4 h6 16.h5 Nxc3 17.Bxc3 Bh7 White should play 18.Bd2 again with reasonable chances.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 916
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #34 - 07/23/08 at 10:04:46
Post Tools
4...c6 is not a coward's move, it is primarily an attempt to get a favourable version of the gambit accepted.  After 4...exf3 5 Nxf3 c6, White has many alternatives to 6 Bc4, such as 6 Bd3 and 6 Bf4, which are more likely in my opinion to come close to full compensation for the pawn.   With 4...c6 Black encourages 5 Bc4 and then throws in 5...exf3! 6 Nxf3 Bf5 transposing to 4...exf3 5 Nxf3 c6 6 Bc4 Bf5.

I think the plan with Qe2, Bg5 and 0-0-0 is probably a better try for White than the standard kingside castling, but I still feel Black has the edge- just that White has more chances to mix it with the kings castled on opposite wings.

Alburt also tried 5...b5 against Nigel Short and got a good position, but I don't think that line is as clear.  I don't trust 5...Qa5 on account of 6 Bd2.

My suggestion of 5 Nxe4 was largely inspired by Tim McGrew's articles on the 4 f3-gambit in the Caro-Kann.  Yes, it does transpose to 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Nf6 5 f3, but I don't think White is any worse after the usual continuation 5...Nxe4 6 fxe4 e5 7 Nf3, when in my view Black should probably decline the gambit arising from 7...exd4 8 Bc4 which has similarities with the line 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3 dxe4 4 fxe4 e5 5 Nf3 exd4 6 Bc4.
Black can also grab a pawn on d4 with the queen but White gets a lead in development as compensation.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #33 - 07/23/08 at 01:56:04
Post Tools
Markovich, in LDZ's world Kamsky is a coward when playing the French Steinitz and forcing his opponent to resign in a position where he (the opponent) is four or five pawns up. That is because Kamsky missed the opportunity to play 3.c4 or 3.Be3. In LDZ's world such a game also has less value (both chessic and esthetical) than a random loss of Alekhine against an unknown amateur, provided that the amateur played one of LDZ's pet gambits. That is called tunnel vision. Please also note that in LDZ's world English is somewhat different. When he writes cowardice this means sensible, solid. Now it also clear that LDZ is not rude when calling someone a noisemaker. What he means is "You have a point but I don't want to admit it".

Back to serious stuff again. I cannot say I have delved deeply in this variation, but these four games seem important to me. Please consider the notes as a start for debate, I have not drawn any conclusion.

Stulik,V - Dorn,M [D01]
CSR-ÖST Praha (2), 1955
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Bf5 4.f3 c6 5.e4 dxe4 6.Bc4 exf3 7.Nxf3 e6 8.Qe2 Be7
-Instead 8...Nbd7 9.d5 cxd5 10.Nxd5 looks quite good for White.

9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Rhe1
I have to look yet at ArKhein's 9..Nbd7 10.Bxf6!? Nxf6 (10..gxf6 11.Rhe1! with the idea d5!) 11.Ne5.

10... 0-0 11.h3 Nd5 12.Bd2 N7f6 13.g4 Bg6 14.Ne5 Nxc3 15.Bxc3 Nd5 16.Bd2 Bh4 17.Rg1 Bf6 18.h4 Bxe5 19.dxe5 f6 20.exf6 Qxf6 21.h5 Be8 22.Rdf1 Qe7 23.Rxf8+ Kxf8 24.Bd3 Kg8 25.g5 b5 26.Qe4 g6 27.Qe5 Qc7 28.Qxe6+ Bf7 29.Qe4 Re8 30.Qf3 Re6 31.Rh1 Qd7 32.h6 a6 33.b3 Qe7 34.Kb2 Qc7 35.Rf1 Re7 36.c4 Qe5+ 37.Kc2 bxc4 38.Bxc4 a5 39.Bxd5 cxd5 40.Re1 Qc7+ 41.Qc3 Qxc3+ 42.Bxc3 Rxe1 43.Bxe1 a4 44.b4 d4 45.a3 Bc4 46.Bf2 Kf7 47.Bxd4 Ke6 ½-½

Leisebein,P - Lauer,R [B15]
DESC SZ001 email, 13.11.1999
1.d4 d5 2.e4 c6 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Qe2 e6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Rhf1 Nd5
-10...Nb6 11.Bb3 Nfd5 12.Bd2 Nxc3 13.Bxc3 Nd5 14.Be1 a5 15.Ne5 a4 16.Bc4 Qc7 17.g4 Bg6 18.h4 with good attacking play.

11.Bd2 Qc7 12.Bb3 N7f6
-12...0-0 13.h3 Bg6 14.g4 a5 15.h4 h6 (Nxc3 16.Bxc3 a4 17.Bxe6 18.Qxe6+ must be good for White) 16.h5 Nxc3 17.Bxc3 (17.bxc3? Bh7 18.g5 a4 19.Bxe6 Ba3+ wins) hxg5 19.Bd2 Qd8 and though Fritz grants White compensation I have my doubts.
-12...0-0-0 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Ng5 Bxg5 15.Bxg5 Rde8 16.g4 Bg6 17.Rf3 with attacking chances on both wings.

13.Ne5 Nxc3 14.Bxc3 Bg6 15.h4 Bd6 16.g4 Ne4 17.h5 Bxe5 18.dxe5 Ng3 19.Qe3 Nxf1 20.Rxf1 b6 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.Qd3 Rd8 23.Qe4 Qd7 24.Qf3 Rh6 25.Bb4 Rh7 26.Bd6 Rh2 27.Bc4 1-0

Leisebein,P - Grott,P [B15]
DESC V0057 email (2), 04.08.2000
1.d4 c6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.f3 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Qe2 e6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.Ne5 b5 11.Bb3 a5 12.g4 Bg6 13.a4 b4 14.Nb1 Nfd7 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.h4 Nxe5 17.dxe5 h6 18.Qe3 Nd7 19.Rd6 Nf6 20.g5 Ng4 21.Qg3 h5 22.Nd2 Qa7 23.Re1 c5 24.Bc4 Qc7 25.Be2 Bf5 26.Nc4 Rad8 27.Red1 Rb8 28.Rd7 Qc6 29.b3 Rb7 30.R7d6 Qc7 31.Kb1 Ra7 32.R1d2 Raa8 33.Rd7 Qb8 34.Bxg4 hxg4 35.h5 Ra7 36.Rxa7 Qxa7 37.h6 Qe7 38.Qh4 gxh6 39.Qxh6 g3 40.Nd6 Bg6 41.Rd1 g2 42.Rg1 Rd8 43.Rxg2 Qf8 44.Qh2 c4 45.Nxc4 Qc5 46.Rg1 Rd5 47.Rh1 Kf8 48.Qe2 Qd4 49.Qf1 Bf5 50.Rh2 Qc3 51.Ka2 1-0

Nickl,K (2205) - Leisering,E [D00]
Poysdorf Open (4), 1994
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qe2 c6 9.0-0-0 Nd5 10.Bd2 Nd7 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Qc7
-Maybe more precise 12...0-0, eg 13.g4 Bg6 14.Qf2 Qc7 15.Rde1 b5 16.Bb3 Nxc3 17.Bxc3 c5 and Black's attack runs faster. Compare with the two Leisebein games.

13.g4 Bg6 14.h4 h5 15.g5 0-0-0 16.Qf2 Qb6 17.Qg3 Nxc3 18.Qxc3 Bc5 19.b4 Be7 20.Qb3 Bf5 21.a4 Qd4 22.Bc3 Qe3+ 23.Kb2 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Rd8 25.Rxd8+ Bxd8 26.b5 c5 27.a5 Bc7 28.b6 axb6 29.Qa4 b5 30.Qxb5 Bxe5 31.Qe8+ Kc7 32.Qe7+ Kb8 33.Qd8+ Ka7 34.Qb6+ Ka8 35.Qd8+ Ka7 ½-½
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #32 - 07/22/08 at 19:38:07
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 07/22/08 at 13:35:00:
Gambit wrote on 07/21/08 at 03:06:18:
You noisemaker! I would not be afraid to play the BDG against Kramnik!! Of course, if he does not play 4...exf3, then that automatically makes him a coward. Why? "A gambit's refutation begins with its acceptance", as Bobby Fischer once said.


Please refrain from calling someone a "noisemaker" unless he is merely making noise -- it's rude.

I also would not be afraid to play the BDG against Kramnik, for the reason that I would be rather sure of getting my clock cleaned no matter what I played.  But I doubt that Kramnik, or most other  GMs for that matter, would let some amateur play his pet gambit.  If these guys know you're a gambit psychotic, they'll very often make you play a Pirc or something.

I think it was Larry Evans who said, "The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it," though perhaps Fischer said something similar.  But that doesn't make someone a coward for declining, or avoiding, someone's pet gambit.  I don't think that the Danish is sound, for example, but I generally decline it.  The object of this game is to score, you know?


If these guys know you're a gambit psychotic, they'll very often make you play a Pirc or something.

My point exactly!! Cowardice!! From high rated players, to begin with!

As for correspondence, I sometimes play it, but rarely. I am not interested in having my opponent use a computer to help him/her analyze the position. That's cheating.

But gambits can defeat World Champions! The game Alekhine-Morelli,
Simultaneous, 1923, is an illustrative point. That game, with Alekhine playing White, began 1 e4 d5 2 ed5 c6!? 3 dxc6 Qc7!? 4 cxb7? Bxb7
and Black has a strong attack for two pawns.

This is a Danish Gambit with colors reversed. Morelli crushed Alekhine
decisively. In the final position, Black is 2 pieces ahead!!

Gambits rule!!
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #31 - 07/22/08 at 13:35:00
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 07/21/08 at 03:06:18:
You noisemaker! I would not be afraid to play the BDG against Kramnik!! Of course, if he does not play 4...exf3, then that automatically makes him a coward. Why? "A gambit's refutation begins with its acceptance", as Bobby Fischer once said.


Please refrain from calling someone a "noisemaker" unless he is merely making noise -- it's rude.

I also would not be afraid to play the BDG against Kramnik, for the reason that I would be rather sure of getting my clock cleaned no matter what I played.  But I doubt that Kramnik, or most other  GMs for that matter, would let some amateur play his pet gambit.  If these guys know you're a gambit psychotic, they'll very often make you play a Pirc or something.

I think it was Larry Evans who said, "The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it," though perhaps Fischer said something similar.  But that doesn't make someone a coward for declining, or avoiding, someone's pet gambit.  I don't think that the Danish is sound, for example, but I generally decline it.  The object of this game is to score, you know?
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #30 - 07/22/08 at 06:42:52
Post Tools
Yes we could.  That's a line of the BDG that I have not deeply analysed yet, but it really deserves attention. 

That might be the starting position:

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Qe2 e6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.0-0-0 and now 9..Nd5 or 9..Nbd7.

9..Nd5 and now 10.Bd2 or 10.Bxe7
9..Nbd7 10.Bxf6!? Nxf6 (10..gxf6 11.Rhe1! with the idea d5!) 11.Ne5
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10778
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #29 - 07/22/08 at 00:15:16
Post Tools
ArKheiN wrote on 07/21/08 at 06:52:38:
The other idea is to play with Bg5, Qe2 and 0-0-0 which I would give an unclear eval for the moment.


I have looked at that lately (I am really not so anti-BDG as LDZ would like to believe). Indeed Black needs to play very precisely. Would you like to exchange some lines?

Lev, you calling someone a noisemaker reminds me of a nice Uriah Heep song called LOOK AT YOURSELF.
You remain too cowardice for long time control corr. chess, that's obvious.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ArKheiN
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 728
Location: Belgium
Joined: 03/30/05
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #28 - 07/21/08 at 06:52:38
Post Tools
The fact that Schiller recommands 4..c6 and 5..Qa5 isn't something new, but I believe that this line doesn't give any advantage to Black, I think Lane (or someone else, maybe), posted a response to Schiller's analysis. 

But of course 4..c6 whole complex is really good, many interesting ideas for Black, and still possible to play the best defense of the BDG accepted with 5..exf3 and without the possibility for White to play the lines with Bd3, all that isn't new. 

So after 4..c6, there is 5.Nxe4 as Zilbermints played, 5.fxe4 (maybe playable for equality but I still prefer Black) and the more "BDG spirit" 5.Bc4. Now Black has many good choices, some more promising. Many people recommand or play 5..exf3 and now White as some choices, castle king side and play with the knight f3 on e5 or g5 ("Alchemy variation") where it's one of the only line I could agree as "=/+" in the BDG until I find an antidote somewhere. The other idea is to play with Bg5, Qe2 and 0-0-0 which I would give an unclear eval for the moment.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1397
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: 4...c6 versus the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #27 - 07/21/08 at 03:06:18
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 07/21/08 at 02:52:58:
kylemeister wrote on 07/20/08 at 15:25:23:
My main thought is that Black shouldn't be taking his own pawn (and hanging his Knight).

Darn, you stole my joke. Assuming Anon. means 5.Bc4 exf3, yes I think this is Black's best. Until now even LDZ has been too timid to give us any ideas in this variation, which has been heavily analysed on this site. Must be about the only BDG-variation which has not been polluted by LDZ's blitz games. It is also remarkable that LDZ did not dare to play 5.Bc4 against Tal Shaked - as I have noted before, a girl thingy after all. That is probably why he makes so much noise - he wants to hide for his own fears.  Wink


You noisemaker! I would not be afraid to play the BDG against Kramnik!! Of course, if he does not play 4...exf3, then that automatically makes him a coward. Why? "A gambit's refutation begins with its acceptance", as Bobby Fischer once said.

Fears, my ass!!  Why don't you try playing such an interesting tactical game in the BDG? Would you have managed to play as well against Shaked?

Tell me that.

I follow Diemer's 1957  book, "Vom Ersten Zug Am Auf Matt", where he analyzes the O'Kelly Defense. Of course, there are Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybooks I (1992) and II (1999) by Tim Sawyer.

Perhaps I should publish a book, "Zilbermints Gambits" !

 
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo