I had dismissed this line as unsound, but Lev suggests the straightforward 7.Nh3 (diagram) with some backup lines and games.
I have appended his comments below without modification.
Harding (1979:90) gives 7 Nh3! ef3 8 Qxf3 Nc6? 9 Bb5 Weissleder-Svensson, as cited in the German magazine Fernschach 1971. Bill Wall (1999:76)
supplies the rest of the game score, stating that it was a 1966 correspondence game. The game concluded 9…e6? 10 Bxc6+
bxc6 11 Qxc6+ Nd7 12 Nf4 Bxc2 13 Nb5
Ba4 [13…Rc8 – Wall] 14 Nxc7+ Ke7 15 Ng6+ Kf6 16 h5 Bb4+ 17 Ke2 Bb5+ 18 Qxb5 1-0, Game
50a.
Game 50b: Zilbermints – “Reboare”, Internet Chess
Club 5-minute blitz, 9/8/2012: 7
Nh3! exf3 8 Qxf3 Nc6 9 Bb5 e6 10 Nf4 Bxc2 11 Bxc6+ bxc6 12 Qxc6+ Nd7 13 Nb5
Bb4+ 14 Kf2 00 15 Qxc2 c5 16 a3 Ba5 17 Be3 cxd4 18 Nxd4 e5 19 Nc6 Qf6 20 g5 exf4
21 gxf6 fxe3 22 Kg2 Bb6 23 Ne7+ Kh8 24 fxg7 Kxg7 25 Kh3 1-0.
In modern times, the
move 7 Nh3 is Gary Lane’s recommendation. He gives the game S. Elgstrand – K. Honfi,
Semi-Final World Correspondence championship 1959 (Game 51). Scheerer (2011:125) gives 7…exf3 8 Qxf3 c6 9 Nf4! Bc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Nd5 12 g6! Bxg6 (not 12…Nxc3? 13 gxf7+! Kxf7 14 Ne6+ Kxe6 15
Bh3+ Kd6 16 Qg3+ and mates) 13 Ncxd5 cxd5 14 Nxg6 fxg6 15 Rf2.
According to Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World #29, December 1987, Karol Honfi Sr. was a Hungarian candidate master who played the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit extensively in the 1950s and 1960s. His son, International Master Karol Honfi Jr., also played the BDG occasionally. The article’s author is Niels Jorge Jensen. He cites the German-language book Gambit Eroffnungen , by Laszlo Alfoldi, as saying that both Honfis promoted the BDG in Hungary. Finally, it must be mentioned that some sources give the date of Game 51 incorrectly. It is 1959, not 1955 or 1950, as some sources have it! Harding gives the 1959 date. Fortunately, I have a photocopy of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Volume 2, Number 7, dated July 1963. It was a small newsletter published by Nicholas Kampars between 1962-1967. The date given there is 1959. The German chesslive.de site gives the date 1958. So, which is the correct one? I think that the 1959 date is the accurate one. Diemer’s book was not published until 1957. Thus, few people outside of Germany would have heard of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. Indeed, the first BDG in America since Blackmar’s time as Diemer put it, was not played until 1955.
According to Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World #29, December 1987, Karol Honfi Sr. was a Hungarian candidate master who played the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit extensively in the 1950s and 1960s. His son, International Master Karol Honfi Jr., also played the BDG occasionally. The article’s author is Niels Jorge Jensen. He cites the German-language book Gambit Eroffnungen , by Laszlo Alfoldi, as saying that both Honfis promoted the BDG in Hungary. Finally, it must be mentioned that some sources give the date of Game 51 incorrectly. It is 1959, not 1955 or 1950, as some sources have it! Harding gives the 1959 date. Fortunately, I have a photocopy of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Volume 2, Number 7, dated July 1963. It was a small newsletter published by Nicholas Kampars between 1962-1967. The date given there is 1959. The German chesslive.de site gives the date 1958. So, which is the correct one? I think that the 1959 date is the accurate one. Diemer’s book was not published until 1957. Thus, few people outside of Germany would have heard of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. Indeed, the first BDG in America since Blackmar’s time as Diemer put it, was not played until 1955.
Game 51: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7
Nh3 c6 8 Nf4 Qd6 9 Be3 e5 10 Nxg6 fxg6 11 dxe5 Qxe5 12 f4 Qa5 13 g5
hxg5 14 fxg5 Nd5 15 Qg4 Nd7 16 Qxe4+ Ne7 17 O-O-O O-O-O 18 Bh3 Nf5 19 h5 Rxh5 20 Qe6 Bc5 21
Bf4 Bd4 22 Qxg6 Bxc3 23 bxc3 1-0 S.
Elgstrand – K. Honfi Jr., Semi-Final World Correspondence Championship, 1959.
David Robert Lonsdale (2009)
gives the date 1950 for the Elgstrand - Honfi Jr. game. But this cannot be correct, since Gunderam
invented his attack only in 1955/1956.
The earliest publication of the Gunderam Attack is from 1956, in an
Austrian chess periodical.
Game 52: (Moves 1-7 same as in Game 51) 7 Nh3 c6 8
Bc4? exf3 9 h5?! f2+
10 Nxf2 Bh7 11 Be3 Nbd7 12
Bb5 e6 13 Qf3 Nd5 14 Nfe4 Nxe3 15 Qxe3 Be7 16 d5 cxd5 17 Nxd5 Bxe4 18 Qxe4 exd5 19 Qxd5 00 20 000 Nc5 0-1, Jose Miguel Loscos Vilafranca – Antonio
Hernando Garcia, Spain 1993.
Game 52a: (Moves 1-7 as in game 51) 7 Nh3 c5 8 d5 Qc7 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bxg6 12 Nb5 Qe5 13 Nxg6 hxg6 14 f4 Qf6 15 Nc7 Kd8 16 Nxa8 e6 17 dxe6 Qxe6 18 Bh3 Qc6 19 00 Be7 20 Be3 Bxh4 21 Qd2 Rf8 ++ - 1-0/35, Zilbermints – “JohnnyBallgame,” ICC 5-minute rated blitz, 6/17/2013.
Game 52b: (Moves 1-7 as in game 51) 7 Nh3 c5
8 d5 a6 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bg8 12 gxf7+ Bxf7 13 fxe4 Ne5 14 Bh3
g6 15 Nd3 Bg7 16 Nxc5 00 17 Nd3 Qb6 18 Nf2 Kh7 19 00 Be8 20 Kg2 Nf3 21 Ng4
Nxh4+ 22 Kh1 Rxf1+ 23 Qxf1 Bd7 24 Qf4 Bxg4 25 Qxg4 Qf2 26 Bf4 Nd7 27 Bg3 Qf3+
28 Qxf3 Nxf3 29 Bxd7 1-0, Zilbermints –
“sunlen”, ICC, 5 0 rated blitz, August 2013.
Game 53: (Moves 1-7 same as in Game 51) 7 Nh3 exf3 8
Nf4 Be4 9 Nxe4 Nxe4 10 Qxf3 Qxd4 11 c3
Qe5 12 Be3 c6 13 Bg2 Nf6 14 000 Qa5 15
g5 hxg5 16 hxg5 Rxh1 17 Bxh1 Nfd7 18 g6 Qxa2 19 gxf7+ Qxaf7 20 Qg4 e5 21 Be4
Kd8 22 Ne6+ 23 Bg6 Qg8 24 Bc5 Bxc5 25 Nxc5 Qd8 26 Bf5 1-0, Laurent Tinture – Daniel Mostowik, ICCF correspondence, 1997.
Game 53a: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4
Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Nf4 Bxc2 10 Be3 Qa5 11 Bd3 Bxd3 12 Nd3 Nbd7
13 00 g5 14 h5 Bg7 15 Rae1 000 16 a4 Rhf8 17 b4 Qc7 18 Bf2 Nb6 19 b5 Nc4 20 bc6
bc6 21 Re7 Qe7 22 Qc6 Qc7 23 Qa6+ Kb8 24 Rb1+ Ka8 25 Nb5 Qd3 ½ - ½ /51 moves, Shaw – Quinatar, correspondence 1972.
Game 53b: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3
c6 9 Nf4 Bxc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Ng8 12 g6 Bg6 13 Ng6 fxg6 14 Bd3 Qd6 15 Rg2 ++-,
1-0/23, Zilbermints-Tiva, ICC 5-minute
rated blitz, 4/12/2013.
Game 54: (Moves 1-7 same as in Game 51) 7 Nh3 exf3 8
Qxf3 c6 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bxg6 12 Nxg6 fxg6 13 Bd3 Nf6 14 Bxg6+ Kd7 15
Bf4 e6 16 000 Bd6 17 Be5 Qe7 18 Rhf1 Rf8
19 Bxd6 Qxd6 20 d5 cxd5 21 Ne4
Qe5 22 Nc5+ Kc6 23 Rfe1 Qd6 24 Rxe6 Kxc5 25 Qa3+ 1-0, Zilbermints – “FishPuppy”, 5-minute blitz, Internet Chess Club, 2012.
Game 54a: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4
Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Nf4 Bh7 10 g5 Nfd7 11 g6 Bg8 12 gxf7+ Bxf7 13
Bd3 Nf6 14 Be3 Nbd7 15 h5 Qa5 16 000 000 17 Ng6 Rg8 18 Kb1 Kb8 19 Bf4+ Ka8 20
Bg3 e6 21 Ne5 Be8 22 Bg6 Bb4 23 Ne2 Nxe5 24 Bxe5 Bxg6 25 hxg6 Rgf8 26 Qh3 Rfe8
27 Bxf6 gxf6 29 Qxh6 Qf5 29 g7 Rg8 30 Qh8 Qg6 31 Rdg1 Qf7 32 Qh6 Be7 33 c3 f5
34 Nf4 Bf6 35 Nh5 Be7 36 Re1 Rd6 37 Rhg1 e5 38 Qh7 exd4 39 Rxe7! 1-0, Zilbermints – IM Christer Hartmann, 5 0 r
blitz, ICC, 12/23/2012.
The main alternative to 9 Nf4 seems to be 9 Be3.
However, at the present moment, it seems to be doubtful in light of the two
games played with it (Games 54a-54b).
Game 54b: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Be3?! Bxc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Nd5 12 Bc4 e6 13 Rf2 Bf5, 0-1/50, Zilbermints – “Gateway”, ICC 3 0 rated blitz, 7/26/2013.
Game 54c: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 Be3?! Bxc2 10 Rh2 Bh7 11 g5 Nbd7 12 gf6 Nf6 13 Bc4 e6 14 000 Qe7 15 Bd3?! Better is 15 Rf1 with continuing pressure. 15…Bxd3 16 Rxd3 000 17 Rf2 Rd7 18 Rf4 Qd8 19 Bh2 Bd6 20 Bd6 Rd6 21 Rfd2 Qd7 22 Nf2 Rhd8 23 Nfe4 Nxe4 24 Nxe4 Rd5 25 Nb3 g5! =+, 0-1/37+, Zilbermints – NM Juan Tica, Rahway Swiss, New Jersey, 7/13/2013.
Game 54d: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 e5 8 dxe5 Qd1 9 Kd1 Nfd7 10 Nd5 Kd8 11 f4 c6 +/= , Zilbermints – IM Dmitry Zilberstein, ICC, 5 minute rated blitz, 6/25/2013, drawn in 59 moves.
Game 54e: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4
Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 exf3 8 Qf3 c6 9 g5?! Nd5 10 Nxd5 Qxd5 11 Qxd5 cxd5 12 Bg2 e6
13 c3 hxg5 14 hxg5 Nc6 15 00 Bd6 16 Bf4 Be7 17 Rae1 Bf5 18 Re3, 0-1, Weegenaar
- Verschuuren, corr NLD jub, 1991.
It should be noted that after 7 Nh3 e6
there is the premature attacking move 8 g5?!
which I personally would not make. The game Christian Maier – Robert
Sutterer, Kirchhelm 1982, continued
8…hxg5 9 hxg5 Nd5 10 Ne4 Nc6 11 Bb5 Qd7
12 Qe2 a6 13 Bxc6 Qxc6 14 c4 Nb6 15 b3 000 =+ although drawn in 55 moves, Game 55.
Game 56: 7 Nh3 e6 8 g5?! hxg5 9 hxg5 Nd5 10 Ne4 c6 11 Bd3 Bf5 12 Nef2 Bb4 13
Kf1 Nd7 14 Qe2 g6 15 c4 Nc7 16 Be3 Ke7 17 Kg2 Ne8 18 d5 cxd5 19 Bd4 Rh4 20 f4
dc4 21 Bxf5 Bxf5 22 Qc4 Bd6 23 Rae1 Nf8 24 Kg3 Ng6 25 Qc3 Kf8 26 Nd3 Rc8 27 Qb3
b6 28 Rxe6 Rg4+ 29 Kf3 Nh4+ 30 Ke2 fxe6 0-1, Alejandro Melchor Munoz – Niels Joergen Jensen, correspondence 1990.
Game 57: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4
Bg6 6 h4 h6 7
Nh3 e6 8 Nf4 Bh7 9 Be3 Bb4 10 Bg2 exf3 11 Bxf3 Be4 12 a3 Bxc3+ 13
bxc3 Bxf3 14 Qxf3 Nd5 15 Bd2 Nd7 16 Nxd5 exd5 17 Qxd5 c6 18 Qe4+ Qe7 19 Qxe7+
Kxe7 20 Kf2 Nf6 21 Rae1+ Kd7 22 Kf3 Rhe8 23 c4 Rxe1 24 Rxe1 Re8 25 g5 Rxe1 26
Bxe1 hxg5 27 hxg5 Ne8 28 Bg3 Nd6 29 Bxd6 Kxd6 30 a4 Ke6 31 Ke4 Kd6 32 c5+ Ke6
33 a5 f5+ 34 gxf6 gxf6 35 c4 b6 36 cxb6 axb6 37 a6 1-0, Ole Dravnieks – Buckingham, corr. 1988.
Game 58: (Moves 1-7 same) 7 Nh3 e6 8 h5 Bh7 9 a3 Bd6 10 f4 Nd5 11 Nb5 a6 12 Nxd6+ cxd6 13
c4 Ne7 14 Be3 d5 15 Qb3 Qd7 16 f5 exf5 17 Nf4 fxg4 18 Be2 Bf5 19 cxd5 00 20 Rd8
21 Rhf1 Qc7+ 22 Kb1 Nd7 23 Ng6 Bxg6 24 hxg6 Qd6 25 gxf7+ Kf8 += 1-0/45, Mikael Helin – Kaj Vinding Pedersen,
Copenhagen 2003.
Let us now see what Scheerer says in his book. After 7 Nh3 Nc6! looks good. Then 8 Bb5 e6 9 Nf4 ( or 9 g5 hxg5 10 hxg5 Bh5!) 9…Qd6 10 fxe4 Bxe4 11 Rg1 000 White had less than nothing for the pawn in K. Boese – A. Kiprov, corr. 1961, Game 59.
Let us now see what Scheerer says in his book. After 7 Nh3 Nc6! looks good. Then 8 Bb5 e6 9 Nf4 ( or 9 g5 hxg5 10 hxg5 Bh5!) 9…Qd6 10 fxe4 Bxe4 11 Rg1 000 White had less than nothing for the pawn in K. Boese – A. Kiprov, corr. 1961, Game 59.
My chess practice disagrees with Scheerer’s analyses. After 7…Nc6! the best move for White is 8 Be3 (Games 62 – 63).
Game 60: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7
Nh3 e6 8 Nf4 Bh7?
9 g5! Nd5 10 Ncd5 ed5 11 g6 Bxg6 12 Nxg6 fxg6 13 fxe4 Be7 14 Qg4 00 15 e5!
g5 16 Qe6+ Kh8 17 Bd3! Rf3 18 hxg5! Rxd3
19 cd3 Bxg5 20 Qg6 Bxc1 21 Rc1 Nc6 22 Kd2! Nxd4 23 Rxh6+!! Kg8 24 Qh7+ Kf8 25
Rf1+ Ke8 26 Qxg7 Qe7 27 Qh8+ Kd7 28 Rf7 Nf3+ 29 Kc1, 1-0, Zilbermints – Roger Pedersen, West Orange, NJ, Double Round-Robin Quad,
8/7/2012.
Game 61: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7
Nh3 Nc6 8 Be3 exf3 9 Qxf3 e5 10 Bb5 e4 11 Qg3 Bb4 12 00 00 13 Bxc6 bxc6 14 Nf4 Bd6
15 Qh3 Qe7 16 g5 hxg5 17 hxg5 Nd5 18 Nfd5 cxd5 19 Nxd5 Qd8 20 Nf6+ gxf6 21 gxf6
Qc8 22 Qh4 Rb8 23 Kg2 Rb5 24 Bg5
Rb2 25 Rac1 Qa6 26 Rf2 Rfb8 27
Qh6 1-0, Zilbermints – IM Rudy Douven,
Internet Chess Club, 5-minute
blitz, 5/29/2011.
Game 62: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4
3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 Bf5 5 g4 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nh3 Nc6 8 Be3 e5 9 d5 Nd4 10 Bxd4 exd4 11 Qxd4 a6 12 Nxe4?
Better is 12 000! according to my chess computer. Then 12…Bd6 13 g5 hxg5 14 hxg5 Nd7 15 Ne4 Be5
16 Qe3 Qe7 17 Bg2 Qb4 with a slight edge for White. On 12…exf3 13 Re1+ Be7 14 g5! hg5 15 hg5 Nh5 16 Nf4! +=
12…Ne4! 13 fxe4 Qxh4+ 14 Nf2 Qe7 =+ 0-1/58, Zilbermints – “PalmTree”, Internet Chess Club 5-minute blitz,
5/17/2005.Thanks Lev for sharing this with us - impressive stuff - maybe I have to reconsider my opinion on this line.
Thank you, Guido. I wish to point out that the game numbers in the excerpt correspond to the ones I found. My manuscript contains something like 200+ games with the Gunderam Attack, from 1956 - 2014. It is THE reference on this line. The manuscript is 50+ pages long. If diagrams were included, it easily could go to over double or even triple that number.
ReplyDeletegame 62. 9..-Nb4 looks crushing too me
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nico. 9...Nb4 is crushing. Our friend Lev has a lot of practical experience and success in this line; he is a forminable opponent in a blitz game. 7...Nc6 is critical to the theory. 8.Bb5 seems better than the natural 8.Be3. I have done some analysis on this for a future blog. Good collection of information Guido!
ReplyDeleteI have more games with 7...Nc6 8 Bb5!. However, I am not going to show all my cards right now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete