Le style de Diemer va bien au delà d'une simple variante d'ouverture. C'était un joueur brillant à l'extrême, au jeu outrancièrement offensif, fait de trouvailles fabuleuses, de gambits tonitruants et de nombreux sacrifices ingénieux et (d)étonnants. Bref, un électron libre dans "l'institution" des Maîtres... Un joueur pour anthologie de Prix de Beauté !

Dans le Gambit Blackmar-Diemer, le pion "f" disparaît complètement, comme s'il n'avait jamais existé et sans affaiblissement de l'aile-Roi (au contraire du Gambit Roi, où après : 1.e4 - e5 le coup de gambit 2.f4 peut s'avérer être lui-même cause de déboires). [Diemer].

Où roqueront les noirs ? Un joueur d'échecs qui sait attaquer (et n'a ici, qu'à se concentrer sur cette tâche) trouvera la solution juste à la réalisation de son avantage. Dans le Gambit Blackmar-Diemer, l'avantage consiste à posséder des colonnes semi-ouvertes. Les tours blanches interviendront très rapidement, tandis que les tours noires feront de la figuration. J'ai la conviction que les noirs n'ont aucun motif d'être optimistes ! [Diemer]

Diemer est peut-être un hurluberlu, mais son style de jeu n'est pas idiot; il est au contraire instructif. Je conseillerais son système à quiconque veut progresser. On n'y trouvera pas les secrets du pion isolé ou de la paire de fous, mais ce qui est la base de toute partie d'échecs : L'attaque du roi ! [J. H. Donner GMI]

Ainsi, après 1.d4 - d5 2.e4 - dxe4 3.Cc3 ! - Cf6 4.f3 - exf3 5.Cxf3, nous obtenons la position de base du : GAMBIT BLACKMAR-DIEMER ACCEPTE (D00) 5...Fg4 Ce clouage constitue une façon de jouer fort naturelle.
6.h3 ! Force une décision. 6...Fh5 7.g4 Fg6 8.Ce5 Cc6 8...e6 [8...Cd7], 9.Fg2 !? [9.h4 !?, 9.Df3 !?] 9...c6 10.h4 !? [10.Fg5] et maintenant :
10...Fb4 11.Fg5 h6 12.Cxg6 fxg6 13.Fe3 OO 14.OO Fxc3 15.bxc3 Cd5 16.Dd3 Cd7 17.g5 Cxe3 18.Dxe3 hxg5 19.Dxe6+ Rh7 20.h5! Tf6 21.hxg6+ Rh6 22.Txf6 Cxf6 23.Rf2! Df8 24.Th1+ Ch5+ 25.Ff3, 1-0. Diemer - Nies 1957.
10...h6 11.Cxg6 fxg6 12.Dd3 Dd6 13.Dxg6+ Re7 14.Th3! Dxd4 15.Fe3 Dxg4 16.Fc5+ Rd8 17.Td1+ Cbd7 18.Txd7+ Rxd7 19.Df7+ Rc8 20.Cb5!, 1-0. Diemer - N.N 1958.

9.Fb5 Dd6 10.Ff4 Cd5 11.Cxc6! Dxf4 12.Cxd5 De4+ 13.De2 Dxh1+ 14.Rd2 Dxa1 15.Cc7+ Rd7 16.Cxa8 bxc6

Après cette avalanche d'échanges risqués, les manoeuvres tactiques de Diemer culminent avec le brillant sacrifice suivant, nous permettant d'admirer la "Batterie Reine" de l'échiquier : Le couple Cavalier - Dame !

17.Fxc6! Rxc6 18.Dc4+ Rb7 19.Dc7+! Ra6 20.Dc6+ Ra5 21.Cc7 Dxb2 22.Da6+ Rb4 23.Cd5+, Mat ! C.Q.F.D. !

C'est certain, il ne faut pas être cardiaque ;o)

[ce qui me gêne avec 6.Fd3 c'est de perdre mon Fou d'attaque, alors que le Ff5 peut servir d'objectif d'attaque. Par exemple :
6...Fxd3 7.Dxd3 c6 8.0-0 e6 9.Fg5 Cbd7 10.Tae1 Fe7 pas clair, mais les Noirs sont bien]

Quant à la variante avec 7.g4, voici une idée qui, jusqu'à maintenant marche ;o)
6...e6 7.g4 Ce4 8.Fb5+ c6 9.0-0 Cxc3 10.bxc3 Fg6 11.Fd3 Fd6 12.Fxg6 hxg6 13.Cxf7 Fxh2+ 14.Rg2 Dd5+ 15.Df3 Dxf3+ 16.Txf3 Tf8 17.Fa3 Txf7 18.Txf7 Rxf7 19.Tf1+ Re8 20.Tf8+ Rd7 21.Rxh2 Rc7 22.Fc1 b5 23.Ff4+ Rb7 24.Tf7+ Rb6 25.Txg7 Ca6 26.Txg6 Te8 27.Rg3+-

1. d2-d4 Ng8-f6, 2. f2-f3 d7-d5, 3. e2-e4 d5xe4, 4. Nb1-c3 e4xf3, 5. Ng1xf3 g7-g6, 6. Bf1-c4 Bf8-g7, 7. 0-0 0-0,8. Qd1-e1 Nb8-c6, 9. Qe1-h4 Bc8-g4, 10. Nc3-e2 Bg4-f5,11. c2-c3 Nc6-a5, 12. Bc4-b5 Qd8-d5, 13. Bb5-a4 Qd5-c4,14. Ba4-d1 Na5-c6, 15. Ne2-f4 Qc4-b5, 16. Bd1-e2 Qb5-b6,17. Nf3-d2 Nc6-e5, 18. Kg1-h1 Ne5-d7, 19. Nd2-c4 Qb6-c6,20. Nc4-a5 Qc6-a4, 21. Na5-b3 Bf5-c2, 22. Bc1-e3 Bc2xb3,23. a2xb3 Qa4xb3, 24. Nf4-d3 Qb3-e6, 25. Rf1-f3 h7-h6,26. Qh4-g3 Rf8-c8, 27. Ra1-f1 a7-a5, 28. Qg3-e1 a5-a4,29. Kh1-g1 b7-b5, 30. Rf3-h3 c7-c6, 0-1.

I was socialista, i played until the move 20, after thatfritz 7 played. I think about 11.h3?! but the answer is 11... Na5! and white is dead.

In case of 10.Be3 Bxf3 11.Rxf3 Qd7 12.h3 Ne8! , if 12.Rd1 Ng4!

I think this is a very hard line for White.

Saludos from Lima, Perú
Jorge Quiñones Borda

1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nxe4 exd4 5.Bb5+ c6 6.Qe2 Be7

Obviously the Bishop is immune (6...cxb5?? 7.Nf6# or 6...Qa5+? 7.Bd2 Qxb5?? 8.Nd6+ picking up the Queen), but there are alternatives here. An example of the pitfalls in the line can be seen in the natural sequence 6...Be6 7.Bc4 Qd7 8.Bxe6 Qxe6 9.Nf3 c5? 10.Nfg5! and Black

So, what happens when a GM is confronted with the BDG ? Howdoes he respond?One of the more popular ways of meeting theBDG is with the Huebsch Gambit, 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 e4 andnow, instead of the routine ...dxe4, Black responds ...Nxe4.

The Huebsch is a variation about which there is a certain amount ofconfusion. First, it is not an independent opening system but a partof the Blackmar-Diemer complex. In fact, it is usually included inopening books about the Blackmar-Diemer as a separate chapterand virtually never stands on its own. (However, At least onemonograph has been written devoted strictly to the Huebsch "Hubsch Gambit" by Pape, Jensen and Birk which, unfortunately,is no longer in print and was unavailable to me in writing thisarticle.) Second, despite being named in honor of an unknownplayer , Huebsch, who achieved a spirited victory in 1922 with theWhite pieces over the renowned Saviely Tartakower (see theGames Section at the end of this article), the variation is initiatedby Black, who plays ...Nxe4 instead of ...dxe4 which is theBlackmar-Diemer Gambit proper. (Since it was Tartakower whoplayed ...Nxe4, wouldn't it be correct to refer to the line as the"Tartakower Variation", rather than the Huebsch Gambit?) There iseven an issue regarding the spelling of the name "Huebsch", whowas so unfamiliar that sources are divided as to whether it's"Huebsch" or "Hubsch". My preference is "Huebsch", since that'sthe spelling I've seen used in the Tartakower game, which couldamount to nothing more than a misspelling by the compiler of thegame score.

There are several attractions to playing the Huebsch as Black.Given the minimal amount of scholarship, there is still plenty ofroom for implementing one's own ideas and analysis, and littlefear of being caught in a 20 move-deep line of theory that you don'tknow and your opponent does. It is also a variation that maycontain certain surprise value to a BDG opponent who may beaware only of the more publicized lines favorable to White, notrealizing that many of the lesser-known lines may give Black atleast equality.

One administrative note before we launch into our investigation:all games not cited in their entirety within the text can be found inthe Games Section at the end of this article.

Thus, after the sequence (or transposition thereto) 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3d5 3 e4 Nxe4 4 Nxe4 dxe4, according to most BDG theoreticians,the popular choice for White is 5 Bc4. (An alternative, 5 Bf4, willbe discussed later.) For example, Sawyer writes that "Highly ratedBDGers usually choose to play this Bishop move. Other moves areplayable, but [I] will not bother to consider them"; Chess Cafecolumnist Gary Lane, in his "Blackmar-Diemer Gambit", notes that"It is difficult to believe that White can expect much success fromthe alternatives" and "Nunn's Chess Openings" merely stops after 5Bc4 and assesses the position as unclear.

Some theory does exist in the 5 Bc4 variation. Praxis, as presentedin the literature on the Huebsch, indicates that there are at least fivecommon responses: e6, Bf5, g6, c5 and Nc6. If one examinesnothing more than tournament results for the popular moves, onecan reach a conclusion that White is better. By looking a littledeeper, however, I suggest that Black may be able to hold his ownat minimum in three of the five lines: g6, c5 and Nc6. Let'sexamine all five choices, focusing as much as possible on howGMs, IMs and strong masters have handled the positions.

Experience with 5...e6 indicates that it may be the least promisingof all of the alternatives for Black, at this point. Although Whitewon a piece in Diebert-Kudrin, 1985 Philadelphia Futurity, after 6c3 Bd6 7 Qg4 0-0 8 Bg5 e5 9 Qh4 Qe8 10 Ne2 exd4 11 Nxd4 h612 Be3 Kh7 13 g4 Qe5 14 g5 Nd7 15 0-0-0 Nc5 16 Rdg1 Be6 17Nxe6 Nxe6 18 Rg4 Bc5 19 g6+ fxg6 20 Rxe4 Bxe3+ 21 fxe3 Qg522 Bxe6, the game ended in a draw when White returned the piecein time pressure. (For the record, according to Serper in "New InChess Yearbook 46" [NIC YB] from 1998, Black has animprovement in 6...c5 7 Be3 cd4 8 Bd4 Nc6 9 Be3 Qd1 10 Rd1 a6,with the advantage in Szonyi-Csiszar, 1995 Zalakaros.)Diebert-Kudrin actually looks good for Black, compared to the main line of Gy. Meszaros-Waldmeier, 1994 Lenk, cited by bothLane and Sawyer: 5...e6 6 Nh3 (Sawyer calls this a "favorite of thestronger BDGers") 6...Be7 7 c3 0-0 8 0-0 Nd7 9 Qe2 h6 (Lanegives Nf6 as leading to only a "slight space advantage for White")10 Qxe4 Nf6 11 Qe2 c5 12 dxc5 Bxc5 13 Bf4 Bd7 14 Rad1 Qc815 Be5 Be7 16 Nf4 Re8 17 Rfe1 Nd5 18 Nh5 Bf6 19 Qg4 1-0.

According to Lane, "In tournament play, [5...Bf5] is one of themost popular replies." It also seems to be the favorite choiceamong GMs and strong masters who have to face theBDG/Huebsch. Perhaps the strongest over-the-board player whoregularly essays the Blackmar- Diemer is Charles Diebert, who hasplayed - and defeated - some of the best players in the US, manyof whom have tried 5...Bf5.

Tom Purser in "Blackmar-Diemer Gambit World" identifies thestem line as 6 g4 (White can also try 6 c3 as in Diebert-Blocker,1983 Columbus, Ohio which resulted in a White win) 6...Bg6and follow the game Diebert-Rohde 1985 Philadelphia, whichended in a win for the GM, although White had good chancesthroughout and may have even missed an opportunity for victory.Black can deviate early, however, with 6...Bd7, which did not workout especially well for GM Benjamin, who lost with it againstDiebert in a 1986 Columbus, Ohio tournament. Continuing withDiebert-Rohde: 7 Ne2 (Another idea pointed out by Purser is 7 h4,which led to a quick White win in the 1977 game Welling-Cobben)e5 8 Be3 Qd6 9 c3 Nd7 10 h4 h5 11 Ng3 Nb6 12 Bb3 exd4 13Bxd4 c5 14 gxh5 Bxh5 15 Nxh5 cxd4 16 Qg4 Qe5 17 0-0-0 Qxh518 Qxe4+ Be7 19 Rde1 Qc5 20 Rh3 Rd8 21 Rf3 Rf8 22 Rf5 Qd623 Re5 Rd7 24 c4 d3 25 Re3 Kd8 26 c5 Qc7 27 Kd1 d2 28 Rc3Bf6 29 cxb6 Qxe5 30 Qxe5 (According to Diebert, 30 bxa7! Qa531 Qa4! Qxa4 32 Bxa4 Ke7 33 Re3+ would've given himcompensation for his pawn-minus.) 30...Bxe5 31 bxa7 Ke7 0-1.Despite Rohde's victory in this game, Black's results with 5...Bf5have been less than encouraging.

Sometimes the popular choices are not necessarily the best choices. Such is the situation here. Black can certainly improve upon 5...e6or 5...Bf5. One reply that appears better than its reputation is 5...g6.Invariably, the game Diebert-Hayes, 1986 Columbus, Ohio(Cardinal Open) is cited as the main line (suggested by both Laneand Sawyer), which saw White win after 5 Bc4 g6 6 f3 Bg7 7 c3exf3 8 Nxf3 0-0 9 0-0 c5 10 Ng5 e6 11 dxc5 Qc7 12 Qd6 Qxd6 13cxd6 Bd7 14 Ne4 Bc6 15 Nf6+ Bxf6 16 Rxf6 Rd8 17 Bh6 Nd7 18Rf4 Ne5 19 Rd1 b5 20 Bb3 a5 21a4 bxa4 22 Bxa4 Bxa4 23 Rxa4f6 24 Be3 Ra6 25 Bc5 Rc6 26 Rxa5 Nc4 27 Rb5 Nxb2 28 Rb1Na4 29 Rb8 Rcc8 30 Rxc8 Rxc8 31 Ba7 Nxc3 32 d7.

However, instead of the obliging 7...exf3, Black can try either7...c5 or 7...0-0 and seems to be able to hold his own with relativeease, in both cases. For example, Sawyer includes Birchbeer-Diesen, a 1995 game played on the ICC, when Black won on timeafter 7...c5 8 Qb3 0-0 9 dc5 Nd7 10 Be3 Qc7 11 fe4 Nc5 12 Qc2Be6 13 Be6 Ne6 14 Nf3 Qc4 15 Nd2 Qa6 16 Kf2 Rad8 17 Rhe1Rd3 18 Nf3 Rfd8 19 Kg1 b6 20 Qf2 Qc4 21 Nd2 Qc6 22 Rf1 Rf823 Rad1 Qd7 24 Qe2 Rd8 25 Qf2 Qe8 26 h4 h5 27 Rde1 Nc5, andwas probably no worse than equal throughout. The same can besaid for Black after 7...0-0 in Dowling,-Men, 1993Springfield,Ohio, which continued with 8.fxe4 e5 9.Nf3 exd410.cxd4 Bg4 11.Be3 Nc6 12.Bd5 Nb4 13.Bb3 Qe7 14.e5 Rad815.Bg5 Qxg5 16.Nxg5 Bxd1 17.Rxd1 Bh6 18.h4 Nc6 19.Nf3 Na520.h5 Nxb3 21.hxg6 Kg7 22.axb3 fxg6 23.Ke2 g5 24.Rh5 g425.Ng5 Kg6 26.Rxh6+ Kxh6 27.Ne6 c6 28.Nxd8 and a draw wasagreed upon.

Another line that looks good for Black once one digs beneath thesurface is 5...c5. Given the move's favorable track record, it's hardto understand why it hasn't been a more popular response byplayers of the Black pieces in the Huebsch. In fact, after 5...c56.Qh5 g6 (5...e6 is not recommended; see Zintgraff-Dick andSoller-Thalmann) Black won in Diebert-Floyd, 1985 Columbus,Ohio which continued 7 Qxc5 Nc6 8 Bb5 Bd7 9 d5 e5 10 d6 Qf611 Be3 Bxd6 12 Qd5 0-0-0 13 0-0-0 Bc7 14 Ne2 a6 15 Bc4 Be6 16Qxe4 Bf5 17 Qf3 e4 18 Bg5 Qxg5+ 19 Qe3 Qxe3+ 20 fxe3 0-1and Horn-Diebert, 1986 Columbus, where White tried 8 Be3, butwent down to defeat in 24 moves. Even early deviations by Whitedon't seem to help his cause, such as 6 c3, which led to a 19 movedraw in Diebert-Schulien, 1984 Ohio and 6 d5, which resulted inan advantage for Black in T. Fischer-Vieten, 1988 Dortmund.(However, White did garner a quick victory with 6 d5 in the ICCgame Birchbeer-Schimpf from 1996, as given by Sawyer.) Themain line here would seem to be 7 Qc5 Nc6 8 Bd5 Bd7 (Rebel 10software likes 8...Bd6 but analyzes it as leading to an advantage forWhite; 8...Bg7 saw White win in 32 moves in anotherBirchbeer-schimpf game from ICC. We are told by Sawyer that"Birchbeer" is a pseudonym for an IM, but what kind of a player is"schimpf"?) 9 Qc4 e6 10 Be4 Qh4 11 Qd3 f5 12 Bc6 Bc6 13Nf3 Qg4 (simple and perhaps even stronger might be 13...Qe4+)14 0-0 Bf3 15 Qf3 Qf3 16 gf3 Rc8 17 c3 Bd6 18 f4 b5 19 Bd2 Kd720 b4 a5 21 ba5 Rc4 22 Rfb1 Kc6 23 a4 ba4 24 Kf1 with adraw in the 1996 correspondence game Felber-Schulien. Whiteappears to get nothing against 5...c5.

Interesting is the move 5...Nc6. After the obligatory 6 c3, Sawyerpoints out 6 possibilities for Black: 6...Bd7, Qd6, g6, Bf5, e6 ande5. Although 6...Bd7 may hold some promise, (seeJacobsen-Hjortshoj, 1992 Denmark), except for 6...e5, the othersappear to favor White. It is 6...e5 that was played in the 1997 GMblitz encounter between Serper and Wilder at the ICC andthe move that I wish to consider the main line in this variation.This game was also the subject of Serper's article in NIC YB. While Serper-Wilder continued with 7 d5, it is worth noting thatDiebert-Bisguier, 1985 World Open, saw 7 Qb3 Qf6 (7...Qd7 wasDiebert-Bukovac, 1986 Buckeye Open, a 31-move victory forWhite), with the result being a draw in 62 moves.

In any event, after 5...Nc6 6 c3 e5, in this little-explored position,Black has three ways to respond to 7 d5: 7...Ne7, Na5 or Nb8. After 7...Ne7, White's best course appears to be 8 f3, recommendedby Smith and Hall in "Winning with the Blackmar-DiemerGambit" and Serper in NIC YB. (According to Serper, 8 Qa4 isbest met by 8...Bd7 9 Qb3 Nf5 10 Qb7 Nd6 11 Qa6 Be7, whenBlack has the advantage. Lane, on the other hand, conflicts withSerper's assessment of this position, writing about 8...Bd7 that it"is well met by 9 Qb3 threatening Qxb7 and d6". ) But, withcorrect play after 7...Ne7 8 f3, Serper cites 8...ef3 9 Nf3 Ng6 10 h4Bd6 11 h5 Ne7 12 h6 g6 13 Bg5 0-0 14 Bf6 e4 15 Ng5 Bg3 16 Kf1as unclear, meaning that 7...Ne7 might be worthy of furtherexamination as a Black alternative.

After 7...Na5 8 Be2 b6 9 Qa4+ Bd7 10 Qxe4 Bd6 11 g4 c6 12 Be3cxd5 13 Qxd5 Bc6 14 Bb5 Qd7 15 Bxc6 Qxc6 16 0-0-0, onewould be hard-pressed to disagree with Smith and Hall, whocomment "Now, Pape, Jensen and Birk in their booklet HubschGambit give equality here; we believe White has the edge, becausehis King is safer and the Be3 is stronger than the Bd6."

The move that might give Black the best chances after 7 d5 is7...Nb8. White can now proceed in three ways: 8 Ne2?!, Be3 orQe2, the latter of which is reputed to be the best of the bunch. Thefirst try, 8 Ne2?! can be quickly dismissed. Serper views it asdubious after 8...Bc5 9 Ng3 Qh4, when Black already appears tohave seized the initiative. In fact, Black won from this positionin Meszaros-P. Sinkovics, 1994 Hungary.

There is also 8 Be3. While Black went down the drain in the 1990game Muller-Metzger after 8...Bd6 9 Qh5 Qf6?! 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11Qe2!, there are better ways to handle the second player's position. One obvious improvement is 8...Nbd7 9 Nh3 Nb6 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11Qb3 f6 12 0-0 Bxb5 13 Qxb5+ Qd7 14 Qxd7+ Nxd7 15 Rfe1 0-0-0and Black looks to be a pawn ahead without any apparent dangerlurking on the horizon.

Even after Serper's 8 Qe2, the move he played against Wilder inthe ICC game, Black should be able to hold his own. Rather thancontinuing with Wilder's 8...Bd6, considered dubious by Serper,Black looks to get a viable position by following Serper'ssuggestion of 8...f5! leading to 9 Nh3 Bd6 10 Bg5 Be7 11 Bd2. Atthis point, the game may transpose into the variation citedby Serper if Black plays 9...Be7 instead of Bd6: 9...Be7 10 Bd2Nd7 11 0-0-0 Nf6 12 fg3 f4 13 Bb5 Kf8 14 fe4 Bg4 15 Qd3 Bd116 Rd1 h6 17 Nf4 ef4 18 e5 Nd5 19 Qf5 Kg8 20 Qe6 Kf8 21Qf5 with equality.

However, there is still the question of what does Black play after11 Bd2. Given the lack of tournament praxis with this position, Ienlisted some mechanical assistance and plugged the position intoRebel 10 software, which offered 11...a6 12 f3 b5 13 Bb3 exf3 14Qxe5 (14 Qxf3 leads to Rebel 10 Analysis "A"- see the Gamessection - which may be winning for Black) 14...Nd7 15 Qxg7 Bf616 Qh6 Qe7+ 17 Kd1 fxg2 18 Rg1 Bb7 19 Qh5+ Qf7 20 Qxf5 Nc521 Re1+ Kd8 22 Ng5 Qg7 23 Kc2 Rf8 24 Qxh7 Bc8 25 Qxg7Bf5+ 26 Kd1 Bg4+ 27 Kc2 Bf5+ 28 Kd1 Bg4+ with, believe it ornot, a draw by repetition. Certainly, considerably more practicalexperience is needed before anything definitive can be said about5...Nc6 and specifically 7...Nb8. The early returns regarding thisparticular variation, however, do not look unfavorable for Black.

But, if White really wants to take his opponent out of virtually allknown theory and into the chess world's black hole, 5 Bf4 shoulddo it. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if this move eventuallyturns out to be White's preferred method of playing against ...Nxe4.

According to Lane, 5...Bf5 "looks best" against 5 Bf4. Given theless than encouraging results with the alternatives, one is initiallyinclined to agree with him. For example, 5...Nd7 is Diemer- Durao,a quick White victory; 5...e6 can be met by either 6 f3 as inKampers-Define or 6 Qd2, Bertolo-Deleplanque, both leading towins for White; nor does 5...Nc6 doesn't inspire much confidenceafter 6 Bb5, seen in the Stummer-Bonner match games.

However, even 5...Bf5 may not be that very appealing for Black.One of the earliest and most convincing (at least from White'sperspective) examples is Diemer-Schroeder, a game from a 1956simul given by one-half of the Blackmar-Diemer team: 1.d4 Nf62.Nc3 d5 3.e4 Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 5.Bf4 Bf5 6.f3 e6 7.Qe2 exf38.Nxf3 c6 9.0-0-0 Bd6 10.Ne5 h6 11.g4 Bh7 12.h4 Qc7 13.g5 Bf514.Bh3 Bxh3 15.Rxh3 h5 16.Bh2 Nd7 17.Ng6 Rh7 18.d5 cxd519.Rxd5 Bxh2 20.Rxh2 Kd8 21.Ne5 1-0 But there may be a fly inthe ointment, since 7...Qxd4 (rather than the conciliatory7...exf3?!) leaves Black 2 pawns to the good after 8 Qb5+ Nd7 9c3 Qb6.

Instead of 6 f3 as in Diemer-Schroeder, White tried 6 Qe2 inStummer-Homann, one of several games played between these twoGerman masters in 1994 to test the 5 Bf4 variation. Although thegame was drawn, perhaps Black had an improvement in 11...h5 12h3 e6 13 f3 hxg4 14 hxg4 Rxh1 15 Bxh1 exf3 15 Nxf3 0-0-0 16Nh4 Bh7 17 Nf3 Be7, when Black must be better because of hisextra pawn.

Of course, all of these lines in the Huebsch could certainly benefitfrom more practical tests, especially the 5 Bf4 variation. Black maybe able to confidently meet 5 Bc4 with either 5...g6, 5...c5 or5...Nc6. Although Black may only rarely face 5 Bf4, he shouldencounter few difficulties holding his own against the two mostlogical White 6th move tries, 6 f3 and 6 Qe2.

In summary, the Huebsch (3...Nxe4) is hardly a bust to theBlackmar-Diemer. But, on the other hand, Black need not tremblewith fear of being blown off the board. There are several relativelyclear paths for him to achieve at least an equal position, as long ashe plays carefully and doesn't throw caution to the winds.

I was socialista, i played until the move 20, after thatfritz 7 played. In case of 10.Be3 Bxf3 11.Rxf3 Qd7 12.h3 Ne8! , if 12.Rd1 Ng4!

Saludos from Lima, PerúJorge Quiñones Borda

I must say that I think Jorge is an amateur. Why does White have to play 10. Ne2 anyway? What if White plays Be3 (the main line) or what, if White varies earlier on move 7 with Ne5?

Jorge's conclusion is ridiculous -- too many variations to consider and too many different moves by White that can follow any move by Black.

Jorge needs to get some more experience over the chessboard before he starts to make claims as to a refutation to the BDG or any other opening. I would play it anytime against him (or anyone else) over the board without his computer.

Paul Motta