Atlantic Chess News Setiembre 2007 | Page 12

game is no guarantee of avoidance. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6 White can play 3.Be3 tempting Black to submit to 3...dxe4 leading into 3.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3; in the Caro-Kann Defense 1.d4 d5 2.e4 c6 the BDG can be reached with 3.Nc3 and if …dxe4 4.f3; and in the unusual Veresov Opening, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4, again, the BDG has been reached. Rethinking The Queen’s Pawn Game – Part II by Terese and David W. Hatch QP Ì The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit has an interesting and entertaining history, a fervent following and a multifaceted reputation. Its detractors will call it dubious for White and its devotees will label it dangerous for Black. Its following is fanatical and depending upon which blog or book or magazine you are reading, the BDG has been called both spurious and sound. Much like the Colle, the Grob, the St. George and the New York Yankees, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is loved by its fans and mocked by its critics as it is both one of the most misunderstood and maligned of chess opening systems and one of the most feared. The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 “At amateur level, all openings are sound.” Lombardy A gambit is an opening ploy in which one side graces the other side with the gift of a pawn. The gambit injects excitement into the game as early as the second move; it unbalances the position; it immediately puts the question to the opponent to make a critical decision; and it gives the gambiteer a chance to steer the game into a direction he wishes it to go. While gambits are not for the weak-kneed or the faint-of-heart, neither should one be too cavalier about playing a gambit. As Siegbert Tarrasch said, playing a gambit “to acquire a reputation of being a dashing player [comes] at the cost of losing a game.” Not all grandmasters had the same opinion as Tarrasch. As Jose Capablanca pointed out, there is honor in playing and accepting a gambit. When confronted with Frank Marshall’s taunt in the original Marshall Gambit game of 1909, Capablanca intuitively declared, “I felt that my judgment and skill were being challenged by a player who had every reason to fear both. I considered the position and then decided that I was honor bound, so to speak, to take the pawn.” But perhaps it is the inspirational words of Theodo re Roosevelt that best captures the philosophy of a gambit: “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who . . . at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”1 The history of the BDG dates back to the early 1880s when American Armand Edward Blackmar introduced his analysis of the opening moves 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3 in an article he wrote for a chess magazine. The sacrificial concept of this opening along with its uncharted theory and the tactical opportunities the gambit produced inspired and confounded chess players until the turn of the century when an antidote to the lethal BDG appeared in the form of a counter gambit: 3…e5. (An example of how Black usurps all of White’s initiative is Walter v. Baum, 1984: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3 e5 4.fxe4 Qh4+ 5.Kd2 Nf6 6.Bd3 Nxe4+ 7.Bxe4 Qxe4 8.dxe5 Bg4 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Nc3 O-O-O+ 0-1). Then, in 1932, a significant theoretical novelty appeared by way of German tactician, Emil Joseph Diemer, who breathed new life into the opening by interpolating the move 3.Nc3 before f3 to counter the 3…e5 refutation. From 1932 to 1959, Diemer enjoyed enormous success with the BDG, and the strategy and tactics of the gambit forced players of the Black pieces to develop a variety of creative countermeasures. A century after Blackmar and 50 years after Diemer first played it, another resourceful American, Charles Diebert, again gave credibility and respect to the BDG by fearlessly employing it at the highest levels against opponents like Silman, Benjamin, Gulko, Kudrin, Rohde and Bisguier. Today, the BDG still enjoys success and notoriety in club, tournament, correspondence and OTB theme tournaments where some configuration or another of the BDG is being accepted, declined, deferred or avoided. One opening that is a gambit in the boldest sense of the word is the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. In the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, White intends to play in true gambit style by willingly forfeiting a pawn with no intention of recouping it. White’s follow up plan is to take control of open files for his rooks and long diagonals for his bishops. To be fair, however, Black is not totally without compensation. Accepting the pawn in the BDG will give Black an immediate material advantage. His goal will be to consolidate his position with an eye toward using that extra pawn to his advantage in the endgame. The following games give us a sense of (as Diemer said) “playing for mate from the first move.” Armand Edward Blackmar Farrar New Orleans, 1882 The genesis of the BDG. The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is an anomaly in chess opening theory. The paradox of this opening is that, at first blush, White appears to be sacrificing a center pawn when in fact it is the sacrifice of the pawn on f3 that defines this gambit. On its face the sacrifice appears to be unsound and the games that usually ensue are played out in a swashbuckling style capable of producing wild, Tal-like sacrifices and tactics. Black can try to avoid the BlackmarDiemer by playing a quieter, closed opening such as the French Defense or the Caro-Kann Defense, however, the BDG is so transpositional that even shifting to an e-pawn 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3 exf3 4.Nxf3 e6 5.Bd3 For the price of a pawn White has a substantial lead in development. Black has expended time and given up space. 5...Nf6 6.c3 Be7 7.0–0 Nc6 8.Nbd2 h6 9.Ne4 White’s queen and bishops are raking the board, his rook is on a half-open file and his knights are in position to initiate a winning textbook combination. 9...0–0 10.Neg5 hxg5 11.Nxg5 White’s attack is pure and his plan is simple and straightforward. 1 Citizenship in a Republic - a speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, France by Theodore Roosevelt 23 April 1910. 12