The Final Theory of Chess Project

Last year I heard about a big book called The Final Theory of Chess. It worried me a little. At my age, any mention of "final" tends to do that. But more than that, the idea that anything as complicated as chess could have a final theory didn't seem to make much sense to me. For a long time my own working theory of chess has been covered by one of Tartakower’s many witticisms: "Chess is a fairy tale of 1001 blunders."

But I was intrigued and contacted the author of The Final Theory, Gary M. Danelishen, with an offer to enter an exchange sacrifice—his big book for one of my little books. And what a big book it turned out to be. Almost 400 pages, 8.5 by 11.5 inches, crammed with four years of analysis by up to six computers running Fritz software around the clock. What made the book of special interest to me was that over 100 of those pages were devoted to analysis of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.

If I had my druthers, the book might have been better called Toward a Final Theory... or maybe In Search of a Final Theory... or, well, you get the idea. Danelishen doesn’t suggest that we’re there yet; his concept is to expand opening theory and analysis upward over time. All the while tablebases (but not in his analysis) will be expanded downward, and someday they will intersect in a glorious union, maybe like the joining of the transcontinental railroad, and lo, we will in fact have achieved the final theory!

I’m much too lazy these days, and even if I had the energy, I couldn’t do justice to this book. Nor should I even try, since Rick Kennedy, as is his practice, has done another excellent, thorough review at Chessville Reviews. I recommend you read it there.

Meanwhile, Danelishen is pressing on. He has established a Final Theory of Chess Project website, in a wiki format, open to all to extend opening theory. As Gary explains:

The Final Theory of Chess wiki, based upon the book with the same name, is an attempt to construct an aggressive opening repertoire based primarily upon the use of computer analysis. Computer analysis has been built upon previous computer analysis, in a process repeated seemingly ad infinitum.

The ultimate goal is to push opening theory through the middlegame and finally to a point where endgame tablebases can solve for mate. The Final Theory of Chess lays a solid foundation upon which further computer analysis may be built in order to solve the game of chess.

It’s an interesting concept, and a chance to share ideas on as broad or fine a scale as you wish. Take a look at it. I suggest you start at the front door. You can also jump right to the BDG variations.

Do Aliens understand the Blackmar-Diemer?

“If you’re naturally smart, if you have an IQ that would make Einstein blush, or if you’re an alien visitor to Earth and you find all this computer stuff as easy as understanding the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit, phooey on you! Otherwise, my guess is that you’ve discovered that computers are indeed complex and intimidating and can make you feel like a dummy.”
PCs for Dummies, Chapter 1

A New Book on the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit?

David Flude, an old friend from BDG WORLD, days has started a thread at the ChessPub Forum on antidotes to the the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. A post there by IM Christoph Wisnewski caught my interest.

"I am currently working on a new book about the BDG," he wrote. "It is nearly finished, the final first draft will probably be finished in a week."

And in a follow-on post:

"...I did "refute" a few lines so far thought to be playable. But that doesn't mean, the BDG is refuted itself! In fact, I do think that in every Black setup White has enough play to justify his pawn sacrifice. I will not deny that Black will come close to equality (or even achieve it) in most of these lines, but at least it is dynamic (and not dull) equality."

Well, this will be something to look foward to. You can read more here: ChessPub Forum - Antidotes to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit

Outgrowing the BDG

By Rick Kennedy In his introduction to Blackmar Diemer Gambit, Master Eric Schiller writes that playing the BDG might increase your middle game ability, but it probably will not affect your rating. Going even further, he suggests that Blackmar-Diemer Gambit players will eventually “outgrow” their opening. That last comment may come as a surprise to some of you. Outgrow, indeed! For many of us, it has been and will always be, “in for a pawn, in for a pound.” Or, for Black, “a pounding. Besides, look at Diemer and Gunderam, in the fourth quarter of a century of living, and still battling it out. You might suspect that only eight feet of German soil will cause either of them to “outgrow” the BDG. If then. Perhaps, though, we can make some sense out of Schiller by recalling a comment from Kotov’s classic, Play Like a Grandmaster. In looking at attitudes shown toward the opening, Kotov mentions “ideas men.” These are players who are near the end of their careers, “when they lack the stimulus or ambition to make them work through current analysis of openings that they may have been keenly interested in their youth.” Perhaps “tired men” would also fit. The young player looks at this opening as one does a sports car, expecting high performance and continuous excitement. To that end, he is willing to keep up with the constant tune—ups, modifications, and overhauls needed to keep it in top running order. The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is a hot little number, but its Owner’s Manual has always cautioned, “for every refutation that the Black side recommends, improvements are found for White. For every White initiative, a better defense always seems to present itself for Black.” This can at times require a lot of work, however, and some players, at some point, might rather not. As we get older, might it not just be easier to send it to the shop for someone else to work on? Why not trade it in for a used station wagon and be done with it? Sigh. Gasp. Wheeze. Perhaps that is what Schiller means. Even so, I contest the notion!!! Some day it may well be discovered that the BDG was originally unearthed by Ponce de Leon, searching for the chessic “fountain of youth.” All who partook of its waters remained vibrant, dynamic and energetic, to the end of their days. They never became tired, “ideas” men. And regardless of their age, they always played for mate, from the first move. Rick wrote this for BDG World 30, published in March 1988, which explains the reference to Diemer and Gunderam, both now deceased, as being in their fourth quarter of life. These days Rick has a thing going for the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Check out his blog, called, appropriately enough, Jerome Gambit.