This text is an updated version of a message posted as shown in the newsgroup headers, which are unaltered. The changes are simply to add variation and page references. DR ============================================================================== From info!dregis Thu Aug 15 14:53:20 BST 1996 Article: 2782 of rec.games.chess.analysis Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis Path: info!dregis From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis) Subject: Re: OEU2200 Book Analysis of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Message-ID: Organization: University of Exeter, UK. References: <320830ba.13466786@news.crown.net> <320c1d80.3169885@news.crown.net> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 13:22:22 GMT 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 (*1). 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.(*2) Obviously there is some analysis of critical positions in the book, some of which is both original and important (*3), 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 (*4) 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 (*5, 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 dxe4 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 (*6). 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! -- (*1) e.g. the very first game cited, Chapter 1, p.11: Decleir-Viaene, Belgium 1988 (1-0,23) (*2) e.g. Ch.1, p.11: Rasmussen-Douwhaite, WOrld Open 1988 (*3) 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Nc6 8.Bb5 Qd6 (p.61 Sawyer-Laflamme,1989) 9.d5! Lane 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 8.Be3 e6 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.0-0 Be7 11.Rf2 0-0 12.Raf1 Qa5 13.g4 Nd5 14.Qe4 g6 15.Bh6 Nxc3 16.bxc3 Qxa2 Callaghan-Bisguier 1966 (p.68, and cited by BCO2) 17.Bxf8 Rxf8 18.h4!? Lane (*4) p.20-21: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.Qe2 8...0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Qf2 Nf8 11.Qh4 Ng6 Diemer-Cocher, Corr 1950 (1-0,20) cf. p.23: 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 Nbd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Qe1 Re8 10.Qh4 Nf8 11.Ne5 Ng6 Diebert-Fishbein, World Open 1986) (*5) 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 g6 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Qe1 Bg4 9.Qh4 Nc6 10.Be3 Bxf3 11.Rxf3 e5 12.Ne2 Gener-Tiemann, Corr 1988 (1-0,28) last game of Chapter 2 (*6) 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d5 Ne5 5.Bf4 Ng6 6.Bg3 a6 7.Bc4 Nf6 8.Qe2+= (Rogers/BCO2) Thipsay-Aaron, Bangalore 1981 (1-0,26)