Critical lines of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Part 2: 5...e6, brief word on King's Gambit

The line with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 is generally known as the Euwe Defence.

Black blocks in the c8-bishop but increases the control over the d5-square and prepares to counterattack against d4 with ...c7-c5 or ...Nb8-c6.  White normally pins the f6-knight with 6.Bg5 and Black normally parries the pin with 6...Be7, for while the immediate 6...c5 is playable, it does not present White with any trouble getting enough compensation for the pawn.

Traditionally the most popular move is then 7.Bd3, aggressively eyeing the h7-pawn and thus making the immediate 7...0-0 inadvisable (while it doesn't lose by force, White gets an extremely dangerous attack with the standard moves 0-0, Qe1, Qh4 etc, and 8.Qd2 and 8.Qe2 intending 0-0-0 are also playable).  More challenging is 7...c5 but then after 8.dxc5 Qa5 (or 8...Nc6) White can consider 9.Qe2 and 9.Qd2, as well as the main line 9.0-0.

My problem with 7.Bd3 is that Black can take advantage of White neglecting the defence of the d4-pawn, and also threaten to chop off the bishop by playing ...Nb4, by playing 7...Nc6.

What does White do about the attack on the d4-pawn and the threat to take on b4?  Of course Black cannot take on d4 immediately because of Nxd4 and if ...Qxd4??, then Bb5+ picks up the queen, but the threat lingers over White.  Christoph Scheerer made a case for 8.a3, preventing ...Nb4,  but I think it may be too slow to give White full compensation for the pawn, and 8.Qd2 Nb4 allows the trade of the d3-bishop.  This leaves Lev Zilbermints's preference 8.0-0, sacrificing the pawn (since 8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 is check) and intending 8...Nxd4 9.Kh1.  This line is likely to be effective at fast time limits but I think that objectively Black can get quite a large advantage after both 9...Nc6 (recommended by Craig Evans at the Chesspublishing.com forum) and 9...c5 (which I discussed at length with Mark Morss and a few others under the name "SWJediknight")- the discussion can be found at http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1133589453/195

Therefore I recommend that White instead plays 7.Qd2 and I cannot find a way for Black to stop White from generating enough of an attack to compensate for the pawn.  If 7...h6 then 8.Bf4 works out quite well for White, and if 7...0-0 then White can probably get enough play with both 8.0-0-0 and 8.Bd3.  Castling queenside means that in many lines, ...c7-c5 and ...c5xd4 can be met by Rd1xd4.  My in-depth analysis of 5...e6 is featured in the third illustrative game at http://tws27.50webs.com/chess/blackmar_diemer_gambit/bdg4.htm

Therefore I don't regard 5...e6 as particularly worrying for BDG fans from a theoretical perspective.  The other three main lines, 5...Bf5, 5...g6 and 5...c6, however, may be a different matter. 


In the meantime I have ordered John Shaw's "telephone directory" of a book on the King's Gambit- it will be interesting to compare his conclusions on the opening with mine, especially as we appear to have common ground (his main recommendation against the early ...g5 approaches is the Quaade Gambit, which I currently consider to be the most promising option for White).  I hear that he regards 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 to be refuted by 3...Nc6, but as Stefan Bucker noted at Chesspublishing.com, this depends on whether or not Black can get an advantage in the Hanstein Gambit lines that follow 4.Nf3 g5, as well as the 4.d4 lines.  I'll reserve judgement on this until I get my copy of the book, but I was unable to find a route to advantage for Black in my online analysis of the Hanstein, and from a practical perspective, I can say that I've had several more online games as Black in the Hanstein recently and the resulting middlegames have usually been dynamically equal.

The critical main lines of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Part 1 5...Bg4

I have updated my analysis of the main lines of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit starting with 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3.
http://tws27.weebly.com/blackmar-diemer-gambit.html
http://tws27.50webs.com/chess/blackmar_diemer_gambit/bdg4.htm

I don't think that White has too much trouble generating enough compensation for the pawn against 5...Bg4 or 5...e6, but 5...Bf5, 5...g6 and 5...c6 all pose White some theoretical problems.  White always gets some attacking chances though.

After 5...Bg4 Black threatens to undermine White's d4-pawn and continue developing actively, so White typically forces the issue with 6.h3, whereupon Black can retreat the bishop with 6...Bh5 and 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 follows.  The most critical continuation is then probably 8...e6 9.Bg2 c6, where Black sets up a solid formation similar to the Caro-Kann Defence.

Here Black's idea is to meet 10.h4 (threatening to trap the bishop on g6) with 10...Bb4, pinning the knight on c3 and preparing kingside castling.  After 11.0-0 Nbd7 I recommend that White respond to the challenge on the knight on e5 with 12.Nxg6 rather than 12.Qe2.  I also think 10.Rf1!? is a good option for White, bringing a rook to the f-file immediately and intending queenside castling, which will give White more scope to push the g and h-pawns without leaving the white king exposed.  Christoph Scheerer didn't treat this line well in his book, referring to a game where White played poorly and drifted into a losing position.

Traditionally, the main line sees Black chop off the f3-knight with 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6.

Here the traditional main line is 8.Be3, followed by a slow kingside build-up, but a few sources (notably "ArKheiN" at the Chesspublishing.com forum, and Christoph Scheerer in his book) have persuaded me that the more daring 8.g4!? is the way for White to go.  The idea is, instead of quietly completing development, to chase the f6-knight away with g4-g5 and blast through down the f-file, even at the cost of a second pawn.  White appears easily able to get enough compensation for the pawn if Black doesn't take on d4, so 8...Qxd4 is critical, but it appears that White can get two pawns' worth of compensation.  This line has proved a lot of fun at the local chess club.  8...Qxd4 9.Be3 Qe5 10.0-0-0 e6 11.g5 Nd5? 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Bf4 Qe4 14.Qxe4! dxe4 15.Bxb8 Rxb8? 16.Bb5+ is one trap that is easy for Black to fall into.  Black plays natural moves and swaps the queens off, but ends up falling for a mating attack.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the BDG is theoretically good for White, because Black has three options that are rather more critical than 5...Bg4, but in practice, 5...Bg4 is the most popular of Black's fifth-move options so if you play this opening frequently with White you will regularly face it.  I will shortly write brief articles on Black's other fifth-move options, but for now, those interested in seeing my in-depth coverage of the other lines can check out the links provided above.

A recent game in the French Defence

Been quite busy with other things recently but I know I should update this blog more often- something to correct over the coming months!

The next updates on my chess openings site will focus on the Two Knights Defence and Evans Gambit, and I also intend to update my coverage of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.

I recently won a nice "short and sweet" game in the French Defence, Rubinstein Variation, with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4.  Here I don't trust 4.f3 because of 4...Bb4- I suppose White could transpose to a Winkelmann-Reimer Gambit with 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3, but I believe that Black can get the better game with either 6...c5 (I was involved in a discussion on this line at the Chesspublishing.com forum a while ago) or 6...e5 (recommended by John Watson in Play the French 4).  It is, to my mind, an inferior relative of the normal Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.  So I went for the normal line with 4.Nxe4.



Far more common at move 9, according to the Chesslive.de database, is 9.Bh4, which I am guessing is because Black can force the bishop to retreat (unless White is prepared to concede the bishop-pair) with ...Nf6-d5.  During the game I fancied keeping open the option of sacrificing on h6 following Qd2.  The sacrifice was probably sound already at move 11, but I decided to defer it for another couple of moves, noting that in the Urusov Gambit such sacrifices tend to be deadly if White's rooks are already on d1 and e1, while I think Black's queenside fianchetto plan was too slow and ...c7-c5 was called for much earlier.  According to the computer, Black's only way to avoid disaster after the sacrifice was to flick in 13...c4 14.Bxc4 gxh6, when White has excellent compensation for the piece but nothing decisive.  I had a forced mate with 16.Rh5 but the 16.Bxe4 played in the game was sufficient to win.

Updates, especially on the Staunton Gambit

I have updated/expanded my coverage of the Staunton Gambit (1.d4 f5 2.e4, which I have played occasionally in casual games) with analysis of three illustrative games which contain notes on the various deviations for both sides.

This can be seen as a sounder relative of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.e4) since 1...f5 weakens the kingside and does not develop anything.  However, after 2...dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6, White should start by putting pressure on the f6-knight with 4.Bg5 (which was Staunton's original preference) waiting for a better moment to play f2-f3.  White does indeed get an improved version of the Blackmar-Diemer after 4.f3 exf3?! 5.Nxf3, but 4...d5! gives Black easy development, envisaging ...Nc6, ...Bf5, ...Qd7 and ...0-0-0, and if anything is probably less sound for White than the Blackmar-Diemer.

After 4.Bg5, most critical is 4...Nc6 since, for example, 4...g6 and 4...c6 are well met by 5.f3, and Black does not get the easy development plan that arises after 4.f3 d5, and White consequently gets sufficient compensation for the pawn, even if Black hits out in the centre with 5...d5.

Of particular importance is the third game, A. Bezemer - H. Froeyman, played in 2013, in the exchange sacrifice line with 5.d5 Ne5 6.Qe2 c6 7.0-0-0 Nxd5 8.Nxd5 Nf7 9.Nf4 Nxg5 10.Qh5+ Nf7 11.Bc4 g6 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.Nxg6 hxg6 14.Qxh8.  At first sight, Black doesn't appear to have much, but in fact Black has sufficient compensation for the exchange because of White's undefended queenside, which can quickly be attacked with ...Qa5 and ...Bg7 before White gets the chance to work up an attack on the black king or consolidate the material advantage.

 There is also an interesting discussion of the line at http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2013/10/iccf.html The main downside of this line is that, if played accurately, it is hard for either side to avoid draws by perpetual check.

But the whole line with 4.Bg5 Nc6 5.d5 Ne5 6.Qe2 still offers interesting and equal play (from both sides' point of view) for both sides have reasonable deviations.  White's most promising deviation is probably at move 9 with 9.Nh3, while Black can consider 6...Nf7 or 6...d6.   In conclusion, the Staunton Gambit is less likely to give White a theoretical edge than the positional main lines against the Dutch Defence with c2-c4, but it appears to be fully sound and is pretty dangerous.  At the same time, it does not prevent Black from getting the sort of tactical, attacking/counterattacking play that attracts many players to the Dutch.  I think the main reason why it doesn't score as well for White in databases as the Blackmar-Diemer is because it has gained more support at grandmaster level, where such gambits are often less effective than at club level, and most repertoire books tend to cover the line from Black's point of view.  At club level I see no reason why the Staunton Gambit shouldn't score very highly in the hands of a player who knows what he/she is doing.

In the meantime I have done minor updates to the Danish and Urusov Gambit coverage to reflect recent discussions on those openings with Mark Nieuweboer.  In the critical Urusov Gambit line with 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nc6 7.Qh4 Bb4, it seems that White can continue with the standard 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3, and if 9...0-0, then his suggestion 10.Re1 looks pretty good, saving a tempo with the c1-bishop compared with 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bxh6 which leaves White with some problems proving full compensation for the sacrificed bishop.

Site update

I had a comment earlier about how it got confusing that some of the analysis at my "old" site had not been converted/updated over to the "new" site.  Well, I've set about rectifying that- my analysis of the Italian, Blackmar-Diemer, Staunton and From Gambits, as well as "1.e4 e5 2.d4- Black doesn't take on d4" has been ported over to the Weebly site.  I intend to update those, but for now, porting the original analysis over is probably better than nothing.

I haven't yet done a thorough coverage of the Two Knights Defence, which is why there is no link to analysis for that opening yet, but I was quite recently involved in analysis of the Fegatello/Fried Liver Attack (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7) at the Chesspublishing forum.  The verdict was that 6...Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Ncb4 9.a3?! does not provide White with enough compensation if Black grabs the rook with 9...Nxc2+ 10.Kd1 Nxa1, but that 9.Qe4, 9.0-0 and 9.Bb3 were all looking OK for White.  To be honest, I am not sure that 6.Nxf7 is definitely inferior to 6.d4, since 6.d4 Be6 (as analysed in Kaissiber) probably restricts White to a small advantage.  Regardless, Black should avoid the obvious recapture on d5.

Finally, for a bit of light entertainment, a quick win that I had in a "thematic" internet game in the Muzio/Polerio Gambit, a fairly important line of the King's Gambit that Black often avoids by heading for the Hanstein Gambit.  I misplayed the early middlegame but after trading queens my opponent fell for a quick checkmate.