Jyrki Heikkinen in his blog, Gambits and Pieces, writes about one such game which he played.
“White's obvious target is the f7 square. Without knowing the theory recommendation 8.Bc4 e6 9.Nh3, I … played a prophylactic move.”
What was this move? See the game at Gambits and Pieces: My shortest checkmate in BDG. And while you’re there, have a look around Jyrki’s blog. There’s more there than the BDG. It’s “the world of crazy gambits: Diemer–Duhm, Blackmar–Diemer, Staunton, Fajarowicz and more.”
Chess, like love, is a many-splendored thing. We can enjoy it on so many different levels. “Serious” chess, skittles, blitz, correspondence, problems, history, variants, and more. We play it, watch it, read about it, dream about it, argue about it. One aspect that seems to attract many is the naming of variations. We can always find some good arguments there.
A reader put me onto a site which does a good job at outlining BDG variations. The variations are named, provided a diagram, and Rybka evaluations of the four leading responses. (This is interesting, if of limited utility). Here’s an example:
Take a look at the site here. The proprietor is Knut Jarle Hjørnevik from Norway, a fairly strong player with a Fide rating of 2038, who has been playing the BDG for a year or so now. You might quibble with a name or two, but that’s part of the fun.
This week’s TWIC contained several BDGs, and White didn’t fare so well—but not so much through any fault of the opening. Chess is like this, certainly when played below the master level, but even there too, more often than we like to think. Games seesaw back and forth and one side is up, then down. Small inaccuracies, large blunders, all come and go. Tartakower’s rule about the next-to-last mistake still applies.
Summers,Charles - Young,Al (2018)
ch-WLS Cardiff WLS (1), 10.04.2009
BDG, Euwe Defense
1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3 e6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bd3 c5 8.dxc5 Qa5 9.0-0 Qxc5+ 10.Kh1 Nbd7 11.Qe1 a6 12.Qh4 Qb4
[12...h6 13.Rae1 b5 14.Ne4 Nxe4 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Qxe4 Rb8 17.Ne5 Bb7 18.Nc6 Bxc6 19.Qxc6 1/2-1/2 Leisebein,P-Price,B/IECC email 2004]13.Qe1
[13.Nd4 Qxb2 14.Nce2 Ne5 (14...h6 15.Be3 Nd5 16.Qf2 Ne5 and Black is better, although he later blundered and lost, Nicholls,M-Zaniratti,I/ICCF Email 2001 (29)) 15.a4 Qb6 16.Rxf6 Nxd3? (16...gxf6 17.Bxf6 Qd8-+) 17.Rff1 f6 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Nb3 Qc6? (19...e5) 20.Bxc5 Bxc5 21.Qh5+ 1-0 Sneiders,E-Breunig/corr 1971]13...0-0 14.a3 Qg4 15.Rd1 h6 16.Bh4 Re8 17.h3 Qh5 18.b4 g5 19.g4 Nxg4 20.hxg4 Qxg4 21.Bg3 Nf6 22.Ne5 Qh3+ 23.Bh2 b6 24.Qg3 Bb7+ 25.Kg1 Qxg3+ 26.Bxg3 Nh5?
[Such a shame. White foregoes an immediate win with 27.Rxf7 Ng7 Just about forced, but no salvation (27...Nxg3?? 28.Bh7+ Kh8 29.Ng6#) 28.Rdf1 h5 (to prevent Ng4) 29.Rxg7+! Kxg7 30.Rf7+ Kh8 31.Rh7+ (Or 31.Bh7 Rg8 32.Ng6+ Rxg6 33.Bxg6) 31...Kg8 32.Nf7 Bf8 33.Be5 Re7 34.Bg6]27...f5 28.Be2 Ng7 29.Na4 Rac8 30.c4 Bd8 31.Rd7 Be4 32.c5 b5 33.Nc3 Ba8 34.Bf3 f4 0-1
Play through this game here.
