ChessPub Forum - Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #122 - 02/26/09 at 17:50:59	Post Tools	Print Post
	So, take & 5...Bf5 seems better than decline 4...Bf5 due to no misplaced d6-knight. Try to find equality for White. If you succeed, I will believe the gambit does not lose.


	IP Logged

SWJediknight God Member Offline Alert... opponent out of book! Posts: 916 Joined: 03/14/08	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #121 - 02/26/09 at 17:46:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	Uruk makes a good point, in that 4...c6 is not the way to go if Black wants to prove a theoretical edge against the BDG- 5.Nxe4 appears to lead to approximate equality in all lines. Still, I would hesitate to go in for that line as White now, having seen the effectiveness of 5...e5!? in sterilising the position. 5.Bg5 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bg4 indeed- a possible continuation is 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qd2 (breaking the pin) 8...e6 9.Ne5 Be7 (or 9...h6). Does White have enough here? If 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5, then I think 6.Ne5 followed by 7.g4, in most cases continuing with 8.Qf3 rather than 8.Bg2, gives White good play and already sets up some threats down the f-file. Probably best, as ArKheiN suggests, is 5...c6! when it remains to be seen whether 6.Bd3 gives enough play.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #120 - 02/26/09 at 17:14:56	Post Tools	Print Post
	But to weaken the king is even worse in tactical positions! 8.g5 Nd5 seems logical keeping d7 for the companion. PS (edit): honestly, do you prefer the white side of this to 4...c6 5.Ne4


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #119 - 02/26/09 at 17:02:14	Post Tools	Print Post
	I don't know if that was addressed to me, but if so, no, I don't necesarily choose g4. I was just pointing out that structural considerations are of reduced importance when playing a gambit.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #118 - 02/26/09 at 16:32:51	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ok I guess by your last comment that you choose 7.g4 Be6, not much games has been played in that territory, but I have 2 games by Leisebein, 2 draws. One beginning with 8.g5 Nd5 and one with 8.g5 Nfd7. The bishop e6 won't stay here so long.


	IP Logged

Markovich God Member Offline Posts: 6099 Location: Columbus, Ohio Joined: 09/17/04	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #117 - 02/26/09 at 16:29:41	Post Tools	Print Post
	Uruk wrote on 02/26/09 at 15:23:45: Still it's really loosening, and a high price to clear the file. Moreover the Be6 guards f7 and cannot be harassed. White's ending is lost anyway, so it really doesn't matter whether he weakens his kingside like this. There are no positional considerations, there is only the attack.

	The Great Oz has spoken!
	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #116 - 02/26/09 at 15:23:45	Post Tools	Print Post
	Still it's really loosening, and a high price to clear the file. Moreover the Be6 guards f7 and cannot be harassed.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #115 - 02/26/09 at 15:03:54	Post Tools	Print Post
	In the BDG comparaison you have the f-file open, the real point of the BDG. You want to clear that file with that move. In a normal Caro-Kann, g4 here would be useless indeed.


	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #114 - 02/26/09 at 12:53:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	Ok guys, I'm not aware of all the analyses, but how can 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 be good? Compare with the Advance Caro 3...Bf5 4.Nc3 a6 (edit: or Qb6), g4 is a mistake without ...e6.


	IP Logged

ArKheiN God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing.com! Posts: 728 Location: Belgium Joined: 03/30/05	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #113 - 02/26/09 at 09:38:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	@Gambit, your 5.a3 or 6.a3 is just a waste of tempo. 4..c6! is the best reply, very flexible, that's my point of view as a BDG player, but that tought is not new. 4..exf3 followed by 5..c6! is to me the best BDG accepted line for Black (but give the additionnal idea of 6.Bd3!? with double pawn sacrifice idea instead of Bc4), that's not new too. 4..exf3 and 5..Bf5, the Gunderam defense give a good target to White while 5..c6 doesn't. Uruk's idea to play 5..Bf5 to commit the knight on e5 to play c6 is interesting but 6.Ne5 c6 7.g4 should be ok, I believe it has been debated on the forum in the past. The Alchemy is interesting seems to be =/+ if Black knows what he is going. In fact everything has been said in the forum again and again...


	IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #112 - 02/26/09 at 06:48:42	Post Tools	Print Post
	You miss the point. After 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 I don't play g6, but Bf5, a line on which you have nothing contributed yet. After 7.Bc4, 7.Bf4 and 7.a3 - some moves you mentioned - I claim ...e6 =+.

	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
	IP Logged

Gambit God Member Offline I love ChessPublishing .com! Posts: 1397 Location: Newark Joined: 07/26/05 Gender:	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #111 - 02/26/09 at 05:06:52	Post Tools	Print Post
	MNb wrote on 02/26/09 at 02:58:32: Indeed the main line after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 is 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 and now either 8.Qf3 or 8.Bg2. This is similar and even may transpose to 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6. All this looks less solid to me than 5...c6. Why should 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 better than 6.Bc4 ? If 6.Bd3 Bg4 does not work then there is 6.Bd3 g6 eg 7.0-0 Bg7 8.Qe1 Bg4 8.Bg5 Nbd7 =+(Gunderam). White may try 6.Bd3 g6 7.Bg5 Bg7 and a fun line is 8.Qd2 Bg4 9.Ne5 Qxd4 10.Nxf7 0-0! But if 6.Bd3 indeed is better Black should prefer 4...c6 5.Bc4 (or 5.Bg5 exf3) exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5. This has been extensively debated in several threads. For SB I offer http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/IntroEN2.htm http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203996272/30#30 I will give two important lines. TonyRo wrote in yet another thread Quote: I want the BDG to be good, but deep down, I don't believe in it. For instance, in one line on the website he gives (I think, I'm doing this from memory, so I might be adding or subtracting important moves): 1. d4 d5 2. e4 de 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 ef 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Bc4 c6 7. 0-0 e6 8. Ng5!? Bg6 9. Ne2 Bd6 10. Nf4 Bf4 11. Bf4 Nd5 12. Bc1! h6 13. Nf3 0-0 14. a4! Nd7 15. Ra3! Qc7 16. Nh4 Bh7 17. Rg3 Kh8 18. Bh6! That's all well and good, but why give only 15...Qc7 if the move sucks? Maybe I missed the improvement somewhere, since the website and the analysis is quite jumbled and messy, but after looking at this for awhile, I couldn't find anything convincing for White after 15...Qe7. Just a simply move that connects the rooks, keeps h4 guarded, maybe prepares ...e5 or ...c5 at some point. I'd take Black, but you of course have to be careful. In my notes I also have 12...Nd7 13.a4 0-0 14.Ra3 e5. So the question if Black should avoid 8.Ng5 is very open. Now if I understand Uruk correctly he wants to play 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 c6. While I do admit that most books on the BDG are unreliable, it is still handy to consult them now and then. Instead of the transposing 7.Bc4 White may try 7.g4 again. You miss the point. After your 4...c6 5 Bc4 ef3 5 Nxf3 g6 6 00 leads to a Bogoljubow Defense by transposition. Consult the known theory on the Bogoljubow Defense in this position. After 5 Nxf3 c6 6 Bd3 g6 7 00 Bg7 8 h3! prevents 8...Bg4 and dares Black to Castle Kingside. Now, if 8...00 9 Qe1 enters regular Bogoljubow lines, where the g4-square is protected. Honestly, I don't much care for the 7 Bg5 Bg7 line. The regular Qe1-Qh4-Bh6 attack plan looks better to me. Back in 1997, I wrote an article for Issue #79 of BDG World. It covered playing 5 a3!? against 4...c6 and 6 a3 against 5...c6. I will scan that article and post it here later.


	YIM IP Logged

MNb God Member Offline Rudolf Spielmann forever Posts: 10777 Location: Moengo Joined: 01/05/04 Gender:	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #110 - 02/26/09 at 02:58:32	Post Tools	Print Post
	Indeed the main line after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 is 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 and now either 8.Qf3 or 8.Bg2. This is similar and even may transpose to 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6. All this looks less solid to me than 5...c6. Why should 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 6.Bd3 better than 6.Bc4 ? If 6.Bd3 Bg4 does not work then there is 6.Bd3 g6 eg 7.0-0 Bg7 8.Qe1 Bg4 8.Bg5 Nbd7 =+(Gunderam). White may try 6.Bd3 g6 7.Bg5 Bg7 and a fun line is 8.Qd2 Bg4 9.Ne5 Qxd4 10.Nxf7 0-0! But if 6.Bd3 indeed is better Black should prefer 4...c6 5.Bc4 (or 5.Bg5 exf3) exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5. This has been extensively debated in several threads. For SB I offer http://www.mujweb.cz/www/rajmunde/IntroEN2.htm http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203996272/30#30 I will give two important lines. TonyRo wrote in yet another thread Quote: I want the BDG to be good, but deep down, I don't believe in it. For instance, in one line on the website he gives (I think, I'm doing this from memory, so I might be adding or subtracting important moves): 1. d4 d5 2. e4 de 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 ef 5. Nf3 Bf5 6. Bc4 c6 7. 0-0 e6 8. Ng5!? Bg6 9. Ne2 Bd6 10. Nf4 Bf4 11. Bf4 Nd5 12. Bc1! h6 13. Nf3 0-0 14. a4! Nd7 15. Ra3! Qc7 16. Nh4 Bh7 17. Rg3 Kh8 18. Bh6! That's all well and good, but why give only 15...Qc7 if the move sucks? Maybe I missed the improvement somewhere, since the website and the analysis is quite jumbled and messy, but after looking at this for awhile, I couldn't find anything convincing for White after 15...Qe7. Just a simply move that connects the rooks, keeps h4 guarded, maybe prepares ...e5 or ...c5 at some point. I'd take Black, but you of course have to be careful. In my notes I also have 12...Nd7 13.a4 0-0 14.Ra3 e5. So the question if Black should avoid 8.Ng5 is very open. Now if I understand Uruk correctly he wants to play 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 c6. While I do admit that most books on the BDG are unreliable, it is still handy to consult them now and then. Instead of the transposing 7.Bc4 White may try 7.g4 again.

	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
	IP Logged

Uruk Senior Member Offline Posts: 351 Joined: 02/03/09	Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Reply #109 - 02/26/09 at 02:45:53	Post Tools	Print Post
	Stefan, if you commit the knight to e5 on the sixth move, then I do play ...c6 and you can't reach your last diagram, no?


	IP Logged

Stefan Buecker

God Member

Offline

Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male

Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #108 - 02/26/09 at 02:22:45

Post Tools

Print Post

@Uruk: 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 Bf5 "Tartakower-Gunderam Defense"), here 6.Ne5 was regarded as the the best reply.

SWJediknight wrote on 02/25/09 at 22:03:42:

After 4...c6, how about 5.Bg5? The potential pin on the f6-knight hinders Black's ...e5 ideas that are annoying for White in many other lines. [...]
C. 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 ...

But here Volker Hergert's 6...Bg4! is logical: In the Teichmann Defense [Bg4] White's bishop belongs to e3, to protect the pawn d4, claimed Hergert.

###

Could the following be playable: (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3) 4...c6 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ng5. It wouldn't be too surprising if someone had already checked and refuted the idea...

(a) 8...Bxc2 9.Qe2 Bg6 10.Bxe6 Be7 11.Rxf6 gxf6 12.Nxf7 Bxf7 13.Bxf7+ Kxf7 14. Qh5+ Kg8 (14...Ke6 15.d5+ cxd5 16.Bf4 =) 15.Qg4+ Kf8 16.Bh6+ Ke8 17.Re1 Rf8 18.Qg7 Nd7 19.Ne4 Nb6 20.Kh1 Qxd4 21.Ng3 Qb4 22.Bd2 Qc5 23.b4, White is better.

(b) 8...g6 9.h3 h6 10.Nxf7 Kxf7 11.g4 Kg7 12.gxf5 exf5 13.Rf2 (intending Ne2-f4 and/or Rg2) 13...b5 14.Bb3, with a nice attack. Black's pieces lack coordination. Perhaps this is worth to be checked.

(c) 8...Bg6! seems critical and has been played in both games that I found:

(c1) 9.Bxe6 h6 10.Qe2 (Lorenz - Pitre, corr. Canada 1973). Here 10.Nxf7 may be interesting, but the reply the PC hates most is 9...fxe6 10.Nxe6 Qd7 11.Qe2 Kf7 12.Ng5+ Kg8 -/+.

(c2) 9.Re1 Nd5? (1/2, 51 in D. Ivanov - Volovikov, UKR-ch U18 2005) 10. Nxe6! fxe6 11.Rxe6+ Be7 (11...Kf7 12. Re5 +-, 11...Kd7 12.Qg4) 12.Bxd5 cxd5 13.Bg5 Nc6 14.Qe2 Bf7 15.Rxe7+ Nxe7 16.Re1 +=. However, after the simple 9...Be7! 10.Ne2 Nd5 (10...h6 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Nf4) Black is safe, -/+.

(c3) More attractive looks: 9.Ne2! c5 (9...Bd6 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4. To get rid of that Ng5, Black might play h6 in the near future, but that's a small weakness: =+) 10.c3 (10.Bxe6!? fxe6 11.Nxe6 Qb6 12.d5 unclear or 10...h6! 11.Nxf7 Bxf7 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.c3, playable?) 10...Bd6 11.Qb3 h6 (11...Qb6!? 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Qxe6+ Kd8 14.Rxf6 Bxh2+, so perhaps 12.Bf4!? =+) 12.Nf3, for example 12...Be4 (12...Qb6 13.Bf4 Bxf4 14.Nxf4 Be4 15.Bb5+ Bc6 16.Nxe6; 12...cxd4 13.Nfxd4) 13.Ne5 cxd4 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.Bxe6+ Kg6?! 16.cxd4 Kh7 17.Bxh6 Kxh6 (17...gxh6 18.Bf5+) 18.Qh3+ Kg6 19.Rxf6+ gxf6 20.Qg4+ Kh6 21.Qxe4 and Black is in trouble.

IP Logged