I am sorry Lev, but I don't agree with you. Many of the lines you give make me laugh. a3 lines, is it really in BDG spirit? I don't even see the point, there is not b4 or Bb4 to prevent, there is no serious White's b4 push, there is not really reason to secure a2 for the bishop. The Von Popiel and the Rieder, a BDG player don't need to know theses lines to play the BDG correctly. Your h3 in the Bogoljubov defense is quite interesting but it fail to impress against a good defense. And most of your material comes from blitz games on internet, even if it's sometimes against strong players, it's still only a blitz!

Psychology, my dear chap. Psychology! I invite Black to transpose into an unfavorable line. And yes, BDG World was published between 1983-1998. The former editor-in-chief, Tom Purser, now has a website dedicated to the BDG. Google it!

I published plenty of articles with materials that were not included in the Blackmar-Diemer gambit book. These include the following:

Ziegler Defence:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 c6 6 a3

O'Kelly Defense:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6 5 a3

The article under discussion is Defeating the Ziegler, O'Kelly, Teichmann Defenses and Caro-Kann Transpositions with a3!  published in Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World #79, August-October 1997.

Secondly, I see no discussion of the speculative Ryder Gambit, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Qxf3 in the book. The opening was first played by Dr. Ryder at a Leipzig cafe in 1899.

Third, whatever happened to the von Popiel or Polish, Gambit, 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 ?
I don't see it discussed, and yet it is a viable alternative to 4 f3. Play can even transpose to the Vienna Defense after 4...Bf5 5 f3!

Fourth, since we are talking about the Vienna Defense, 4...Bf5, there is no mention of 5 Bg5! the Polish Attack.
It is not like 5 g5 and 5 fxe4 are the only moves White has. Indeed, according to the 1972 Kampars and Tejler
monograph, Discover the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Volume 3, the Vienna Defense White has the following options:

A) 5 fxe4, the Diemer Gambit
B) 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 Gunderam Attack; 6 g5 Nd5 7 Nxe4; 6 g5 Nd5 7 fxe4, Kampars Gambit

C) 5 Bc4, Soller Attack
D) 5 Qe2 von Popiel's recommendation, which he dropped because of 5...Nc6. Still, playable!

E) 5 d5, the Sperling Attack
F) 5 Bg5, the Polish Attack
G) 5 Bf4, the Tejler Attack

So, 7 moves, and only 2 are covered! Why is it that there was an omission? After all, BDGers are famous for playing offbeat, little-known lines!

Fifth, the Studier-Zilbermints (aka Orlov's Line, Delayed Studier) Attack in the Bogoljubow Defense.That line goes 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf6 g6 6 Bc4 Bg7 7 00 00 8 h3!  

Now, according to Scheerer, page 174, 8...Nc6 is strong here. However, the rest is just silly moves again. Personally, I never really play 9 Bg5, but instead, 9 d5 or 9 Ne2. I have heavily analyzed, played and developed the 8 h3 line with tournament games and Internet Chess Club games. The idea is to play an improved Studier Attack whereupon ...Bg4 is no longer possible. Seriously, you would not believe how many people play 8...c6 or 8...Nbd7 only to find themselves under a crushing attack after 9 Qh4, 10 Bh6 11 Ng5.

Sixth, the Zilbermints Gambit in the Euwe Defense to the BDG. That variation goes 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 Nc6 8 00 Nxd4 9 Kh1!

Now, in his book on page 155, Scheerer calls my gambit 'notorious' for some reason. Why is that? After all, it is similar to the Ryder Gambit, 5 Qxf3 and the Seidel-Hall Attack 5...Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7 Qxf3 c6 8 g4 Qxd4 9 Be3 in the Teichmann Defense. Are these lines "notorious" too? Can Scheerer explain why my gambit is notorious? Because I do not see any reason for that.

Having said that, on pages 156-157 of his book, Scheerer gives some of my games. Incidentally, the game Fechner-Scheneider has an incorrect date. It should be 1968, not 1965. That game was played in the First Blackmar-Diemer World postal tournament, which ran between 1968-1975. Also, the Leisebein - Fitzian game, correspondence 2001, (tBDG, page 157) eventually ended in a draw on move 64. Leisebein used positional maneuvering to compensate for the 2-pawn deficit.

Scheerer analyzes 9...Nxf3 10 Qxf3, 9...Nc6, 9...h6 as the responses against my gambit. He does not analyze 9...c5 or  9...Nf5 lines. I have recently completed a two-part article on my gambit, where I look at these lines. They are published in Unorthodox Openings Newsletter #25 and #27. There are something like 300 games with the Zilbermints Gambit or related lines.

Okay, I gave you enough to digest. Later, I will post games here against the Vienna Defense.

14.Nb5!! looks strong indeed. I also have no engine at hand but it seems clear that 14...cxb5? is too dangerous. That leaves 14...Rc8 but then 15.Nxa7 with the idea 16.Bg2 and 17.Nxc6 looks good.

Gambit wrote on 02/21/11 at 23:51:26:


Just for the sake of discussion, I'd be interested in that. 

But will this be anytime soon? I wonder.

I looked at Scheerer's lines. In particular, I found that he completely missed a good improvement for White in the Vienna Defence to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.


1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 ef3 7 Qxf3 c6 Now here Scheerer calls 7...c6 the move that has turned away most players from playing 6 h4, the Gunderam Attack. But what do you expect? Not many are going to play the inferior 7...Nc6? since 8 Bb5! is very strong.

I may not be an International Master, but I know the BDG better than Scheerer does. My test games on the Internet Chess Club and analyses have shown that 7...c6 is not to be feared.

So now comes 8 h5 Bxc2 9 Rh2 Qxd4 10 Be3! Scheerer gives this move in his book, but I was already aware of it  years before he wrote the book! How so? ICC games and analyses!

10...Qxg4 11 Rxc2 Qxh5 12 Qxh5 Nxh5 13 000 Nd7 is the critical position. Now Scheerer gives the silly move 14 Nf3? which does absolutely nothing to pressure Black.

After the correct 14 Nb5!!   Black must defend very accurately or be mated. My analyses was done while between games in the United States Amateur Team East 2011. No, I did not use a chess engine, just my own brain to come up with the variations.
Near as I can tell, the analyses can go all the way to move 24-27, depending on the line. Most lines I analyzed saw White have an advantage.  I will post more when I have the time.

What about the tough ...c6 lines? Does he find anything new in the Alchemy?

At last!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It has arrived, and what a book indeed. When i have read in detail all of the book i will give my rating, but it looks like a strong piece of work.