Well, there's the idea that the d5-pawn could get in White's way.  Reminds me of Diebert-Silman, from ...How to Reassess Your Chess   

ErictheRed wrote on 01/10/14 at 13:19:59:


It's really not a tempo-up Albin, apart from that old line with f6 someone mentioned. 

I don't believe my opponent knew the opening in detail any better than I did, it's not the normal type of Diemar position you get when Black takes immediately on f3 and then plays c6 and e6. That I thought was best avoided, given you get positions where White has played Ne5 and Bc4 and an unexpected Rxf5 becomes possible.

RdC wrote on 01/07/14 at 01:32:32:


I agree with MNb that 4...c5 looks somewhat dangerous in a practical game.  You don't want to play against a tempo-up Albin, which is just about "sound" already--especially not unprepared.

For that one rated game out of 310 that I actually faced the Blackmar-Diemar (I've seen it more in Blitz) when I had to improvise something, I just played 4...e3.  The game proceeded 5.Bxe3 e6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Nb4 and I was already pretty happy with my position.

Not that it's any attempt at refutation, but there are safer ways of winging it than 4...c5 5.d5.  You might argue that the popularity of 4...c6(!) is Black's attempt to profit from not having moved the c-pawn two squares, as he would have in the White side of the Albin.

I haven't seen anything that is more than a slight initiative in many of the main lines. Specifically, since I play 1. d4 d5 as Black, and intend to play 1. e4 c6, I have looked at systems with ...c6 followed by ...Bf5 or ...Bg4. These are not very terrifying for Black, and seems more like a pawn for nothing. The main lines in these systems are something I fear more...

In general yes but I think there might better ways for Black than playing ...c5. So does Scheerer in his book on the BDG. His main line against ...c5 runs 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 c5 6.d5 g6 (he doesn't mention 6...a6, so if I'm right in my first comment the fianchetto should be questioned) 7.Bf4 Bg7 8.Qd2 O-O 9.O-O-O a6 (Nbd7 isn't mentioned by Scheerer either but gives us the Albin's reversed stuff) 10.d6!

RdC wrote on 01/09/14 at 12:09:56:

As soon as Black takes on f3 the move neither doesn't waste time anymore nor blocks anything.
So we get 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 c5 5.d5
a) 5...e6 6.fxe4 exd5 7.exd5
b) 5...Bf5 6.g4 Bg6 7.g5
in both cases with quite good play for White, especially when compared with some other lines. So your argument doesn't apply in this case. I'm not a fan of the BDG, but don't think we should think lightly of it either.

RdC wrote on 01/08/14 at 14:47:02:

Then you're not familiar with Lamford's and Raetsky's books on the Albin's and have never heard of the Norwegian IM Ernst Rojahn, who played this in corr games in the 40's and 50's.
I know games with this idea from before WW-2. A more recent, spectacular example:

Barbora-Benesch
corr CSR 1981
0-1



I myself won a corr game with 11.Bxh3 Qxh3 12.b4 Ng4 13.Bb2 h5 14.b5 Nce5 15.Qc2 h4 16.Qf5+ Kb8 17.Qg5 Bc5 0-1 De Bruin-MNb, corr NBC 1995.
The aforementioned Rojahn preferred ...Qxf6 in similar lines.
Disclaimer: due to silicon analysis the idea is refuted. With colors reversed and an extra tempo though ....

RdC wrote on 01/07/14 at 01:32:32:

Black must beware not getting an Albin's Countergambit with colors reversed and a tempo less, so I distrust 6...g6. Despite Rybka claiming enough compensation after 6...a6 7.Bf4 e6 8.dxe6 Qxd1+ 9. Rxd1 Bxe6 I have strong doubts.
The adventurous move is Gedult's 5.Bf4.