I try not to be, but maybe I am a little jealous. I'm talking about all those Jerome Gambiteers over at Rick Kennedy's blog. All those quick little knockouts. Sure some of them are Black wins, but still...Worse yet, the BDG [Blackmar Diemer Gambit] looks to be on its way to losing its title as the most disrespected opening in chess. But all we can do is fight on.
Gambit Blackmar-Diemer Modus Operandi
Hello Richard,Readers will see that I have added a link to Guido's web page.
I have been following your posts on your blog regularly.
I am not an 1.e4 player but enjoy the attacking positions in the gambit.
I have created a new blog http://blackmardiemergambit.blogspot.com/ on the Blackmar Diemer Gambit.
Please have a look - you might want to add some words on your blog and add a link, so I get some additional publicity!
Thanks for your help and keep up the good work !
Guido
...it is evident that many openings – the Sicilian Defense, for example – have been diffused almost beyond reasonableness. Consequently, if you play the Sicilian, as black or White, you must accept the probability that your opponent has studied the latest grandmaster variations to the beginning of the endgame.
On the other hand, if you play something off the beaten track – let's say the Elephant Gambit – you can be quite secure that your opponent has no prepared variation; quite the contrary, he will be forced to play chess on his own. This can give you a pronounced psychological advantage: your opponent is likely to be facing his first Elephant, and has studied no variations, and the only thing he might have is some vague recollection of having read that the opening is incorrect, unsound, and unplayable. He will be looking for easy refutations, and may become frustrated when he does not find them. The pressure will all be on him. After all, he will appear ridiculous if he cannot beat an "unplayable" opening.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
"Correctness"
In his book, Vom Ersten Zug an auf Matt [Toward Mate From the First Move], Diemer included a short essay on correctness (a propos -- KORREKTHEIT!, p. 129), in which he insisted that if the BDG were a "correct gambit" then it would be no gambit at all. Tonight I read an interesting piece by Dutch grandmaster Jan Hein Donner, (who once wrote a separate devastating article on Diemer called "The Prophet von Muggensturm").
He didn’t care about correctness, complications were more important to him. To drag his opponent with him into the labyrinth, he gave everything for it. I’ve seen it in Zürich, the growing feeling of unease when he sacrificed a piece or more in every game, and won, but when afterwards it turned out the whole enterprise had been rather risky if only the opponent would have found the right moves behind the board. In analysing, too, it turned out that, although he had calculated much and much more than the average player, he did very much tend to calculate in his own favour. Even then it became clear that only Keres could stand up to him in such analysis sessions where hands grab and reach over the board. ‘Aber mein Lieber, was machen Sie denn darauf!’ [But my darling, what do you play now?] and Tal just laughed. ‘Wer hat gewonnen?’ [Who has won?] (…)
Tal? Tal? Forgive me if I mislead you. Here Donner was writing about Tal. Not about Diemer. You can read the entire piece in this post in Chess Vibes. (scroll down to the bottom of the page).Of course, neither Purser nor Donner were writing about playing the Jerome Gambit, either; but I hope I did not mislead any Reader.
Players who enjoy the cut-and-slash of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) should be thrilled by the attacking possibility of a real gambit that has much more of a chance for success, and whose "refutations" are constantly being deconstructed, if not refuted – the Blackmar Diemer Gambit, 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3. 
