The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit (or BDG ) is a chess opening characterized by the moves:
91-635: C13 or C-13 may refer to: French Defence , Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings code C13 White Lead (Painting) Convention, 1921 C13 grenade , the Canadian Forces designation for a M67 grenade Autovia C-13 , a highway in Catalonia in Spain Caterpillar C13 Engine , an engine by Caterpillar Inc. HMS C13 , a 1906 British C-class submarine IEC 60320 C13 ,
182-468: A pawn structure commonly found in the French. Black has more space on the queenside, so tends to focus on that side of the board, almost always playing ...c7–c5 early on to attack White's pawn chain at its base, and may follow up by advancing the a- and b-pawns. Position after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4 Qb6 6.Nf3 Nh6 Alternatively or simultaneously, Black will play against White's centre, which
273-472: A book on the opening in the late 1950s, titled Vom Ersten Zug An Auf Matt! ( Toward Mate From The First Move! ), with most of the published analysis devoted to the Ryder Gambit (and associated Halosar Trap ), a double-pawn sacrifice characterized by the moves 4...exf3 5.Qxf3. This gambit is considered an aggressive opening, but its soundness continues to be the subject of much debate both on and off
364-602: A branching point: There are alternative strategies to 3...c5 that were tried in the early 20th century such as 3...b6, intending to fianchetto the bad bishop and which can transpose to Owen's Defence . Also possible is 4...Qb6 5.Nf3 Bd7 intending 6...Bb5 to trade off the "bad" queen's bishop. Playing 3...Nc6 is a misguided attempt to reach the Hecht Reefschlager Variation or the Guimard Variation. Many players who begin with 1.e4 find that
455-420: A different move order: 3.Nd2 dxe4. White has freer development and more space in the centre, which Black intends to neutralise by playing ...c7–c5 at some point. This solid line has undergone a modest revival, featuring in many grandmaster (GM) games as a drawing weapon but theory still gives White a slight edge. After 3...dxe4 4.Nxe4, Black has the following options: 3...Nc6 is the Hecht Reefschlager Variation,
546-441: A drawish endgame with 4.dxe5, e.g. 4...Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Nxe4 Nxe5, or 5.Nxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4, with equality and few winning chances for either side. Since these positions typically do not attract gambiteers, White often chooses a riskier response in order to generate winning chances, such as 4.Qh5, 4.Nge2 or 4.Nxe4. Both 4.Qh5 and 4.Nge2 are well met by 4...Nc6!, when Black has good chances of obtaining an advantage, while against 4.Nxe4
637-479: A name coined by John Watson . This sideline has been played by Aron Nimzowitsch and many other players. One rare sideline after 3.Nc3 is 3...c6, which is known as the Paulsen Variation, after Louis Paulsen . It can also be reached via a Caro–Kann Defence move order (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 e6). The Tarrasch Variation is named after Siegbert Tarrasch . This move became particularly popular during
728-426: A natural stable isotope of carbon Malignant neoplasm of hypopharynx ICD-10 code C13/C14 Coupler , a class of cable connector used by most desktop computers [REDACTED] Topics referred to by the same term This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title formed as a letter–number combination. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to
819-685: A normal Sicilian Defence , and 3.c3, transposing into a line of the Alapin Sicilian (usually arrived at after 1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4) are also common. Play may also lead back to the French; for example, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.c3 d5 4.e5 transposes into the Advance Variation . Another move is 2...b6, which transposes into Owen's Defence or the English Defence . Also possible is 2...f5, the Franco-Hiva Gambit, but this
910-482: A pawn on b7 in order to catch up on development, and in some cases secure a positional advantage. White often does best to continue with a gambit policy and simply continue developing. The main line runs 6...Nd6 7.Bf4 e6 8.0-0-0 c6 9.g4 Bg6 10.Qe3 Be7, when Black is solid, but White retains enough compensation for the pawn. Alternatively, 5.g4 aims to regain the pawn in most cases, e.g. after 5...Bg6 6.g5 Nd5 7.Nxe4 Nc6 8.Bb5 e6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Ne2 c5 11.dxc5 Nb4, when in
1001-601: A pawn with a subsequent f3. 3...Bf5 is well met by 4.f3, and if 4...exf3 then 5.Qxf3 attacking the bishop (thus Black may be better off transposing to the Vienna Defence with 4...Nf6). 3...c6 and 3...e6 transpose to the Caro–Kann Defence and French Defence respectively, and in the former case White can continue in Blackmar–Diemer Gambit style with 4.f3 or 4.Bc4 intending 5.f3 (which often transposes to
SECTION 10
#17327826662791092-427: A piece attack, White may play for the advance of the kingside pawns (an especially common idea in the endgame), which usually involves f2–f4, g2–g4 and then f4–f5 to use the spatial advantage on that side of the board. A white pawn on f5 can be very strong as it may threaten to capture on e6 or advance to f6. Sometimes pushing the h-pawn to h5 or h6 may also be effective. A modern idea is for White to gain space on
1183-503: A polarised, three pole plug used in electric power cables LNER Class C13 , a 4-4-2T steam locomotive class of 1907, built for suburban passenger services around London OTO Melara C13 Sauber C13 , a 1994 racing car Caldwell 13 ( NGC 457 , the Owl Cluster or ET Cluster), an open star cluster in the constellation Cassiopeia The 13th century in music , a chord with the structure 1 - 3 - 5 - b7 - 9 - 13 Carbon-13 ,
1274-657: A position resembling those arising from the Rubinstein Variation. However, here Black has the bishop pair, with greater dynamic chances (although White's knight is well placed on e4), so this line is more popular than the Rubinstein and has long been a favourite of Evgeny Bareev . Black can also try 5...Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6, as played by Alexander Morozevich and Gregory Kaidanov ; by following up with ...f5 and ...Bf6, Black obtains active piece play in return for his shattered pawn structure. Another line that resembles
1365-482: A reversal of roles, White has an extra pawn but Black has the initiative and a superior pawn structure. White can use 5.g4 as a gambit option by continuing with 6.h4!?, which leads to sharp play and approximately equal chances. The push with 4...e3 is often used by strong players to avoid the complications arising from 4...exf3 5.Nxf3, but it is one of Black's weaker options against the Blackmar–Diemer as returning
1456-588: A solid position. The move 5...Bg4 pins the knight on f3, often with the intention of swapping it off and undermining White's central control. White's best response is to attack the bishop immediately with 6.h3, when play often continues 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 c6 (but not 7...Nc6, when 8.Bb5 is good for White). In this position, White can defend the attacked d-pawn with 8.Qf2 (the Ciesielski Variation ), but this allows Black an easy game by preparing ...e7–e5, e.g. after 8...Nbd7 9.Bd3 e5. Alternatively, 8.Be3
1547-442: A sustained kingside initiative in return for the pawn. However, Black also has the option 6...c6 intending 7.g4 Be6, when White has to play accurately to prove enough compensation for the pawn after 8.g5 Nd5 or 8.Bc4 Nd5 9.Qe2 Nd7. White has an alternative in 6.Bd3, directly challenging the bishop, but Christoph Scheerer doubts that White gets enough compensation after 6...Bxd3 7.Qxd3 c6 intending ...e6, ...Nbd7, ...Be7 and ...0-0 with
1638-399: Is 3...Nc6 !? 4.Nf3 Nf6 with the idea of 5.e5 Ne4; German IM Helmut Reefschlaeger has been fond of this move. It is incredibly dense in theory. This variation, named after Szymon Winawer and pioneered by Nimzowitsch and Botvinnik, is one of the main systems in the French, due chiefly to the latter's efforts in the 1940s, becoming the most often seen rejoinder to 3.Nc3, though in the 1980s,
1729-418: Is 6.Ne5, intending to attack the black bishop with an advance of the kingside pawns and, if appropriate, weaken Black's kingside pawn structure with Ne5xBg6. Black can respond with 6...e6, when after 7.g4, 7...Be4 leads to tremendous complications, e.g. after 8.Nxe4 Nxe4 9.Qf3 Qxd4 10.Qxf7+ Kd8 11.Qf4. More common is 7...Bg6, which leads to quieter play, when White's best response is probably 8.Bg2 c6 9.h4, with
1820-592: Is 7.Bd3. Black can attack the centre immediately with 7...c5!? here, as recommended by Joe Gallagher and James Rizzitano. Play can continue 8.dxc5 Qa5 9.0-0 Qxc5+ 10.Kh1, when White has to play accurately to prove compensation for the pawn. Alternatively 7...Nc6 can be considered the main line of this variation, when 8.0-0 Nxd4 9.Kh1 is the notorious Zilbermints Gambit , sacrificing a second pawn in order to increase White's initiative. The Zilbermints Gambit has scored well in practice, but objectively it probably does not give White enough compensation for two pawns. However,
1911-504: Is 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9. Qd2 Bxd4 10.Bxd4 Nxd4 11. Qxd4 Qb6 12.Qxb6 Nxb6, This line has been referred to as the Vacuum Cleaner Variation. In these lines, White has the option of playing either Qd2 and 0-0-0, or Be2 and 0-0, with the former typically leading to sharper positions due to opposite-side castling when Black castles kingside in both cases. This variation is named after Akiba Rubinstein and can also arise from
SECTION 20
#17327826662792002-531: Is 9.Be3. Black can prevent this 6.Bd3 possibility by using O'Kelly's move order 4...c6. Alternatively, White can offer a second pawn with 5.Qxf3. Gary Lane argued in 2000 that White has serious problems proving enough compensation for the sacrificed pawns after 5... Qxd4 6. Be3 Qg4 7.Qf2 e5. Black can also decline the pawn with 5...c6 or 5...e6, holding the position. The Halosar Trap (named after Hermann Halosar) follows after 6... Qb4 7.0-0-0 Bg4? 8.Nb5! threatening mate with 9.Nxc7#. The black queen cannot capture
2093-515: Is another major system in the French. This position was seen as so normal so no-one thought about claiming it. White can continue with the following options: White threatens 5.e5, attacking the pinned knight. Black has a number of ways to meet this threat. Named after Amos Burn , the Burn Variation is the most common reply at the top level. 4...dxe4 5.Nxe4 and usually there now follows: 5...Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Nf3 Nd7 or 7...0-0, resulting in
2184-490: Is better for Black) 8...c5 9.Qf4!? cxd4 10.Rxd4 or 7...h6 8.Bh4 (8.Bf4 is also possible, aiming to keep the Bxh6 sacrifice possibility open, but allowing 8...Bb4 9.Bc4 Ne4) 8...Ne4 9.Nxe4 Bxh4+ 10.g3 Be7 11.Bg2, when White has some compensation for the pawn but the final verdict on the resulting positions is still yet to be reached. The Bogoljubov Defence was played by Diemer himself in a game against Bogoljubov. By fianchettoing
2275-417: Is cramping Black's position. In the unlikely case that the flank attack ...c7–c5 is insufficient to achieve counterplay, Black can also try ...f7–f6. In many positions, White may support the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, with ideas of f4–f5, but the primary drawback to the advance of the f-pawn is opening of the g1–a7 diagonal, which is particularly significant due to the black queen's oft-found position on b6 and
2366-405: Is good for Black and other bishop moves allow Black to achieve superior versions of standard Blackmar–Diemer Gambit variations. 4...c6 also has some independent value, for example Evgeny Bareev used the continuation 5.f3 b5!? in a game against Nigel Short , achieving a superior position after 6.Bb3 Be6 7.fxe4 b4 8.Nce2 Nxe4, but 8.Na4!? improves for White and may give sufficient compensation for
2457-519: Is now readily answered by 4.c3. On the other hand, 3.Nd2 develops the knight to an arguably less active square than 3.Nc3, and in addition, it hems in White's dark-square bishop. Hence, White will typically have to spend an extra tempo moving the knight from d2 at some point before developing said bishop. The main line of the Advance Variation continues 3...c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 and then we have
2548-521: Is regarded as dubious. The French Defence is named after a match played by correspondence between the cities of London and Paris in 1834 (although earlier examples of games with the opening do exist). It was Jacques Chamouillet , one of the players of the Paris team, who persuaded the others to adopt this defence. As a reply to 1.e4, the French Defence received relatively little attention in
2639-574: Is the Classical Variation , where White aims for a slow buildup to a kingside offensive. White's other main alternative is 8.g4!?, the Seidel–Hall Attack , where White is happy to sacrifice the d-pawn in order to gain an increased initiative on the kingside, e.g. after 8...Qxd4 9.Be3 Qe5 10.0-0-0 e6 11.g5. Black can decline the pawn, e.g. after 8...e6 9.g5 Nd5 10.Bd3, leading to sharp play. Alternatively, after 6.h3, Black can retreat
2730-558: Is the Torning Gambit which occurs after 4. g4 Bg6 5. Qe2!? If Black gets greedy and captures 5...Qxd4, White gets a nice game after 6.Qb5+. Tim Sawyer's books mention several games played by Richard Torning who originally played this gambit in the 1980s. A trap is Richard Torning (1809) – amol52 (1424) [D00] (bullet 18.12.2016): 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Bf5 3.e4 dxe4 4.g4 Bg6 5.Qe2 Qxd4 6.Qb5+!? Qd7?? 7.Qxb7 Qc6 8.Qc8#. Gary Danelishen, author of The Final Theory of Chess , posted analysis of
2821-505: Is unclear, but most likely Black would be considered "comfortable" here. The purpose behind 7.a4 is threefold: it prepares Bc1–a3, taking advantage of the absence of Black's dark-square bishop. It also prevents Black from playing ...Qa5–a4 or ...Bd7–a4 attacking c2, and if Black plays ...b6 (followed by ...Ba6 to trade off the bad bishop), White may play a5 to attack the b6-pawn. World Champions Vasily Smyslov and Bobby Fischer both used this line with success. White also has 7.h4, which has
C13 - Misplaced Pages Continue
2912-431: Is why, for many years, the classical lines fell out of favour, and 3...Bb4 began to be seen more frequently after World War I , owing to the efforts of Nimzowitsch and Botvinnik . In Tarrasch–Teichmann, White won after 41 moves. In order to avoid this fate, Black usually makes it a priority early in the game to find a useful post for the bishop. Black can play ...Bd7–a4 to attack a pawn on c2, which occurs in many lines of
3003-484: The Alapin–Diemer Gambit (2...e6 3.Be3), or for instance 2...c6 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.f3 or 4.Bc4 intending 5.f3. After 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3, Black has five main options: The line 5...Bf5 (along with most of the ...c6/...Bf5 defences for Black in general) was extensively analysed by Gerhart Gunderam, who published his analysis in a book Blackmar–Diemer Gambit in 1984. The main response for White
3094-473: The Petroff . Conversely, if White declines to do this, Black may play ...c7–c5 himself, e.g. 4.Bd3 c5, as in the above-cited Tatai–Korchnoi game. If c2–c4 is not played, White and Black have two main piece setups. White may put his pieces on Nf3, Bd3, Bg5 (pinning the black knight), Nc3, Qd2 or the queen's knight can go to d2 instead and White can support the centre with c3 and perhaps play Qb3. Conversely, when
3185-669: The Queen's Gambit Declined ). Although 2...d5 is the most consistent move after 1.e4 e6 2.d4, Black occasionally plays other moves. Chief among them is 2...c5, the Franco-Benoni Defence , so-called because it features the ...c7–c5 push characteristic of the Benoni Defence . White may continue 3.d5, when play can transpose into the Benoni, though White has extra options since c2–c4 is not mandated. 3.Nf3, transposing into
3276-544: The knight because 8...Qxb5 9.Bxb5+ is check , gaining time for the white queen to escape the threat from the bishop. The line continues 8...Na6 9. Qxb7 Qe4 (Black lost in Diemer–Halosar, Baden-Baden 1934 , after 9...Rc8 10.Qxa6) 10. Qxa6 Qxe3+ (Worse is 10...Bxd1 11.Kxd1 Rd8+ 12.Bd2 and White is winning, for example 12...Ng4 13.Nxc7+ Kd7 14.Qxa7) 11. Kb1 Qc5 12. Nf3. Burgess wrote that "Although White has some advantage, Black has avoided instant loss". Many sources recommend
3367-500: The 1970s and early 1980s when Anatoly Karpov used it to great effect. Though less aggressive than the alternate 3.Nc3, it is still used by top-level players seeking a small, safe advantage. Like 3.Nc3, 3.Nd2 protects e4, but is different in several key respects: it does not block White's c-pawn from advancing, which means he can play c3 at some point to support his d4-pawn. Hence, it avoids the Winawer Variation as 3...Bb4
3458-648: The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is 5...c6, known as the Ziegler Defence due to Diemer's tendency to name lines after opponents that first played them against him, but most of the theory of the line was established by Gerhart Gunderam, who advocated 5...Bf5. Most modern authors recommend this as Black's antidote to the BDG, sometimes via O'Kelly's move order 4...c6. The old main line runs 6.Bc4 Bf5 7.0-0 e6 8.Ne5, when Black should avoid 8...Bxc2?! 9.Nxf7!, but instead play 8...Bg6!, when White ends up with very little to show for
3549-579: The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is like shopping for a tombstone" (Andrew Martin) and "To convince an adherent of the BDG that it is unsound, is like trying to convince a child that there is no Santa Claus." (Kevin Denny). As a result of the intense controversy surrounding the opening, much of the literature on the opening is lacking in objectivity. GM Boris Avrukh has written that the gambit "may not be fully correct" but cautioned that he "was surprised at just how potent White's initiative could become". Although he
3640-507: The Classical Variation with 3...Nf6 began a revival, and has since become more popular. 3...Bb4 pins the knight on c3, forcing White to resolve the central tension. White normally clarifies the central situation for the moment with 4.e5, gaining space and hoping to show that Black's b4-bishop is misplaced. The main line then is: 4...c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3, resulting in the diagrammed position. While White has doubled pawns on
3731-481: The French Defence is the most difficult opening for them to play against due to the closed structure and unique strategies of the system. Thus, many players choose to play the Exchange so that the position becomes simpler and more clearcut. White makes no effort to exploit the advantage of the first move, and has often chosen this line with expectation of an early draw, and indeed draws often occur if neither side breaks
C13 - Misplaced Pages Continue
3822-479: The German master Emil Josef Diemer (1908–1990), who popularized the continuation 3.Nc3 Nf6 and then 4.f3 (when 4...e5? is ineffective as 5.dxe5 hits Black's knight, and after 5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 the knight has to retreat to d7 or g8). The position resulting after 3... Nf6 4.f3 reflects the main line of the gambit accepted, although other Black responses on move three are possible. After many years of analysis, Diemer wrote
3913-523: The Hübsch gambit instead of accepting the Blackmar–Diemer as "sod's law dictates that [the reader would meet the gambit] in the third Saturday game of a weekender, when few of us are at our sharpest tactically ... one slip sees you getting torched." IM Willy Hendriks notes that the main lines of the Blackmar–Diemer (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 exf3 5.Nxf3) and the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3) have
4004-700: The Mega Database 2007, in 2006, 1...e6 was second only to the Sicilian in popularity. Historically important contributors to the theory of the defence include Mikhail Botvinnik , Viktor Korchnoi , Akiba Rubinstein , Aron Nimzowitsch , Tigran Petrosian , Lev Psakhis , Wolfgang Uhlmann and Rafael Vaganian . More recently, its leading practitioners include Evgeny Bareev , Alexey Dreev , Mikhail Gurevich , Alexander Khalifman , Smbat Lputian , Alexander Morozevich , Teimour Radjabov , Nigel Short , Gata Kamsky , and Yury Shulman . The Exchange Variation
4095-535: The O'Kelly Defence as a means of transposing to the Ziegler Defence while cutting out White's 6.Bd3 possibility, since White has nothing better than 5.Bc4, when 5...exf3 6.Nxf3 Bf5 transposes directly to the 6.Bc4 Bf5 variation of the Ziegler Defence. Alternatively, 5.Nxe4 is likely to land White in an inferior version of the Fantasy Variation of the Caro–Kann Defence , with equality at best in positions that may not attract Blackmar–Diemer players, 5.fxe4 e5!
4186-776: The O'Kelly Defence). After 3...e6, however, White cannot easily force a Blackmar–Diemer Gambit type position as 4.f3 Bb4 (which also comes up via the French Rubinstein Variation) is very bad for White. Another option for White is to play the Veresov Opening moves – without 3.Bg5. If Black responds with the Alburt Defence after 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Bf5 it can transpose into a type of BDG Zeller Defence after 3. e4 dxe4 . A new line only recently mentioned in Tim Sawyer's Blackmar–Diemer Books 5 and 8,
4277-593: The Rubinstein is 5...Nbd7 6.Nf3 Be7 (6...h6 is also tried) 7.Nxf6+ Bxf6. Named after Wilhelm Steinitz , the Steinitz Variation continues with 4.e5 Nfd7. Here 5.Nce2, the Shirov – Anand Variation, prepares to bolster the white pawn centre with c2–c3 and f2–f4; while 5.Nf3 transposes to a position also reached via the Two Knights Variation (2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4). The main line of
4368-523: The Steinitz is 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3. (Instead 7.Ne2 transposes to the Shirov–Anand Variation, while 7.Be2 ? cxd4 8.Nxd4 Ndxe5! 9.fxe5 Qh4+ wins a pawn for Black.) Here Black may step up the pressure on d4 by playing 7...Qb6 or 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6, begin queenside play with 7...a6 8.Qd2 b5, or continue kingside development by playing 7...Be7 or 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5. Another side-line for 7...cxd4
4459-697: The Winawer Variation. If Black's f-pawn has moved to f6, then Black may also consider bringing the bishop to g6 or h5 via d7 and e8. If White's light-square bishop is on the f1–a6 diagonal, Black can try to exchange it by playing ...b6 and ...Ba6, or ...Qb6 followed by ...Bd7–b5. Played in over 40% of all games after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, 3.Nc3 is the most commonly seen line against the French. Black has three main options, 3...Bb4 (the Winawer Variation ), 3...Nf6 (the Classical Variation ), and 3...dxe4 (the Rubinstein Variation ). An eccentric idea
4550-469: The alternative 8.a3, despite the loss of time, offers White good compensation for the pawn, and White can also consider 8.Qd2, allowing the trade of the bishop on d3 but avoiding any loss of time. White's main alternative to 7.Bd3 is 7.Qd2, aiming to castle queenside and giving additional support to the d4-pawn, while aiming to launch a kingside offensive with Qd2–f4 and meeting ...h6 with a dangerous Bxh6 sacrifice. Play can continue 7...0-0 8.0-0-0 (8.Bd3 c5!
4641-471: The bishop with 6...Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5, a line which often transposes to the Gunderam Defence line 5...Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.g4 Bg6 after a subsequent h3–h4, as White's extra tempo with h3 is not particularly useful. The 5...e6 line, analysed by Max Euwe , aims to reach a French Defence type position, but with Black having an extra pawn. Play usually continues 6.Bg5 Be7, when White's most popular option
SECTION 50
#17327826662794732-540: The centre of the board after ...Bxc5. White usually tries to exploit the extra space on the kingside , often playing for a mating attack. White tries to do this in the Alekhine –Chatard Attack, for example. Another example is the following line of the Classical French: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 0-0 8.Nf3 c5 9.Bd3 ( diagram ). White's light-square bishop eyes
4823-498: The chessboard. Dismissed by many masters on the one hand, and embraced enthusiastically by many amateurs on the other, many consider that Black has good chances of defending successfully and converting the extra pawn in the endgame , while theory suggests that Black has many ways to equalize . As a result, this opening is almost never seen in top-level play, but enjoys a certain popularity among club players. Some titled players, including International Master Gary Lane , consider
4914-416: The closely related Hübsch Gambit gave an equal game but that the Blackmar–Diemer provided "not really enough compensation" and there were "a number of areas where Black could fight for the advantage." Nevertheless, he cautioned that Black "inaccuracies can be swiftly punished" in the Blackmar–Diemer. IM John Cox wrote that the gambit was "objectively weak" but pragmatically recommended that Black should enter
5005-494: The dangerous, though probably objectively insufficient, second pawn sacrifice 7.g4, analysed extensively by Stefan Bücker. In the 5...c6 move order White has the alternative 6.Bd3, usually intending to sacrifice a second pawn after 6...Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 Qxd4, leading to sharp complications, though Black can transpose back to the Classical Variation of the Teichmann Defence with 8...e6, since White's only good response
5096-399: The declining of a Blackmar–Diemer Gambit after 1.d4 d5 2.e4 e6. White's options include defending the e4-pawn with 3.Nc3 or 3.Nd2, advancing it with 3.e5, or exchanging it with 3.exd5, each of which leads to different types of positions. Defending the pawn with 3.Bd3 allows 3...dxe4 4.Bxe4 Nf6, when Black gains either a tempo or the advantage of the two bishops . The diagram shows
5187-472: The diagrammed position was reached after fifteen moves of a Classical French. Black's position is passive because the light-square bishop is hemmed in by pawns on a6, b5, d5, e6 and f7. White will probably try to exchange Black's knight, which is the only one of Black's pieces that has any scope. Although it might be possible for Black to hold on for a draw , it is not easy and, barring any mistakes by White, Black will have few chances to create counterplay; this
5278-476: The diagrammed position, Black most frequently plays 6...Ne7 (The main alternative is 6...Qc7, which can simply transpose to main lines after 7.Qg4 Ne7, but Black also has the option of 7.Qg4 f5 or ...f6. 6...Qa5 has recently become a popular alternative). Now White can exploit the absence of Black's dark-square bishop by playing 7.Qg4, giving Black two choices: he may sacrifice his kingside pawns with 7...Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 but destroy White's centre in return,
5369-418: The few gambits available to White after 1.d4. The Blackmar–Diemer Gambit arose as a development of the earlier Blackmar Gambit, named after Armand Blackmar , a relatively little-known New Orleans player of the late 19th century who popularized its characteristic moves (1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.f3) and was the first player to publish analysis of the opening. The popularity of the original Blackmar Gambit, however,
5460-414: The heavy pressure on d4. In addition, many French Advance lines do not provide White with the time to play f2–f4 as it does not support the heavily pressured d4-pawn. For instance, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.f4? (if White plays Nf3, f4 will come much slower) 5...Qb6 6.Nf3 Nh6! and the knight will go to f5 to place fatal pressure on d4 and dxc5 will never be an option as the white king would be stuck in
5551-414: The highest levels. It is also a popular choice at the club level due to the availability of a simple, straightforward plan involving attacking chances and extra space. The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings includes an alphanumeric classification system for openings that is widely used in chess literature. Codes C00 to C19 are the French Defence, broken up in the following way (all apart from C00 start with
SECTION 60
#17327826662795642-487: The ideas of either pushing this pawn to h6 to cause more dark-square weaknesses in the Black kingside (if Black meets h5 with ...h6, White can play g4–g5), or getting the rook into the game via Rh3–g3. Black can also gain attacking chances in most lines: against 7.Qg4, Black will attack White's king in the centre; whereas against the other lines, Black can often gain an attack with ...0-0-0, normally combined with ...c4 to close
5733-414: The intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C13&oldid=1132320716 " Category : Letter–number combination disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages French Defence The French Defence is a chess opening characterised by
5824-463: The king's bishop Black aims to gain increased pressure against the d4-pawn following a subsequent ...c5. White's most common response is the Studier Attack , 6.Bc4 Bg7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Qe1, intending Qh4, Bh6 and piling pressure on the kingside, sacrificing pawns at d4 and c2 if appropriate. However, after Peter Leisebein's 8...Nc6 9.Qh4 Bg4!, it is doubtful if White obtains enough compensation for
5915-403: The lost pawn. Black cannot easily deviate from this line, since after 7...Nbd7 White continues 8.Qe2 e6 9.0-0-0, aiming to launch a strong attack down the e- and f-files, and if 9...Bb4 then 10.d5!. If White tries to enter this setup after 7...e6 8.Qe2, however, then 8...Bb4! prevents White from safely castling queenside, leaving White with insufficient compensation for the pawn. White also has
6006-637: The lost pawn. More dangerous for Black is 8.Ng5, the Alchemy Variation , where Black has to be careful not to fall for various sacrifices on e6 and f7, but White probably does not get enough compensation for the pawn after 8...Bg6 9.Ne2 Bd6. German FIDE master Stefan Bücker regards Black as clearly better after 10.Nf4 Bxf4 11.Bxf4 0-0, but Christoph Scheerer believes that White can generate attacking chances with 12.c3 h6 13.Qg4!?. In view of White's problems proving compensation in these lines, ChessCafe.com reviewer Carsten Hansen concluded, "despite all
6097-399: The most critical continuation is 4...Qxd4, when White can continue with either 5.Qe2 or 5.Bd3, with complications and some compensation for the pawn in either case, but it is unclear if it is enough. 3...f5 is an important option for Black, since 4.f3 is well met by 4...e5!, with some advantage for Black. Instead White does better to prevent ...e5 with 4.Bf4, and then obtain compensation for
6188-406: The moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5): Blackmar%E2%80%93Diemer Gambit where White intends to follow up with f3, usually on the fourth move. White obtains a tempo and a half-open f-file in return for a pawn, and as with most gambits , White aims to achieve rapid development and active posting of their pieces in order to rapidly build up an attack at the cost of the gambit pawn. It is one of
6279-419: The moves: This is most commonly followed by 2.d4 d5. Black usually plays ...c5 soon after, attacking White's pawn centre and gaining space on the queenside . The French has a reputation for solidity and resilience, although some lines such as the Winawer Variation can lead to sharp complications. Black's position is often somewhat cramped in the early game; in particular,
6370-436: The nineteenth century compared to 1...e5. The first world chess champion Wilhelm Steinitz said "I have never in my life played the French Defence, which is the dullest of all openings". In the early 20th century, Géza Maróczy was perhaps the first world-class player to make it his primary weapon against 1.e4. For a long time, it was the third most popular reply to 1.e4, behind only 1...c5 and 1...e5. However, according to
6461-721: The opening to be suitable at the club level and for young and improving players. In one of his Keybooks , the Rev Tim Sawyer said, "Stop playing for the endgame, play to end the game! Be a winner. Play the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit!" On the other hand, Sam Collins (in his book Understanding the Chess Openings ) noted the tendency for some Blackmar–Diemer fanatics to try to get the opening in every game, thus limiting their chess experience, and concluded, "Nobody who plays good chess plays this line, and nobody who plays good chess ever will." Other dismissive quotes include "playing
6552-504: The pawn against accurate play. An alternative approach is to castle queenside, play Bh6 and then launch the h-pawn against the black kingside. The best way to carry out this approach is via 6.Bf4, as 6.Bg5 (as played by Bogoljubov in his game against Diemer) is well met by 6...Bg7 7.Qd2 0-0 8.0-0-0 c5!, when Black stands better. If Black tries the same approach against 6.Bf4, i.e. 6...Bg7 7.Qd2 0-0 8.0-0-0 c5, then 9.d5 a6 10.d6! gives White good chances. Black's most critical response to
6643-422: The pawn in this way does not significantly slow down White's initiative, and thus Black struggles to fully equalize in this line. In most lines White must seek to place a knight on f4 (taking the sting out of ...Nd5) in order to secure an advantage. The Lemberger Counter-Gambit is an important alternative, where Black counterattacks against the d4-pawn instead of defending the attacked e4-pawn. White can head for
6734-401: The pawn on e6 can impede the development of the bishop on c8. Following the opening moves 1.e4 e6, the main line of the French Defence continues 2.d4 d5 (see below for alternatives). White sets up a pawn centre , which Black immediately challenges by attacking the pawn on e4. The same position can be reached by transposition from a Queen's Pawn Game after 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 or
6825-506: The pawn. Black can also try 5...Bf5, when White must play accurately to prove enough compensation, but probably obtains sufficient play after 6.g4 Bg6 7.g5 Nd5 8.fxe4 Nxc3 9.bxc3. The Vienna Defence was recommended by Matthias Wahls in his book Modernes Skandinavisch , where he saw it as a refutation of the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit. White can play for compensation for a pawn with 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Qf3, when both 6...Nxc3 and 6...Nd6 lead to complicated positions in which Black often tries to return
6916-651: The position is for White or Black to castle on opposite sides of the board. An example of this is the line 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.0-0 Nge7 8.Re1 Qd7 9.Nbd2 0-0-0 . After 1.e4 e6, the main variation continues 2.d4 d5, but White can try other ideas. There are also a few rare continuations after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, including 3.Bd3 (the Schlechter Variation), 3.Be3 (the Alapin Gambit), and 3.c4 (the Diemer – Duhm Gambit, which can also be reached via
7007-401: The queen's knight is on c3, the king's knight may go to e2 when the enemy bishop and knight can be kept out of the key squares e4 and g4 by f3. When the knight is on c3 in the first and last of the above strategies, White may choose either short or long castling . The positions are so symmetrical that the options and strategies are the same for both sides. Another way to unbalance
7098-415: The queenside by playing a2–a3 and b2–b4. If implemented successfully, this will further restrict Black's pieces. One of the drawbacks of the French Defence for Black is the queen's bishop , which is blocked in by the pawn on e6 and can remain passive throughout the game. An often-cited example of the potential weakness of this bishop is S. Tarrasch – R. Teichmann , San Sebastián 1912, in which
7189-417: The queenside, and then ...f6 to open up the kingside, where White's king often resides. If Black can accomplish this, White is often left without meaningful play, although ...c4 does permit White a4 followed by Ba3 if Black has not stopped this by placing a piece on a4 (for example, by Bd7–a4). 5th-move deviations for White include: 4th-move deviations for White include: Deviations for Black include: This
7280-458: The queenside, which form the basis for Black's counterplay, they can also help White since they strengthen his centre and give him a semi-open b-file. White has a spatial advantage on the kingside, where Black is even weaker than usual because he has traded off his dark-square bishop . Combined with the bishop pair, this gives White attacking chances, which he must attempt to use as the long-term features of this pawn structure favour Black. In
7371-471: The same engine evaluation, and philosophically wonders whether the two might have swapped places in an alternative history. It is easy for Black to decline the gambit on the second move with 2...e6 (leading to a French Defence ) or 2...c6 (leading to a Caro–Kann Defence ), although doing so does not eliminate White's ability to offer alternative gambits such as the Diemer–Duhm Gambit (2...e6 3.c4) or
7462-427: The smoke and mirrors, the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit still isn't viable beyond club-level or rapid-play games". However, Lev Gutman proposed the alternative 7.Bg5 e6 8.Nh4!? Bg6 9.Nxg6 hxg6 10.Qd3, intending to castle queenside and tie Black down to the f7-pawn, promising long-term positional compensation for the pawn. There are currently insufficient practical tests to determine whether it amounts to enough compensation for
7553-401: The so-called " Poisoned Pawn Variation "; or he can play 7...0-0 8.Bd3 Nbc6, which avoids giving up material, but leaves the king on the flank where White is trying to attack. A more recent alternative is 7...Kf8, which tries to make use of the locked pawn centre (the king is safe from central attacks, and can run away from a kingside attack). Experts on the 7.Qg4 line include Judit Polgár . If
7644-715: The symmetry. An extreme example was Capablanca – Maróczy , Lake Hopatcong 1926, which went: 4.Bd3 Bd6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.Re1 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 c6 10.c3 Qc7 11.Qc2 Rfe8 12.Bh4 Bh5 13.Bg3 Bxg3 14.hxg3 Bg6 15.Rxe8+ Rxe8 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Re1 Rxe1+ 18.Nxe1 Ne8 19.Nd3 Nd6 20.Qb3 a6 21.Kf1 ½–½ . Despite the symmetrical pawn structure, White cannot force a draw. An obsession with obtaining one sometimes results in embarrassment for White, as in Tatai– Korchnoi , Beer Sheva 1978, which continued 4.Bd3 c5!? 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Qe2+ Be7 7.dxc5 Nf6 8.h3 0-0 9.0-0 Bxc5 10.c3 Re8 11.Qc2 Qd6 12.Nbd2 Qg3 13.Bf5 Re2 14.Nd4 Nxd4 0–1 . A less extreme example
7735-547: The tactical complications of 7.Qg4 are not to White's taste, 7.Nf3 and 7.a4 are good positional alternatives, and 7.h4 is a more aggressive attempt: 7.Nf3 is a natural developing move, and White usually follows it up by developing the king's bishop to d3 or e2 (occasionally to b5) and castling kingside. This is called the Winawer Advance Variation. This line often continues 7...Bd7 8.Bd3 c4 9.Be2 Ba4 10.0-0 Qa5 11.Bd2 Nbc6 12.Ng5 h6 13.Nh3 0-0-0. Its assessment
7826-460: The weak h7-pawn, which is usually defended by a knight on f6, but here it has been pushed away by e5. If 9...cxd4 (Black does better with 9...f5 or 9...f6), White can play the Greek gift sacrifice 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+ Qxg5 ! 12.fxg5 dxc3 13.Qh5+! where Black has three minor pieces for the queen, a slight material superiority, but has a vulnerable king and White has good attacking chances. Apart from
7917-581: Was Mikhail Gurevich – Nigel Short , Manila 1990 where White, a strong Russian grandmaster , played openly for the draw but was ground down by Short in 42 moves. To create genuine winning chances, White will often play c2–c4 at some stage to put pressure on Black's d5-pawn. Black can give White an isolated queen's pawn by capturing on c4, but this gives White's pieces greater freedom, which may lead to attacking chances. This occurs in lines such as 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4 (played by GMs Normunds Miezis and Maurice Ashley ) and 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4, which may transpose to
8008-505: Was frequently played in the early days of the French Defence. Aron Nimzowitsch believed it to be White's best choice and enriched its theory with many ideas. The Advance declined in popularity, however, throughout most of the 20th century until it was revived in the 1980s by GM and prominent opening theoretician Evgeny Sveshnikov , who continued to be a leading expert in this line. In recent years, it has become nearly as popular as 3.Nd2; GM Alexander Grischuk has championed it successfully at
8099-412: Was recommended by Howard Staunton in the 19th century, but has been in decline ever since. In the early 1990s, Garry Kasparov briefly experimented with it before switching to 3.Nc3. Black's game is made much easier as his queen's bishop has been liberated. It has the reputation of giving immediate equality to Black due to the symmetrical pawn structure. Like the Exchange, the Advance Variation
8190-478: Was short-lived, as it was basically unsound, allowing Black to secure a superior position after White's immediate 3.f3 with 3...e5!. In 1889, Ignatz von Popiel came up with the idea of 3.Nc3, though his main idea was to meet 3...Nf6 with 4.Bg5 (rather than the more usual 4.f3) and provided analysis of the Lemberger Counter-Gambit (3.Nc3 e5). The evolved, modern form of this gambit owes much to
8281-431: Was unable to fully refute the gambit and considered that Black faced a non-trivial defensive task, he felt that with correct play Black could emerge with good chances. GM Joe Gallagher wrote that he had "noticed a common trend among Blackmar–Diemer analysts; once there is no attack and the position looks rather balanced they tend to assess the game as =, forgetting the fact that they are a pawn down." Gallagher thought that
#278721