| Alle Beiträge des Diskussionsthemas |
Before I get stuck in, this thread surely belongs in rec.games.chess.analysis.
Please follow-up there and not rec.games.chess.misc.
I have three follow-ups
1. editing only
2. editing with alternatives given in Gary Lane's book
3. review of GL book
>BLACKMAR-DIEMER GAMBIT
Firstly:
a. can we lay this out more like a tree in a book? I've had a go!
b. names and references would also be helpful when quoting from other
sources
c. the size of advantage is important: I suggest the ASCII scale
= equal
+= slight plus
+/- clear plus
+- large plus, probably winning
& unclear
&/= with compensation
d. for consistency, should it be O-O (letters) or 0-0 (zeroes)?
So: all the material below is Ryan's, edited by me.
All unattributed text is Ryan's/MCO/BCO 1(?)
1.d4 d5 2.e4!? (I give the move e4 !? because this opening is under a persistent
cloud.) 2...dxe4 3.Nc3
(3.f3 is refuted by 3...e5! 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4
Nge7 with an advantage for black.)
3...Nf6
(Popiel's Lemberger Counter Gambit 3...e5 is met by 4.Be3 exd4 5.Bxd4! Nc6
6.Bb5 Bd7 7.Nge2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 c6 9.Bc4 Nf6 10.0-0-0 Be7 11.Rhe1 0-0 12.Ng3
with an advantage for white.)
4.f3
(1) The Gambit Declined
(2) The Gambit Accepted
(1) The Gambit Declined
A 4...Bf5 5.fxe4!
(5.g4 Bg6 6.h4 h6 with an unclear posistion)
5...Nxe4 6.Qf3 Nd6 7.Bf4 e6 8.0-0-0 c6 and now:
<A1> 9.d5? cxd5 10.Nxd5 Be4
<A1> 9.d5? cxd5 10.Nxd5 Be4
(10...exd5 11.Bxd6 with a better position for white)
11.Qe3 exd5 12.Rxd5 f5 13.Bb5+ Nc6
14.Nf3 Be7 15.Rxd6 Bxd6 16.Rd1 0-0 with an unclear position.
<A2> 9.g4 Bg6 10.Qe3 Be7 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.d5 cxd5 13.Nxd5 exd5 14.Bxd6 Rc8
15.Rxd5 Bxc2 16.Kd1 with slightly better chances for white.)
(2) The Gambit Accepted
4...exf3
Here are many forks in the road. You can either continue Nxf3, or Qxf3. Both
continuations lead to interesting positions which allow for further research and
improvements.
1A. 5.Nxf3
A1 5.Nxf3 Bf5
A2 5.Nxf3 Bg4
A3 5.Nxf3 e6
A4 5.Nxf3 g6
1B. 5.Qxf3
A. 5.Nxf3
A1. 5.Nxf3 Bf5
5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6
(7...Be4 8.Nxe4
(8.Rg1 Bb4 9.d3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Bxd3=)
8...Nxe4 9.Qf3 Qxd4! 10.Qxf7+ Kd8 11.Qf4 Bb4+
(11...g5? 12.c3 Qd5 13.Nf7+ Ke8 14.Qf3 Rg8 15.Bg2 with an advantage for
white)
12.c3 Bxc3
(12...g5 13.Qe3)
13.bxc3 Qxc3+ 14.Kd1 with an advantage for white)
8.Qf3 c6 9.g5 Ng8 10.Bd3 Qxd4 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Bf4 c5 13.Rf1 e5 14.Qe2 Ne7
15.Bxe5 Qe3 16.Qxe3?! (16.Ne4) 16...Bxe3 with an unclear position)
A2. 5.Nxf3 Bg4
5.Nxf3 Bg4
(Other defenses are:
<A3> 5...e6 6.Bg5 h6 (or...c5) 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Bc4 Bd6 9.0-0 Qd8 10.Qe2
advantage for white.
<A4> 5...g6 6.Be4 Bg7 7.Ne5 0-0 8.Bg5 Nd7
(8...Nc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.0-0-0 advantage for white)
9.0-0 c6 10.Kh1 Nb6 11.Nb3 a5 =)
6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Be3 e6 and now:
<A21> 9.Bd3 Be7 10.g4 Nd5 11.Rf1 0-0 12.Ne4 Nd7 =
<A22> 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Rf2 Qa5 12.g4 0-0 =
B. 5.Qxf3
5.Qxf3 g6
(5...Qxd4 is double-edged and not fully explored 6.Be3
(6.Nb5 Qe5+ 7.Be2 Na6 with the advantage to white)
6...Qb4 7.a3 Qb6 8.Bc4 Bg4 9.Qg3 Nxc6 with an unclear position.)
6.Be3 c6 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 Nb6 10.Bb3 a5 11.a3 Bg4 with advantage
to black)
--
May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and
your sacrifices be sound in all variations
D _
/ "()/~ Dave Regis &8^D* WWW: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html
|| \_/| = DrDave on BICS
~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
_|||__SHEU: ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV
>BLACKMAR-DIEMER GAMBIT
The material below is Ryan's (RR), edited by me (DR) and with comments based on
Gary Lane's book (GL). [To find out what I've added either run Unix diff or grep
for GL/DR or just print them both out single-sided and hold them up to the light!]
The GL book I found maddening - see separate post.
All unattributed text is Ryan's/MCO/BCO 1(?) It would be helpful if Ryan or someone
else with these books could mark up the lines.
1.d4 d5 2.e4!?
(I give the move e4 !? because this opening is under a persistent cloud.)
(0) Attempts at avoiding the Gambit after 1.d4 d5 2.e4!?
(In practical play Black often tries to avoid the Gambit with 2...e6, the French
Defence, or 2...c6, The Caro-Kann.
The French may be met by 3. Be3, the Alapin Gambit. DR)
2...dxe4 3.Nc3
(3.f3 is refuted by 3...e5! 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4 Nge7 with an advantage
for black.)
3...Nf6
(0A Popiel's Lember Counter Gambit 3...e5 is met by Be3 exd4 5.Bxd4! Nc6
6.Bb5 Bd7 7. Nge2 Nxd4
(7...Qh4 = GL)
8.Qxd4 c6 9.Bc4 Nf6 10.0-0-0 Be7 11.Rhe1 0-0 12.Ng3 with an advantage for
white.)
(0B 3...Nc6 leads to a well-known line of the Nimzovitch Defence)
(0C 3...e6 offers transposition to the Rubinstein French 4. f3)
(0D 3...c6 offers transposition to the main lines of the Caro-Kann:
4. Bc4 Nf6 5. f3 keeps the Gambit offer going. )
4.f3
(1) The Gambit Declined
(2) The Gambit Accepted
(1) The Gambit Declined
A 4...Bf5 {Vienna Defence}
(also known are:
B. 4...e3
C. 4...Nf6
D. 4...Nc6)
5.fxe4!
(5.g4 Bg6 6.h4
(6. g5 GL)
6...h6 with an unclear position)
5...Nxe4
(5...Bxe4 GL)
6.Qf3 Nd6
(6...Nxc3 7. bxc3 Qc8 GL)
7.Bf4 e6 (Unzicker) 8.0-0-0 c6 and now:
<A1> 9.d5? cxd5 10.Nxd5 Be4
(10...exd5 11.Bxd6 with a better position for white)
11.Qe3 exd5 12.Rxd5 f5 13.Bb5+ Nc6
14.Nf3 Be7 15.Rxd6 Bxd6 16.Rd1 0-0 with an unclear position.
<A2> 9.g4 (Strobel) 9...Bg6 10.Qe3 Be7 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.d5 cxd5 13.Nxd5 exd5
14.Bxd6 Rc8
(14...Be6 GL)
15.Rxd5 Bxc2 16.Kd1 with slightly better chances for white.)
(2) The Gambit Accepted
4...exf3
Here are many forks in the road. You can either continue Nxf3, or Qxf3. Both
continuations lead to interesting positions which allow for further research and
improvements.
1A. 5. Nxf3
A1 5. Nxf3 Bf5
A2 5. Nxf3 Bg4
A3 5. Nxf3 e6
A4 5. Nxf3 g6
1B. 5. Qxf3
A. 5. Nxf3
A1. 5.Nxf3 Bf5
5.Nxf3 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6
(7...Be4 8.Nxe4
(8.Rg1 Bb4 9.d3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Bxd3=)
8...Nxe4 9.Qf3 Qxd4! 10.Qxf7+ Kd8 11.Qf4 Bb4+
(11...g5? 12.c3 Qd5 13.Nf7+ Ke8 14.Qf3 Rg8 15.Bg2
with an advantage for white.
Leisebein - Petzold (Corr 1989) went only as far as 15...Nd6 16.Qe2
1-0 GL)
12.c3 Bxc3(? GL)
(12...g5 (! GL) 13.Qe3)
13.bxc3 Qxc3+ 14.Kd1 with an advantage for white)
8.Qf3 c6
(8...Nbd7 GL)
9.g5 Ng8 (Taimanov)
(9...Nd5)
10.Bd3 Qxd4 11.Nxg6 hxg6 12.Bf4 c5
(typo? 12...Bc5 is given by GL)
13.Rf1 e5 14.Qe2 Ne7 15.Bxe5 Qe3 16.Qxe3?! (16.Ne4 += GL)
16...Bxe3 with an unclear position)
A2. 5.Nxf3 Bg4
5.Nxf3 Bg4
(Other defenses are:
<A3> 5...e6 6.Bg5 h6 (or...c5) 7.Bxf6 Qxf6
(GL gives 8. Qd2 and 8. Bb5+ as better)
8.Bc4 Bd6 9.0-0 Qd8 10.Qe2 advantage for white.
<A4> 5...g6 6.Bc4 (not e4! DR) 6...Bg7 7.Ne5
(GL gives 7. Bg5 and 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Qe1)
7...0-0 8.Bg5 Nd7
(8...Nc6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10/11. Qd2/0-0-0 advantage for white - RR,
= GL as in a Diemer - Studier game)
9.0-0 c6 10.Kh1 (?! GL)
(10. Bb3 GL)
10...Nb6 11.Nb3 a5 =)
6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Be3 e6 9. Bd3 and now:
<A21> 9...Be7 10.g4 Nd5 11.Rf1 0-0 12.Ne4 Nd7 =
<A22> 9...Nbd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Rf2 Qa5 12.g4 0-0 =
B. 5.Qxf3
5.Qxf3 g6
(5...Qxd4 is double-edged and not fully explored 6.Be3
(6.Nb5 Qe5+ 7.Be2 Na6 with the advantage to white)
6...Qb4 (? GL)
(6...Qg4! e.g. 7. Qf2 e5 8. a3 Nc6 9. Nf3 Bd6 10. 0-0-0 a6 GL)
7.a3
(7. 0-0-0 e.g. 7...Bg4? 8. Nb5!! GL)
7...Qb6 8.Bc4 Bg4 9.Qg3 Nxc6 with an unclear position.)
6.Be3
(6...Bg7 7. 0-0 GL)
6...c6 7.Bc4 Bg7 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 Nb6 10.Bb3 a5 11.a3 Bg4 with advantage to
black)
================================================================================
Bibliography:
BCO Batsford Chess Openings, first edition, Kasparov/Keene (Batsford)
MCO Modern Chess Openings, 11th edition, Korn ().
GL The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Gary Lane (Batsford).
--
May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and
your sacrifices be sound in all variations
D _
/ "()/~ Dave Regis &8^D* WWW: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html
|| \_/| = DrDave on BICS
~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
_|||__SHEU: ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit by Gary Lane (Batsford 1995)
================================================================================
I've just posted a follow-up to Ryan Ripley's collection of variations on the BDG,
mostly by comparing his variations to those given in Gary Lane's (GL) book on the
Gambit published by Batsford.
Throughout I gave only the alternative, rather than trying to suggest a preference.
I found it absolutely maddening to try and decide whether any of the GL alternatives
were better than the ones given in Ryan's books. Simply, it was too difficult to
see what GL thinks are the best defences or attacking strategies. Instead the
reader often learns only which are "fashionable" or "rare".
The book is supposed to be (back cover) the first survey by a player of international
class "who can look at the opening objectively" but I really don't think
that's what has happened.
I got interested in the BDG when our local gambiteer John Walker of Teignmouth beat
my colleague Mark Abbott with it, a game which found its way into the national press
(Guardian). I since learn from the GL book that the BDG has a venerable collection
of master scalps, but the key issue is: why did the masters lose? Are the positions
you get out of the BDG really so strong, or is the art of defence really so
difficult to master, or did they all choose plausible-but-dubious defences, or what?
Sadly, after buying and studying the GL book for a while, I don't think I can answer
that at all.
The key flaw in the book is the fact that it is bung-full of White wins. There are
hundreds of games cited, nearly all 20-30 moves long, nearly all White wins. In no
other opening book have I ever seen anything like this. Is the BDG a forced win?
[Has GL adjusted his opening repertoire so he never has to face the BDG?]
Rather than comment on this dramatic feature GL just reports them blandly as
relevant experience.
What on earth am I supposed to do with these games? They are very often uncommented,
apart from a closing 1-0 or +- assessment at move 26. Only rarely does GL flag a
Black move with a "?" but even then he usually doesn't give any alternatives,
or an assessment of the position before the error. Instead of "19...a5?"
I need "19...a5? (19...Re8 =)". What I have is hardly any use at all.
I wish GL had cut out at least half the games in the book, and stopped the rest at
move 19 with a quantitative and verbal assessment like:
"+= White has compensation for the pawn in pressure against the light squares,
but the outcome should be a draw".
"-/+ White still enjoys a lead in development, but after an eventual ...c5
the game will turn in Black's favour"
That I can use.
Obviously there is some analysis of critical positions in the book, some of which
is both original and important, but mostly it's in the stamp-collecting mould.
The difference between a book and a database is the difference between science and
stamp-collecting. The former should have analysis, theory, judgements, criticism.
The latter is just a collection any monkey like me can put together with a pile of
old magazines and a photocopier, requiring work but not skill.
Now, given that I read in another thread that Tim Sawyer has a 700-game "keybook"
out, the stamp collection has clearly already been assembled. What we need is the
master touch: masterly judgements, practical advice for both sides, promising
untested alternatives (the joy of John Watson's books) and so on (*).
Instead, the GL book too often reads like a giant "Trends" pamphlet,
giving you a cheerful collection of the latest news and gossip, but expecting most
of the analytical notes and integration to be done by the reader.
For example, on one page he criticises 8. Qe2 as probably time-wasting (as Qe2-f2
may follow), but gives three White wins as examples. In the main line (where White
gains a tempo) he gives a critical game which turned out well for Black. And that's
it! Is this eighth move position some bizarre zugzwang, so that by triangulating
White wins? Of course not, but the work needed here is all left to you. If 8. Qe2
is time wasting it should have been noted as such and the three games left out.
If these games have important or original attacking ideas then we should be given
them, but also be told what to look for.
In another key line (recommended by Euwe and Brinckmann) he gives a game with an
uncommon move, 12. Ne2. He then gives the whole main game (a win for White in about
30 moves I think) without any better moves being suggested for Black. Do we assume
12. Ne2 is a forced win? No. But beyond noting it as an alternative, that I might
have come across without any annotation in a database or magazine, I am hardly
better off.
Part of the excuse may be that this is such untrodden ground that none of the
questions I have can be answered. But if we look at the end of the book, we learn
that after 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dex4 3. Nc3 Nc6 leads to a well-known line of the
Nimzovitch Defence. Now, this is a critical line of this defence and is far from
untrodden, but even here we only get a 20-odd move White win or two, and the only
positional assessment is at the end by which time White is clearly winning.
I think the real problem with this book is that there are so few games by
IM Gary Lane in it. If he had practiced the BDG for a year or two against other
IMs, we would I'm sure have a run-down on attacking themes, when to adjust your
usual piece placements, warning signs for duff combinations, the best Black
defensive set-ups, whether Black should go for a central break with ...c5 or keep
it closed, and so on.
It's not impossible that the amateurs have got it right all along, that the BDG
really is an important winning attempt which gives excellent practical chances,
even against an expert or master who knows how to defend. [I am reminded of the
Morra Gambit, where there was some grudging acceptance of its soundness when
Murray Chandler had a go with it at GM level.] But I don't feel much nearer a
conclusion on this issue.
(*) Re: the master touch - My apologies to Tim if that's what he is and what he's
done!
--
May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and
your sacrifices be sound in all variations
D _
/ "()/~ Dave Regis &8^D* WWW: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html
|| \_/| = DrDave on BICS
~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
_|||__SHEU: ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV
My web page at werple.net.au/~fludy has information on the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
So far just some information about Diemer, lists of books and magazines.
The problem with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is that it has not been exhaustively
tested by grandmasters. Furthermore there are so many variations and possibilities
for both sides that errors tend to occur in analysis.
I shall be updating my web site over the next day or so with a diagrammed position
where Gary Lane got it wrong. (mostly he gets it right). But remember the theory
is still developing, is in a state of flux, any no-one has found a cut and dried
refutation as yet.
David Flude
©2003 Google
