Saturday, August 10, 2013

Back again - the value of development

I am back agaon from a two week holiday in France where I met some interesting chess-related people, but more on that later.

My first 3 minute game after I came home showed how to take advantage of a player that refuses to develop his minor pieces..., a deadly sin Blackmar Diemer gambiteers never fall into.

Guido De Bouver - ??
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Qe7 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nc3 (diagram)

4...Nxe5 5.e4 (diagram)
A strong reply. I used to play this kind of gambits myself, but stopped doing so after a number of awfull defeats.

5...Nf6 6.Nxe5 Qxe5 7.f4 Qa5 8.Bd2 (diagram)
White's advantage is obvious.

8...Qb6 ??
Refusing to develop pieces...

9.e5 Ng8 10.Qf3 (diagram)
Black's position is tragicomic.

At last, a minor piece is developed - but too late...

Missing the immediate punishment 11.Nd5

11...d6 12.Nd5
Now I saw it

12...Qc5 13.Bb4 (diagram)

Black resigns as he will loose his majesty ( eg 13...Qc6 14.Bb5 )

 A fair punishment for playing a gambit whilst not developing !


  1. Hi Guido, so you play as white here? Black has no hope here, as white player is a master of Blackmar Diemer gambit. Look at the blog url blackmardiemergambit dot blogspot ;)

  2. The position after move 4 could also have arisen from the Nimzowitsch Defence, 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5 Nxe5 4.Nf3 Qe7 (here 4...Qf6 is probably a better version since Black doesn't block in the f8-bishop: 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 Ne7 with just a small edge for White).

    In your game Black could have tried 7...Qe6, e.g. 8.Qd4 b6 9.Bc4 Bc5 +/= (similar to a line suggested by Stefan Bucker) or 8...c6 9.e5 Nd5 +/=, but White certainly has some advantage.

    I used to play the Englund Gambit myself but lost faith in it after discovering a major theoretical flaw in the 4.Bf4 line and having a few bruising experiences on the black side of the 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.e4 variation.