Blackamar Diemer Gambit

this is a version of an old opening

but how did biginner play against f5?

Without more description, your question cannot really be tackled. But, for grins, I will make an assumption of the following moves, which involved the earliest reasonable use of f5 by Black:

1.d4 d5 2. e4 dxe 3.Nc3 f5.

If THIS is the line to which you refer, then the game has simply transposed into a line of the Dutch Defense. Here, any of the following moves by White are reasonable plays: 4.f3, 4.Bc4, 4.Bf4, and 4.Bg5, where 4.Bf4 seems to be the favorite of strong players, but 4.f3 tries to keep the lines in the BDG motif.

Hope this helps ... some.

but is there other transpositions of this gambit?

Pakla,

There are, unfortunately, many transpositions in many openings - probably too numerous to mention, and I certainly don't know them all. In a book I cite later, Sawyer gives these notes: "... there are many alternative paths" ... that might reach the BDG => Alekhine: 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4; French: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5; Caro-Kann: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5; Scandinavian: 1.e4 d5 2.d4; Nimzovich: 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3; Dunst: 1.Nc3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.e4; and the Veresov: 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4.

Indeed, the player of the White pieces CANNOT stop Black from playing a) the Dutch, b) the KID/Pirc/Benoni complex, or c) the French, though there are ideas that are in the vein of the BDG for all of those.

If one is intent on achieving the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, he/she is always at the mercy of Black's play until and unless Black has played into 1.d4 d5 2.e4!? dxe 3.Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 exf 5. Nf3, where upon White has achieved the position of interest. Indeed, Black can avoid the BDG in a lot of ways, one being 1.d4 f5, an immediate entry into the Dutch Defense. Or Black can play 1. ... b6, or a whole number of other moves.

Perhaps the most obvious digression is when we see 1.d4 Nf6, when Black may in fact NEVER play d5 at all, but instead head into some Indian defense. If the player of the White pieces wants to base a repertoire on the BDG, that player will have to have additional lines in the repertoire to handle the digressions by Black. As bad as the pros trash the BDG's reputation, there are still many folk who choose to avoid the gambit because they suspect that White is booked up to the hilt and will catch them out in some trap.

The best book on the gambit is Rev. Tim Sawyer's The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook II, but even it does not build one a repertoire for the OTHER lines (although Sawyer's Keybook I does offer lines for the odd play of Black, or those lines which transpose to other defenses, like the French, etc.).

Back to the Dutch, if you one wants to play in true gambit style against that opening, an idea is the Krejcik Attack (or Anti-Dutch Spike): 1.d4 f5 2.g4!?, which will catch many Dutch players off guard for sure. Still, this gambit is highly speculative. (There's a little book out on this one, too - by Alan Watson.)

To summarize, the BDG is not an opening for the timid, is trashed by those who only hold to mainline play, but is certainly playable in club level chess by those who want to hone their tactical play and those who do not pretend to the highest levels of chess. For sure, it can be fun.

Good luck with the BDG.

thanx Drawmaster

i think that the fact of playing 1-d4 then Nc3 it'is like the Torre attack. but i don't know advantages of blocking c4 as Queen Gambit 

Pakla,

The purpose of c4 by White in Queen's Pawn games is to contest the center of Black which was staked out by her/his d5 pawn move. Once we enter the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit lines, the pawn at d5 has been removed - it has taken the pawn at e4. Thus, there is no compelling reason (or at least not the SAME compelling reason) for White to worry about blocking the c-pawn with the knight. There IS a compelling reason for White to get all the pieces out as quickly as possible, however. Playing Nc3 aids in this cause.

i have see with pleasure your comment thanks

but one refutation of the gambit is:

1-d4 d5 2-e4 dxe4 3-Nf3 e5!?....

May this refutation explose the game

Pakla,

The moves you've given are the those of the BDG: 3.Nc3 should be played. I will assume that you actually meant White's third move to be 3.Nc3. In that case, Black's 3. ...e5 is known as the Lemberger Counter Gambit, where Black tries to return the pawn originally won after White's gambit (2.e4). In doing so, Black tries to generate piece play in return for giving back the material. This is a common motif for those who have accepted gambit material: give it back at the right time, hoping to have achieved more by doing so.

The Lemberger is perhaps the defense that is recommended most frequently for those who encounter the BDG from the Black side of the board. (Eric Schiller recommends this line.) Rev. Sawyer was somewhat pessimistic about White's chances against this variation when he wrote his first book. Since then, he believes that the Lemberger is not a refutation, but simply another defense Black can offer. Sawyer suggests that his data show White doing fairly well against the Lemberger (scoring 55%), and he recommends in his Keybook II that White play 4.Nge2, the Rasmussen Attack (and 4.de5 is also playable, according to Sawyer).

You'll have to consult Rev. Sawyer's Keybook II for the most detail on handling the Lemberger Counter Gambit, but I will include two games: one by Rasmussen himself and another by Sawyer using the 4.Nge2 line. Hope this helps.

FIrst, a game by Sawyer:

And finally, a game by Rasmussen, after whom this attack is named: