Hey guys, here is yet another Bird-Brain idea.  I use it during speed chess occasionally for surprise...it is kind of like a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit...any ideas or experience with it?

Actually 3. dxc4 is standard, its called the exchange slav (ECO = D10) and has a body of theory attached to it.  5. f3 is unusual, if you really want a gambit why not an immediate 5. e4?  As for Black 5....Nc6 seems wrong and perhaps Bf5 or such.   Ithink you are going to get IQP a pawn down for nothing.

I could play e4 immediately, but the idea of f3 was to support the epawn push.  I know ...Nc6 seems a poor choice, but you would be surprised...they have played...Nc6 every time against me.  It is a "natural" move that I find insufficient.  Actually, that isn't true, now that I think of it...the first time I tried it, they played ...Bf5, I do remember, and I played e3 after that.  Then I looked deeper into it, and found f3-e4 idea, but have never played it against ...Bf5 yet. 

Nc6 is perfectly fine.  After Bb5, Black should play Qa5.  The main line follows.  Qa4 Qxa4 Bxa4 Bd7 fxe4 Ng4 Ke2 e5 =/+

That is cool...I never have looked to see if there was theory on this.  Thanks for the line, KillaBeez!  I never knew it was a played line before.

Even in the line you give, if Black gets greedy, white will have a hard time justifying the gambit.  Unlike the BDG, the missing c-pawn leaves white more open than usual, white has that IQP, after ef, nxf3, the f file might be good for white or maybe black.  Admittedly Bg4 is bad for Black but if he completes his development without being greedy (e6, Bd7, Be7, O-O) he should be fine.  I can see where this might be good for blitz however.

Tell me again, why White is voluntarily exchanging Queens while trying to gin up an attack in a gambit?  Also after Ke2 can't Black pick up a free pawn with Nxd4+?

Sorry.  I missed a move.  It goes Qa4 Qxa4 Bxa4 Bd7 Be3 Rc8 fxe4 Ng4 Ke2 e5

Hey CarlMI, I did post a game with this under the same Forum name - it is in the game analysis section, and Black does play Bg4.  I end up down pawns in the opening, but I keep up just enough steam to stay in the game (lol - my gambit experiment was played in correspondence chess that time) and in the end, find a neat trick upon which my opponent stumbles. You should check it out just for fun.

That's a cool opening. I would rather play Deimer-Duhm or Blackmar-Diemer gambit, however... but who's to stop you from making your own gambit? I'm here to encourage gambits, not stop them. That gambit looks solid to me. After PxP KtxP or QxP!? you should get a strong attack!

The Gambit King

Yes, thanks for your encouragement.  I don't believe that anyone who questions the opening plays gambits anyway.  I did think about QxP!? I witnessed the great Diemer play some crushing wins with that move in his BDG, but I didn't want to venture those lines.  It wouldn't matter much anyway, I lost my QP after my move Qb3 in my correspondence game due to BxN RxN QxP, but the open lines definetely compensated for my pawn deficit.  It is a fun opening and I definetely recommend it as an alternative opening against a Slav player.

Note that in the "regular" BDG black can always opt to play the French defence by (after 1.d4 d5 2.e4) playing 2...e6. Here I think you face the same "problem" only more so, because after 6.e4 (in the original post) black has 6...e6 with a position from the (Stinitz flavour) Classical French, with the difference that white will take two moves to play f2-f4 instead of one.

However, whether this proves a problem in practice remains to be seen :)

 

Regards,

Mark.

www.chessmaterial.com

ChessMaterial, that is an interesting comment that you make - the possibility of transposing.  I wonder - how many French players play the Slav rather than the QGD?  So the possibility is definetely there.  I would think after 6...e6, maybe Bg5, and the bishop can travel to f2 in this line, and maybe White would be fine in the center temporarily...I don't know.  It looks like a totally playable idea with ...e6 to me.

If you're trying to keep families of opening in your repatoire you will find the Slav tends to pair with the Caro-Kann.  The BDG also has a gambit response to the French.

1.d4 d5 2. e4 e6 3. Be3 (Alapin-Diemer) or c4 (Diemer-Duhm)

I actually tried the 3. Be3 once before, but didn't like it - it's not that it isn't good, but I get I didn't get the right flavor of Be3 in my mouth.  I think I would probably play the 3. Nc3 variation of the French if I ever again go back to 1. e4.  I think the chances are best for White with that one, but that is just me.  I have read about the DDG, but never tried it yet. 

BirdBrain wrote:

ChessMaterial, that is an interesting comment that you make - the possibility of transposing.  I wonder - how many French players play the Slav rather than the QGD?  So the possibility is definetely there.  I would think after 6...e6, maybe Bg5, and the bishop can travel to f2 in this line, and maybe White would be fine in the center temporarily...I don't know.  It looks like a totally playable idea with ...e6 to me.

---

Wow. Transposition can certainly be a problem at times. However, I've always hear really bad things about the French, that you had to play extremely accurate to avoid losing and such. But I've played it and don't think it's that bad, so anyways... and about your comment about most of the analysis, you're right. It seems that hardly anyone appreciates gambits these days. Maybe you should join the king's gambit group Amnesiac formed (i'm a member). It was about the only one that came up when I searched for 'gambit', which proves something...

The Gambit King

DonnGee wrote: at first it looks to me like queens gambit and why did white ate the pawn the last move?

---

It is a form of the Queen's Gambit at first, the Slav Defense accepted.  The reason why I play that is to limit Black's approach to the opening.  The pawn must be defended, and naturally every player responds to Nc3 with Nf6, and then f3 is played.  I am not advocating it as the best move, it is simply implying that I am playing for space, or in this case, a gambit. The reason I do not take back on the last move (7. Bb5) is that the tempo is well spent in my mind gaining initiative against Black.  Note, that with correct defense, Black will win - he is up in material.  But White is willing to take that chance, believing in his ability to create threats that Black cannot handle.  I created two isolated pawns early - a and c pawn - that could have been weaknesses. 

If I had played fxe4, I would have given back the tempo and initiative way too quickly.  Then f3 would have been a useless move.  Bb5 is a binding move, pinning the knight to the king - and it also faciliates White's kingside castling. 

Why don't you try taking the pawn (7. fxe4) and see what Black would do?

 

BirdBrain wrote:Note, that with correct defense, Black will win - he is up in material. But White is willing to take that chance, believing in his ability to create threats that Black cannot handle.  I created two isolated pawns early - a and c pawn - that could have been weaknesses. 

---

I disagree that 'with correct defence', black will win... this sounds like the type of comment people make who say things like 'all gambits are unsound'. What about the statement 'with correct attack, white will win' ? I guess your statement may be true, but maybe there is no 'correct defence', at least against a 'correct attack'. Anyways, I am of the school that in the king's gambit if white plays correctly he should get compensation in the form of winning chances, or material, or both. I don't think that black should be allowed to hang onto the pawn without giving white chances to attack. This is definitely debatable, but certainly no one thinks that in the queen's gambit black can accept and hang onto the pawn without compromising his position, do they? Material is only one of several factors (many of which i think are very often more important) and by no means gives a 'winning' position. This is just my opinion, of course...

The Gambit King

I know where you are coming from, and the comment I made, it is a comment to feed people's mind who think that gambits are unsound. I know about the ability to pressure your opponent into a terrible mistake.  I did it recently with an exchange sacrifice in one of my correspondence games...I traded my rook on an open file for his bishop, which helped him to create threats against my king with his queen.  Once the trade occured, his position was much more passive.  I learned the idea from a game Kasparov played against Shirov, a Sveshnikov Sicilian, where his rook travelled from a1 to a4, to b4, and then capturing on b7.  My game was a Bird's Opening that he opening with a c6-d6-Bg4 system, kind of obscure, like a hedgehog...I played an aggressive pawn system with f4-e4 Nf3 h3 Qxf3 g4 and d3, looking for kingside potential.  And it is finally paying off.

When people make the comment about correct defense...I do believe that gambits are playable, totally.  Otherwise Tal would have never been world champ...people have to get over their preconceptions and LOOK AT THE BOARD :-).  Learn for themselves.  My point was that my pressure was beginning to lessen in my game with this gambit, but I resacrificied to gain better piece placement, which enabled me to hang in, and finally catch him in a blunder.  I do believe in gambits. 

Okay, I finally got a chance to play against the "French" style position, and lost quickly!  Not because of him, or me, but I made a boneheaded move.  After playing the system and trying to commit to my pawn structure and develop with it as it is, I think it is okay to push the pawn to e5 and proceed with f4.  Here is my reasoning.  He makes two "small" pawn moves - ...a6 and ...e6, and those two tempoes give me time (after all, we are in a d4 system, not an e4 system, and being closed, I think White should be fine).  Here is the first part of the game, and I will include my suggestion.