(UTC)
Latest Updates:
  ChessPub Forum › Chess Publishing Openings › d-Pawn Specials › BDG › Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
(Moderators: CraigEvans, Bibs)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (Read 155770 times)
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #272 - 10/15/09 at 11:02:35
Post Tools
Now let's compare Gutman's with the line 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 e6 9.Bg5!? c6 10.Ng6 hg.

Black's bishop got to g6 in three moves (g4-h5-g6) instead of two (f5-g6) but White played h3+g4 instead of h4.

If White wants to castle long, he'll want to play a further h3-h4 to have Gutman's Rh3 on ...Bb4.
But then it turns out he spent a whole tempo on g4 which he could regret.

So this appears a clever way to avoid long castlings.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #271 - 10/15/09 at 08:50:19
Post Tools
Like I said subjective =+ tells which side you find easier to play. Still you can try to convince others.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/14/09 at 20:28:47:
3...e5 4.Nxe4 Nc6 5.Nf3. It's a normal position, and you can study it for many hours without finding a clear evaluation. That's not what I'd call easy equality.


The ending after 5...f5 6.Ng3 e4 7.d5 ef seems equal.
A funny line is 5...Bg4 6.Bb5 Qd5 7.Qe2 Bf3 8.gf 0-0-0 9.Bc6 Qc6 10.de f6   Cool

SWJediknight wrote on 10/14/09 at 13:44:27:
But I am yet to find anything conclusive to suggest =+ even in the BDG- we discussed lines like 5...c6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Nh4!? and 5...Bf5 6.Bd3!? (an idea borrowed from the Soller Gambit) earlier for example.


I assume you mean 5...c6 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4 although I can never be sure with BDG players.
8...Bg6 9.Ng6 hg 10.Qd3 Qa5 11.h4 Nd7 (Qxg5!?) 12.000 000 13.Qe2 Nb6 I saw in Stefan's column: a standard position.

Compared to 5...Bf5 6.Bd3, the important Black bishop guardian of f7 has been exchanged with the white knight.
So we haven't Ne5 headaches. Whether Black can make progress is an interesting strategical question.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #270 - 10/14/09 at 23:50:30
Post Tools
In my occasional games with the BDG (usually via the move-order 1.e4 d5 2.d4) I always answered 2...dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 with 4.Nxe4 and never encountered a major problem.   I always thought that the main line after 4...exd4 was 5.Bb5+ c6 6.Qe2 as Lev gives above, but 5.Nf3 (which I've also played before) certainly looks very interesting and in some ways reminiscent of the Scotch Gambit (the pawn structure is much the same).

3...f5 was discussed in an earlier thread.  If I remember rightly White was able to obtain approximate equality by playing 4.Bg5 first, before f3, and then steering play into lines of the 4.f3 Staunton.  It's a pretty good line to try though as I guess most Whites will think it looks dubious but then be surprised at how hard it is to refute.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1394
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #269 - 10/14/09 at 22:08:07
Post Tools
I assume that after 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 e5 4 Nxe4 Black decides to play 4...Nc6 because after 4...ed4 5 Bb5+! followed by 6 Qe2!
White has compensation?

Of course, after 4...Qd4 5 Bd3 Black's Queen is vulnerable to attacks.
So perhaps 4...Nc6 tries to avoid all that?

As for for the Grosshans Defense, 3...Bd7, I never see it in the games played against me. Not once in the 18 years I have played the BDG have I seen the Grosshans Defense!

Regarding the Ryder Gambit Accepted, 5.Qxf3: 5...Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5, I have only played some blitz games with it. However, my experience shows that White sill has decent attacking chances:

Event "W-ch26 sf10 email"]
[Site "ICCF Email"]
[Date "2002.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Lykke,Hans Christian"]
[Black "Kucukali,Arif"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "D00"]
1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 dxe4 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 8.a3 Bd6
9.Nf3 Qf5 10.h3 e4 11.Nd4 Qxf2+ 12.Kxf2 0-0 13.g4 Be5 14.g5 Nh5 15.Nxe4 f5 16.Nc3 Nd7
17.Rd1 Kh8 18.Bg2 a6 19.Bf3 Ng3 20.Rhe1 Ne4+ 21.Bxe4 fxe4+ 22.Kg2 b6 23.Nd5 Bb7 24.Ne6 Bxd5
25.Rxd5 Rf7 26.Nd4 Bxd4 27.Rxd4 Re7 28.Rf1 Kg8 29.b3 Nc5 30.Re1 Rae8 31.h4 g6 32.Kg3 Ne6
33.Rxe4 Ng7 34.Rxe7 Rxe7 1/2

[Event "Ryder Gambit theme email"]
[Site "SEMI email"]
[Date "2001.09.01"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Sakai,Kiyotaka"]
[Black "Johnsrud,Jeff L"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "D00"]
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 8.a3 Bd6
9.Nf3 Qf5 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.Bd3 Qe6 12.Ng5 Qe8 13.Nce4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 h6 15.Nh7 f5 16.Nxf8 fxe4
17.Rhf1 Bg4 18.Rxd6 cxd6 19.Bxh6 Nd7 20.Qh4 Nxf8 21.Qxg4 Ng6 22.h4 gxh6 23.h5 Kg7 24.hxg6 Qxg6
25.Qd7+ Kh8 26.Qxb7 Rg8 27.Qxa7 Qxg2 28.Rd1 Qg5+ 29.Kb1 e3 30.Re1 Qf4 31.Qxe3 Qxe3 32.Rxe3 Rg1+
33.Ka2 Kg7 34.b4 Kf6 35.Rh3 Rg6 36.Kb3 d5 37.a4 Ke6 38.b5 Kd6 39.Rc3 Rg1 40.Rc6+ Kd7
41.Rxh6 e4 42.Rh3  1-0

White was 2058 ELO, Black, 2400 ELO.

Now, regarding 5...Bf5, 5...g6, I have played against these lines, and done well. In the Bogoljubow Defense, 5...g6, I proposed the move 8 h3!?. The position arises after 5...g6 6 Bc4 Bg7 7 00 00 8 h3.

This line has three (!) names: Orlov's Line; Studier-Zilbermints Attack; Delayed Studier Attack.

IM Georgi Orlov suggested 8 h3 back in 1995, but I did much analyses on it and played many games with it. The Delayed Studier means that the move 8 Qe1, which begins the Studier Attack, is delayed by a move or two.
  
Back to top
YIM  
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 #268 - 10/14/09 at 20:28:47
Post Tools
My remark that with a similar logic White could claim a += was meant ironically, and apparently my irony wasn't understood. I see no need to define =+. Both the BDG and the KG may have problems with lines which can lead to equality (the jury is still out), but nothing more serious is in sight. If Uruk claims a =+ without a concrete line, then it's only his personal belief. - I wrote on the c6 line in my ChessCafe article, and Gutman's line offers fair chances for White.  

3...e5 4.Nxe4 Nc6 5.Nf3. It's a normal position, and you can study it for many hours without finding a clear evaluation. That's not what I'd call easy equality.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #267 - 10/14/09 at 17:28:44
Post Tools
SWJ, I don't quite get your use of the symbols. What is "slightly the worse of a draw"?
To me an ultimately drawn position can be += or even +/- if the defence entails very difficult moves.
These symbols only reflect human fallibility.

Stefan, I don't know much about 3...e5 but I'd think 4...Nc6 is more precise
as there are additional possibilities after 5.Nf3 (5.Bb5 Qxd4!)
I'm more interested in (4...ef) 5...c6 though, seeing that 6.Bd3 Bg4 attacks d4.
So 6.Bg5 is on the ring but I have to check what's been written.
Kudos for 3...Bd7, very artistic.
  
Back to top
 
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 #266 - 10/14/09 at 15:15:29
Post Tools
It would be sufficient to prove a stale equality to shelve all these gambits. To claim =+ without concrete variations is (a) overkill and (b) meaningless. I am not an arvid fan of the BDG, but afaik it is rarely boring. Whether I'd play it myself is another question.

Uruk wrote on 10/14/09 at 05:53:37:
But for game theory an opening where Black can choose between easy equality (say 3...e5) and play for more fully deserves =+.

3…e5 was one of the well-known lines which I had recommended against the BDG in Kaissiber #5 (1998), together with the ambitious 3…f5, the sly 3…Bd7!? by Großhans (hoping for 4.f3? e5 instead of the cautious 4.Nxe4) and the O’Kelly Variation 3…Nf6 4.f3 c6, which today, to my own surprise, seems playable again for White.

4.Nxe4 is probably White’s best reply (4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Nxd1 Nc6; here White should be modest and return to symmetry: 6.Nc3 = Bb4 7.Nge2. And if 4.Nge2 Nc6 5.Be3, Black keeps a small advantage after 5…cxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6) 4…exd4 (4…Qxd4 5.Bd3 and White has full compensation, for example 5…f5 6.Nf3 Qb4+ 7.Nc3 e4 8.0-0. Maybe 5…f5 is already a slight error.) 5.Nf3! Nc6 (5…Qe7 6.Bb5+ c6 7.0-0! cxb5 8.Re1 Be6 9.Bf4 comp.) 6.Bb5 Bf5 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.Ng3 Qe7+ 9.Ne2 (9.Kf1 Be6 10.Nxd4 Rd8 11.c3 c5 12.Qa4+ could also be OK) 9…c5 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.Ng3 Be6 and now perhaps 12.c3 or 12.Qd3. In both cases White has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

If that's "easy equality" (Uruk), I don't understand why.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SWJediknight
God Member
*****
Offline


Alert... opponent out
of book!

Posts: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #265 - 10/14/09 at 13:44:27
Post Tools
My impression has always been that "=+" implied that with best play White should get slightly the worse of a draw, while "-/+" implied that White is clearly worse but might draw.  In practice "=+" may also mean "Black has slightly better chances of winning than White at the highest levels".  In practice, though, White can score highly at lower levels even in a position that is verging on -/+ if it is easier for Black to go wrong than for White.

Regarding openings where Black has a choice of equality or playing for more, I can't agree that they "deserve an =+".  At most, "Black is at least equal and possibly more" might be a fair assessment, but the true assessment is only =+ if Black gets =+ by playing for more.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that White is more certain of having enough compensation for dynamic equality with best play in the KG than in the BDG, especially in view of the Kieseritzky with 5...Nf6 6.Bc4 and the Bishop's Gambit.   But I am yet to find anything conclusive to suggest =+ even in the BDG- we discussed lines like 5...c6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Nh4!? and 5...Bf5 6.Bd3!? (an idea borrowed from the Soller Gambit) earlier for example.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #264 - 10/14/09 at 13:06:14
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/14/09 at 06:45:25:
If Black "deserves" a =+, only because in the BDG he has a considerable number of defences, you'll find that in each of these lines White enjoys a large number of dynamic options. So White "deserves" a +=. It's the same situation as in the King's Gambit. For 150 years it is repeated, again and again, that Black has soo many options, and this fact alone should put the KG out of business. "Refutations" are typically only lines where dynamic compensation is underestimated.


Hmm.  Well I respect your opinion, but if either of these systems really deserved +=, we would see it more at the top. 

But this comparison with the KG is interesting.  Since the BDG appears at the top much less than even the KG, it would appear that the strongest players don't share, in some aggregate sense, the view that the BDG is as good as the KG.

I don't know if it means very much, but my personal view is that the KG is the better motivated system from a positional viewpoint, proposing as it does the exchange of a center pawn for a wing pawn.
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #263 - 10/14/09 at 10:10:27
Post Tools
Stefan Buecker wrote on 10/14/09 at 06:45:25:
in each of these lines White enjoys a large number of dynamic options.

After 5...c6 that is quite an exaggeration.
For me =+ means that White still fosters a hope to draw, but should not be surprised if it was a forced mate in 50+ moves. So =+ is not subjective, it means that we cannot be sure yet.
  
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
 
Stefan Buecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1386
Location: Germany
Joined: 02/11/09
Gender: Male
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #262 - 10/14/09 at 06:45:25
Post Tools
If Black "deserves" a =+, only because in the BDG he has a considerable number of defences, you'll find that in each of these lines White enjoys a large number of dynamic options. So White "deserves" a +=. It's the same situation as in the King's Gambit. For 150 years it is repeated, again and again, that Black has soo many options, and this fact alone should put the KG out of business. "Refutations" are typically only lines where dynamic compensation is underestimated.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #261 - 10/14/09 at 05:53:37
Post Tools
=+ cannot ever be proven for the excellent reason it's a subjective assessment.
It's a game theory symbol meaning "a human has some practical reasons to prefer Black".

From the Nalimov point of view, the BDG may be just a draw, just like say the Anti-Moscow.

But for game theory an opening where Black can choose between easy equality (say 3...e5) and play for more fully deserves =+.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #260 - 10/14/09 at 02:28:59
Post Tools
5.Qxf3 Qxd4 6.Be3 Qh4+!? looks good too. The idea is to improve on 6...Qb4 7.0-0-0 c6 when 8.Qg3 gives sufficient play. So 6...Qh4+!? 7.g3 Qb4 8.0-0-0 c6 and again White does not have enough.
Wisnewski might provide some new fuel to the debate on the BDG when his book is released.
  
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: 915
Joined: 03/14/08
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #259 - 10/13/09 at 17:12:58
Post Tools
I don't think =+ has yet been proven, but I think there is scope for Black to prove it after 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6, or 5...Bf5, or 5...g6.  Theory in those lines progresses by Black attempting to demonstrate a =+ and White retorting by attempting to demonstrate enough compensation.

Objectively speaking Black cannot prove any advantage after 4...c6 because of 5.Nxe4, though that kind of equality is not what the typical BDG player is after, so practically speaking it can be used to encourage White to enter the line 5.Bc4 exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5.  I think White's compensation is sufficient after 5...e6 or 5...Bg4.

It's easy to prove against 5.Qxf3: 5...Qxd4 6.Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5 and White doesn't have enough for two pawns.

I have no arguments with Markovich's points above.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
Reply #258 - 10/13/09 at 14:07:42
Post Tools
Really, doesn't the practice of strong players speak for itself?  If the BDG were very good for the win at that level, some of them would be playing it.  Players of our class (I speak at least for myself) look a little funny saying, "Strong players should play this; I know it's good."

Having said that, I think the BDG is viable in a practical sense for play below the 2300-2400 level.  I think it's a terrible waste of a chance to play 2.c4, but it's viable.  Diebert's practice demonstrates that.  Below 2000 or so, I think it's actually fairly good for someone's chess education to play this way, at least sometimes.

I wish we could have more theory in our discussions of this system, because =+, which I believe to be the truth of it, hasn't exactly been proven yet.  Or has it?
  
The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
Topic Tools
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board Top  

ChessPub Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge