Unes Hassim 1/2-1/2 Dave Regis

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Rev. 1.0 - 15.08.2003
[mailto:] caissist ad gmx.net

My adventures with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit...

Unes Hassim 1/2 - 1/2 Dave Regis
Black wimps out of accepting the BDG to try a solid defence and the hope of gaining some small positional pluses later. Just when Black starts to feel more confident the Queen discovers she cannot settle, and the game ends in a draw by repetition.

BDG Langeheinecke Defence

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 e3 5.Bxe3 e6
[I had played my first ever BDG against my esteemed Exeter clubmate Richard Towers. Rich seems to have made a move from gambit play to anti-theoretical and solid chess, hoping to outplay his opponent in the middlegame, and so I made a determined effort to play very actively against him by playing 1. e4, which of course met with his Scandinavian 1...d5, "sucking all the life out of the position" as someone once said. Now 2.d4: I assumed Rich knows no more about the Caro or French than I do, but that need not be true. 2...dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 e3 5.Bxe3 c6 Still playing the Scandinavian! 6.Bd3 (6.Bc4) 6...Nbd7 7.Nge2 e6 (7...e5?!) 8.O-O Nd5 To develop the Bc8, but shedding another tempo. (8...Nb6; 8...Bd6 9.Ne4 Bc7 10.c4; 8...Be7) 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.Re1 Be7 11.Ng3 O-O 12.Nf5 (12.Qe2; 12.c4) 12...Bf6 13.Qd2 Nb6 14.b3!?

CRITICAL POSITION: Should Black go solid or try to force the issue here?

[On 14...c5!? I had resolved to play 15.dxc5 Bxa1 16.cxb6 Bf6 (16...Qf6?! 17.Nd4 Bb2 18.c3 Ba3 19.bxa7 Be6?? 20.Bg5) 17.bxa7 when I though White had good compensation and has succeeded in unbalancing the game]
14...Be6 15.c3 Nc8 (15...Qd7 16.Qc2) 16.Re2 Ne7 17.Ng3 g6 18.Rae1 Qd7 19.Bg5 Bg7 (19...Bxg5 20.Qxg5) 20.Qf4 Rae8

I've seen Richard win happily from dozens of these passive-but-solid positions.
21.Bf6 (This took me 20 minutes!) Another

CRITICAL POSITION: can you find a way to hold the line?

21...Kh8??
(21...Nf5; 21...Bxf6; 21...a5!? "Pass". ; 21...Nc8! (idea Qd6/Qe7) )
22.Nh5 It took me ages to realise (a) that Nh5 was a useful candidate (it was useless before), and (b) that it won, although the first move I though of was Qh6!
22...gxh5 23.Qh6 1 - 0

Richard might well have battled on after e.g. 21...Nc8! but White has an easy game to play; the way to play for a result is with moves like 14...c5!

Lessons:

Passive play is difficult; Mednis calls it "awaiting the undertaker"

Back at the main game: 6.Bd3 Be7
[6...Nbd7 1 - 0 Fuller RA - Dilworth V British CS OA/ 1965 (38);
6...Bb4 1 - 0 Richter-Mendau J - Roos B 5/23 cr 1BDGW fnl 1972/74 (03) 1974 (65);
6...Nd5 1 - 0 Schuh H FM - Treffert BndLiga 1984 (22);
6...Nc6]

7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.O-O O-O
[8...c5 9.f4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nc5 11.Be2 Nd5]

9.Bf2
[9.Qe1 is more normal:

A) 9...c5 is analysed at BDG world: 10.Rd1 cxd4 11.Bxd4 Qc7 12.Qh4 Bc5 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4 Nf6 15.Qh4 e5 16.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 17.Kh1 Be6 18.Nc3 h6 19.a3 Rad8 20.f4

A1) 20...exf4 21.Qxf4 (21.Rxf4 Nd5) 21...Qg5 (21...Nd5 22.Qe4 g6 23.Qh4+=) 22.Qxg5 hxg5=;

A2) 20...Rd4?! 21.Ne2 Rd7 22.b4 Qc7 23.fxe5 Qxe5 24.Nf4 Bg4 25.Rde1 Qg5 26.Qf2 b6?? (26...Bf5 27.h4 Qg4 28.Be2 Ne4) 27.h4 1 - 0 Hommeles - Ligterinck, NDR 1992;

B) 9...Nd5 0 - 1 Bachl E - Bocki Germany? 1978 (34)]

9...c5 10.Qe1
[10.Qe1 cxd4 11.Nxd4 (11.Bxd4 Bc5 12.Qf2 Bxd4 13.Qxd4 e5 14.Qd6 Re8) 11...Nc5 (11...e5 12.Nf5 Bc5 13.Bxc5 Nxc5 14.Qxe5);
10.Be1; 10.Ne4; 10.dxc5]

10...cxd4 11.Nxd4
11.Bxd4]

11...a6
[11...Nc5; 11...e5?! 12.Nf5; 11...Bc5? 12.Na4; 11...b6? 12.Nc6; 11...Qa5!?]

12.Rd1 Qc7+=

White's active pieces give him a small edge, but Black has no weaknesses and can work towards equality.

13.Kh1
[13.Ne4]

13...Nc5
[13...Ne5; 13...Bc5; 13...Qe5 14.Qd2; 13...b5!?]

14.Bg3
[14.Bh4; 14.Bc4]

14...Qb6
[14...Nxd3 15.Bxc7 Nxe1 16.Rfxe1 Bb4 17.Be5 Bxc3 18.bxc3+=;
14...Qd8 15.Qe3 Qb6 16.Nb3 Na4 17.Qxb6 Nxb6+=]

15.Nb3 Nxd3 (two Bishops!)
[15...Nxb3 16.cxb3 Rd8 17.Bf2]

16.Rxd3 Rd8
[16...Bd7 17.Qe5 Rac8 18.f4 Bc6 19.f5]
Black is holding the line, and the game grinds to a halt.

17.Rxd8+
[17.Bf2 Qc7 18.Bg3]

17...Bxd8
[17...Qxd8]

18.Bf2
[18.Qe2]

18...Qc7 19.Qe3 Bd7
[19...b5 20.Nc5]

20.Rd1 Bc6

I felt confident that Black had equalised and was start to think about playing for a win with the two Bishops, but...

21.Bg3
[21.Nd4 Be7]

21...Qb6 22.Qe1 Be7 23.Bf2
[23.Bd6]

23...Qc7 24.Bg3
[24.Nd4]

24...Qb6
It is difficult for White to play for a win and the Black Queen has no comfortable hiding place; if the c5 point is conceded Black may find himself worse. 1/2 - 1/2

Lessons:

Maybe it's really true, the only way to refute a gambit is to accept it!
Long aside...

...Steinitz said, "The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it", and Lasker added, especially centre Pawns. But I sometimes imagine that accepting a gambit is the best way to fall into the main idea of something nasty that your opponent knows all about. That may still be true, but I'm starting to think that Steinitz is absolutely right. That is, if you want only equality, decline by all means, but if only who dares wins. There are one or two gambit lines which I am seeing in junior matches that I cannot see a good way to play for a win against by declining, which seem relevant here.

I was looking at the Max Lange attack and was struck by Black's fundamental choice at move 5:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.O-O: now: 5...Bc5 or 5...Nxe4 ?
5...Bc5 just seems a glorious mess, just the sort of thing to be avoided, but I couldn't see a way for Black to play for a win after 5...Nxe4
e.g. 5...Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Nc3 dxc3 [7...dxc4 8.Rxe4+ Be7 9.Nxd4 f5 10.Rf4 O-O 11.Nxc6 Qxd1+ 12.Nxd1 bxc6 13.Rxc4 Bd6 14.Nc3 = Botvinnik] 8.Bxd5 Be6 [or 8...Bf5 9.Bxe4 Bxe4 10.Rxe4+ Be7] 9.Bxe4 Bb4 10.b3 Qxd1 11.Rxd1 Rd8 12.Be3 a6: Black has an extra pawn which is hard to keep and hard to make use of.

Also after 1.e4 e5!? 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 The Goring Gambit. Black can readily equalise with 4...d5 but cannot hope for a win. The moral is once again, that the best way to refute a gambit may be to accept it.

Dave Regis

top