What is wrong with avoiding the Bremer Counter-Attack with the following transposition:

1 d4 d5 2 e4 de4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 c6 5 Be3 ?

Gambit wrote on 01/13/12 at 05:27:55:

Counting is difficult. The first has three plies, the second two. That's one reason why it's a false analogy.

Scheerer's Lemberger BDG update at Chesspublishing.com suggested that all is not lost for White in the 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nxe4 Qxd4 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nf3 Qd5 7.0-0 line (though giving up on 5.Qe2, which does appear insufficient after 5...Nc6).
http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/8/may11.htm

I'll have a look at 3...Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 b5 6.Bb3 exf3 shortly as it does indeed sound critical.

Lev, I will let pass what has gone before, but don't come here any more with games unless the games say something about theory.  Theory, not this or that player's sometimes brilliant games, is the subject of this board.

So unless your game bears on theory, post it in General Chess.  Don't bother arguing about it, either.  That is the rule.

Moreover, STOP drawing distinctions between postal and OTB.  There is no postal theory; there is no blitz theory; there is only theory.  Postal vs. blitz vs. 45 in 2 is a PRACTICAL consideration, not a THEORETICAL one.  So any time you want to talk about postal vs. whatever else, just remember to put it in General Chess.  Not here.

I think MNb's suggestion above (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c6 5.Bc4 b5!? 6.Bb3 exf3) could well develop into a critical test of the Blackmar-Diemer, given that 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 7.Bg5 e6 (7...Nbd7 8.Qe2 and 9.0-0-0) 8.Nh4 seems to give White enough compensation.

In my opinion the biggest problem with 5.Nxe4 is 5...e5 (5...Bf5 6.Bd3 Qxd4 7.Ne2 is interesting, if not necessarily completely sound, but 5...Nxe4 6.fxe4 e5 7.Nf3 Be6 and 5...Nbd7 are good equalisers), which forces considerable simplification.  A glance at the 5...e5 lines was enough to put me off 5.Nxe4 for good.

Suggest you look at my revision.

I am taking the time to respond to all the criticisms. Let me address them in a point-by-point order.

First, I should apologize that my post took up so much blank space. You see, it was reformatted from another website, "Jim West on Chess." I published the Philidor Counter Gambit game there; however, copying and pasting resulted in the post you saw.

Thus, I re-posted the message with blank spaces removed. I would ask Markovich to delete the original long post and keep this one.

Second, the question is raised as to the theoretical value of Internet Chess Club blitz games. To this I respond that no less an eminent chess magazine than New In Chess regularly includes blitz games in theoretical articles. So, one can see that ICC is an excellent testing and proving ground for possible theoretical novelties. I remind you that the famous Dos Hermanas tournaments on ICC are of the blitz format. They have grandmasters, international masters, FIDE masters regularly playing. Thus, this gives credibility and respect to the moves the titled players make in blitz games.

In blitz, you get far less time than in normal chess. Decisions must be made lightning-fast. Thus, if a move can be found in these conditions and withstand scrutiny, it is well-suited for normal chess. Also, there are plenty of examples of players making blunders in regular chess, but finding the correct move in blitz.

Third, I would like to thank Jupp for his support. I definitely can post a lot of wins over titled players in blitz on ICC. How about a few beating GM Hikaru Nakamura? Or beating some GM or IM in a simultaneous exhibition, with long time control?

What is wrong with people who don't like my blitz games? Would you have us return to a time before chess clocks were invented, circa 1858, when games could last hours? Morphy had games that lasted 15 hours. This is 2012, people, not 1851.

Why don't you post a few well-played GM blitz games with important theoretical moves? That should make it fair. But oh no, you choose to criticize me for posting nice wins over titled players. That's weird, really.



Zilbermintz - IM (now Grandmaster) Trickyguy

Internet Chess Club
3 0 rated blitz
1 April 2009

BLACKMAR-DIEMER GAMBIT

1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 ef3 5 Nxf3 e6 

Euwe Defense

6 Bg5 Be7 7 Bd3 0-0 8 00 c5 9 Qe1 cxd4 10 Ne2 Nc6 11 Qh4 g6 12 a3 Nd5 13 Qh6 e5 14 Ng3 Nf4 15 Bxf4 exf4 16 Nh5! Bf6 17 Ng5! 1-0.

As we can see, even Grandmasters can make mistakes. Perhaps instead of 8...c5, Black should try 8...Re8 with the idea 9...Bf8. In some games I have played, Black tried 8...Nbd7 9 Qe1 Re8 10 Qh4 Nf8. Trouble is, this is a very passive line. It is known as the Kuehne Variation of the Euwe Defense.  K. was the player who first played this line, back in 1960.

Then again, Grandmasters don't expect the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit!

But seriously, let's have no more of these "See me win against GM X" posts. Unless these wins shed light on theory, they have scant relevance here. Put them in General Chess.

Besides which, you have to wonder how many "See GM X tear my head off" threads there would be if all the truth were told.

So back to the topic.