Funny, I did not refer to computer in my threads. I always give positional explanations at the end of variants. Variants are needed to illustrate plans and developments of dynamic and positional ideas.I do not find an explanation enough without a variant, because the other side has plans, too, lol. The variant helps to find a path in the jungle of competing ideas, it of course can still not be the ultimate truth alone.
This is how all books about openings and master games are written.
In particular, for this doubtful gambit, I omitted the engine evaluation that I saw on some opening website, it gives -0.64 after 1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 Bxb4, 3.f4 d6. I said instead, I do not trust the variant, because white falls to much behind in development - same as Pfren.
Engine evaluations were given often by others (not by pfren), mainly to convince the audience (with no explanation), that a, for instance, -0.18 evaluation after 1.b4 (to find on that same website) would mean that the opening is bad for white.
Anatoly Lein is a GM. No clue who Anatoly Levin is.
Well you should as he is voter registered in US.
Yeah. I should know every player in the US.
well, a 2028 rating player will from time to time make moves like 8.g3 in a blitz game, but still very rarely in a long game.
don't come to my homepage with your problems schlechter55, when using analysis don't use the computer so much, better off using your brain abit, like pfren does most time.
That guy is leaving his graffiti everywhere!
you as well ?
The analysis I give here have human explanations, and besides, they are often longer than those given by others. They were never suggested by computer, but by literature - I have a good library - , and thus, by human practice, OTB or correspondance experience, few times by my own analysis.
Like in the variant
1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 d6.
I proposed that Black can successfully play a King's Indian attack (with reversed colours), that is, a setup with Nf6, g6, Bg7, Nbd7, 0-0, Re8, and then later e5-e4.
The reason is as follows:
In the original King's Indian attack,
1.Nf3 d5, 2.g3 c5, 3.Bg2 Nc6, 4.0-0 Nf6, 5.d3 e6, 6.Nbd2 Be7, 7.e4 0-0, 8.e5 Nfd7, 9.Re1 b5 a move like Bb7 is counterproductive: the bishop can hardly show activity on that diagonal. Moroever, if later files will be opened on the queenside, the bishop is in the way of a black rook on b8. A long mastergame practice has shown that the correct plan for black is connected with a5, b4, a4, to open files, and/or to weaken the white pawn formation, in order to get strongholds for his pieces on the queenside. The Bc8 often goes to a6, where he can also support a timely c5-c4.
That's why in the event of
1.b4 e5, 2.Bb2 d6, 3.c4 Nf6, 4.e3 g6, 5.Nf3 Bg7, 6.Be2 0-0, 7.0-0 Nbd7, 8.Nc3 Re8, 9.d4 e4, 10.Nd2, the Bishop on b2 is not helping the white attack on the queenside...
Note that Black plays Nbd7, and avoids in that variant as long as possible any contact with the white pawns on the queenside.
Of course, White has other options, too, he is not forced to play as above. For instance, he can carry out a fianchetto g3, Bg2, or he can opt for long castling. In the later case it is however not clear why he pushed the pawn to b4 (and not humbly to b3 only).
Anyway, the above black piece setup can be handled similarly in all situations.
Because of Fischer's affinity to the King's Indian attack with White pieces, he would have played such a setup probably himself with Black, when persistently challenged with 1.b4.
I can assure you, KCO, that I have no board/diagram in front of me, I give these variants from my memory.
A remarkable achievement!
Not yet...but I suppose there's always the possibility...
Not yet...I'm feeling a little left out.
Plenty to go round, Slick.
Time for me to go walkies, Slick.
If 1.b4 is refuted by 1...e5, why didn't anyone tell the hundred of GMs who have played something other than 1...e5 against strong opponents?
It doesn't refute b4, however, the "orang colorado gambit" is refutable. I'd be quite happy if someone tried that against me on ICCF. It would be a free win in that arena.
thats weird, i just recently read an article about the history of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit, i think it was in the 1930s were a chess journalist (hated by everyone because he would work for very little money) propagated the Blackmar Diemer Gambit and all leading players considered it bad. I really believe in the knowledge and the competence of Yermolinski, but its still hard to believe that despite such a long line of top players considering it bad its good. Im not 100 % sure but i believe even now many titled players consider the Blackmar bad.
Actually there are web pages devoted to the Blackmar Diemer Gambit 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3. One such page is called BDG Pages run by Tom Purser, my friend. I amstill in contact with Tom Purser. The moves 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3,f3 was orginallycalled the Blackmar Gambit. It was not til Emil Diemer added the move 1.d4 d5 2.e4dxe4 3.Nc3 that it was called the Blackmar Diemer Gambit. The late Emil Diemeralso played the Diemer Duhm Gambit 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 and there is also aweb page devoted to the Diemer Duhm Gambit. This gambit can also be played againstthe Caro Kann Defense with the moves 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.c4. I play both Diemer DuhmVariations. For some strange reason whatever gambit can be played against the FrenchDefense can also be played against the Caro Kann Defense. The chess engine called Brause played large number of games with the Diemer Duhm Gambit. If anyonethinks that the Diemer Duhm Gambit is unsound then they should take on Brausein some games. I would not bet against Brause.
Eric Schiller changed his opinon on the Blackamr Diemer Gambit and now favors it asa playable chess opening. Many correspondence games have been played with the Blackmar Diemer Gambit and many books have been written on the BDG. I also wrote on a article called Base Chess Openings (Chessville) which basically said that if you learn a certain opening then it would be easy to learn several other openings because they are similar in concept. In that article I said that the Blackmar Diemer Gambit was an example of a Base Chess Opening. If you learned the BDG then you should also be able to play other openings such as:Diemer Duhm Gambit 1.e4 d6 2.d4 d5 3.c4Diemer Duhm Gambit (Caro Kann Var) 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3,c4Soller Gambit 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 f6 (an article was written on this opening byTimothy McGrew of Gambit Cartel at Chess Cafe. He is also my friendhowever he is no longer a columnist at Chess Cafe. The articleis #33 in the archives at Chess Cafe. In that article I also said that the Omega Gambit 1.d4 Nf6 2.e4was also a Base Chess Opening and also that the Franco Polish1,e4 e6 2.d4 b5 was a Base Chess Opening for the Hiva Gambits.There was a German book written on the Franco Polish Gambitby master Rainer Schlenker of Germany. I used to submit chessarticles to Rand Springer which was a German Theoretical OpeningPublication which was published by Rainer Schlenker. His magazinehad many interesting opening ideas not found anywhere else.
IMO the problem with the BDG is not that it's bad. I think that it gives white no advantage but has dynamic equality.The main problem in my opinion is that for white to have compensation for the pawn he must play very accurate and often unnatural moves to furthur his attacks. This means that it is essential for the white player to learn the theory of a multitude of variations. On the other hand blacks plans are quite straightfoward and doesnt require memorisation of a labyrinth of variations.This is why it is played in CC so often, as players are allowed to use databases and books, which means they can get = and set black many problems. Also why it has quite poor success OTB.I love the BDG, and have played it much here in CC, with a win percentage of >80%. However, despite this success, which I do not share with my other openings, I would never play it OTB as I simply cant memorise the lines, and no doubt would simply end up a pawn down with zero compensation.