Last week when I read The Week in Chess n° 254 I came to know of the death of Claude Bloodgood. I wish to thank Mark Crowther (TWIC Editor) for sending me copy of the Obituary. The article was written by Donald K. Wedding Jr. A friend of Bloodgood. I’m republishing it here because I think that together with Mr. Grob himself, Claude Bloddgood is the chessplayer who has loved and played 1.g4 more than anyone else. About 2 months ago I got Claude’s address (through Earl Roberts who played recently some games with him – see UON n° 3) and I sent him the photocopies of UON 1-2-3 while asking him if he wanted to share with us his own Grobs. But my letter reached him late…too late.

The chess world lost one of its most colorful figures on August 4, 2001 with the passing of Claude F. Bloodgood from lung cancer at the age of 77. He was born Klaus Frizzell Bluttgutt III on July 14, 1924 in La Paz, Mexico to German nationals. He learned chess from his father at a young age. Both his skill and love for the game grew quickly, and soon became a passion that followed him throughout his life.

Claude spent most of his early chess career earning money as a hustler. During this time, he developed a taste for unorthodox (and generally unsound) openings filled with traps and aggressive lines. These openings were, of course, ideally suited to both his chosen profession and also to his style of play. He continued to play these openings throughout his life.

Bloodgood’s tournament chess career began in 1957 when he started conducting monthly Norfolk USO invitational chess tournaments until 1961. During that time span, Claude won over half of all the USCF rated tournaments in the state of Virginia. These tournaments included:

Virginia Open (1957, 1958)
Norfolk Open (1958, 1959, 1960, 1961).
Norfolk Chess Club Championship (1957, 1958, 1959, 1961).
Norfolk USO Invitational (36 of 60 monthly tournaments)
Camp Elmore Championship (1957).
FMFLant Championship (1957).
Oceana NAS Open (1959).

In addition to his over the board play, Claude was also an avid postal chess player. This passion for postal chess inspired Claude to set up the All Service Postal Chess Club (ASPCC) tournament in 1958, which continues to operate to this day.

Sadly, Claude’s chess career never had a chance to flourish due to numerous problems with the law. During the 1960’s he was in prison from 1962 to 1964 and from 1965 to 1967 for 4th degree burglary. Upon being released he was imprisoned again from 1968 to 1969 for forgery. In 1970, he was convicted of murdering his stepmother and was sentenced to death in Virginia’s electric chair. While on death row, Claude spent virtually all of his time playing postal chess, and because he was on death row, the State of Virginia paid his postage. At one time, Claude was playing as many as 2000 games simultaneously. This is probably a record. Claude spent the remainder of his time writing about chess. He wrote numerous articles for various chess publications and also wrote the first of his three published chess books, The Tactical Grob. To this day, this book is considered to be a classic by fans of unorthodox chess openings.

In 1972, Claude’s death sentence was commuted to life in prison. As he was no longer on death row, the State of Virginia no longer paid his postage, so Claude’s postal career came to an abrupt end. His prison chess career, however, was only beginning. Claude began organizing chess tournaments within the prison walls with outsiders being permitted to come in and compete. With "Fischer chess fever" still at its height, these tournaments gained a considerable amount of good publicity for the prison system. Claude was soon allowed to organize chess tournaments outside the prison walls. To this day, people wonder how Claude, a convicted killer, fresh off of death row, was allowed to leave prison virtually unguarded to set up chess tournaments. Claude was always vague on this point. He would only smile and say that anything was possible if you knew how the prison bureaucracy worked.

During one of these outings, Claude and another prisoner, Lewis Capleaner, were forced to escape by a prison guard named George Winslow who was escorting them to a tournament. According to Bloodgood, George Winslow had serious financial problems and tried to coerce Bloodgood and Capleaner to rob a local gambling house for him while they were on the furlough. Although Bloodgood and Capleaner refused, Winslow was insistent. The situation ended with Winslow getting handcuffed to a bed while Bloodgood and Capleaner escaped with their respective girlfriends, seven dollars in cash, and no place to go. With no plan and no money, Bloodgood and Capleaner were soon recaptured, and George Winslow was arrested for his involvement in the escape.

As fantastic as this story sounds, it is probably an accurate account, especially considering how meticulously Bloodgood orchestrated the prison to allow him furloughs to play chess and how poorly planned the actual escape was. Bloodgood never denied his intention to use his prison chess furloughs as a means of escape, but he always denied that he intended to escape at that particular moment, with that particular inmate, and with only a few dollars in his pocket.

Bloodgood’s escape and the details behind it, and the fact that the Virginia prison system was allowing convicted murderers to leave prison practically unguarded to set up chess tournaments proved somewhat embarrassing to the State of Virginia. As a result Bloodgood’s chances for parole became nonexistent. Another consequence was that the Virginia Penitentiary (VAPEN) Chess program was dismantled.

Bloodgood continued to play offhand chess games within the prison walls throughout the 1980’s, and by the early 1990’s decided to re-form the VAPEN Chess club. This sparked yet another controversy that again drew national chess attention to Bloodgood. During this time, Bloodgood held tournaments inside of Powhatan Correctional Center. These tournaments uncovered a serious flaw in the United States Chess Federation (USCF) rating system. It turned out that the USCF provisional ratings formulas along with the ratings floors caused serious ratings inflation if a small group played numerous games within a closed pool. This is precisely what happened at the VAPEN chess club. As the VAPEN chess club was, what might euphemistically be called, a "captive audience" with not much else to do, Bloodgood and about twenty or so of his fellow inmates started playing several rated games a day. This group had members that were playing literally thousands of games a year. This caused their ratings to jump to extremely high levels.

When it became obvious to Claude and VAPEN that the ratings formula was flawed, they alerted the USCF. Unfortunately, the USCF could not correct the problem quickly, and soon Claude Bloodgood was ranked second in the United States with a rating of 2702. This triggered an outcry from some members of the United States Chess Federation who alleged numerous unfair and untrue allegations that Bloodgood was committing ratings fraud. This was, of course, not the case as Bloodgood had alerted the USCF to the problem long before he ever reached the stratospheric level of 2702. Bloodgood was also quick to admit to anyone who would bother asking that he was over rated. His true ability at that time in his life was probably high expert class to low master level. At his prime, in the early 60’s, he was probably close to senior master strength.

During this period of Claude’s life, he penned several more books on his beloved unorthodox openings. Two of these were published by Chess Digest, Inc.: the Nimzovich Attack: The Norfolk Gambits and the Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambits. Bloodgood has the manuscripts of several other books also written, but they have not yet been published.

By 1997, Bloodgood’s health had deteriorated so drastically, that he was transferred to the prison medical unit where he was to live out the remaining years of his life. Fortunately after his transfer, the Veterans Administration awarded him benefits amounting to approximately 90 a month. With this money, Claude was able to resume his postal chess career. During these final years, Claude played as many as 200 postal chess games at any given time. Claude continued to play postal chess at this phenomenal rate up until the final three months of his life. By that point, his health and his chess ability deteriorated to where he could no longer continue. No matter how poor his health, however, Claude was always mentally alert even until his final day.

On a personal note, I knew Claude for close to a decade and became good friends with him. I found him to have a brilliant mind, a great sense of humor, to be a loyal friend, and to be kind and generous with others. Even though he had only limited finances, for example, he was always quick to share what little he had with other inmates, particularly when it came to promoting prison chess. Claude was always quick to send his own money to a fellow prisoner who needed money for a membership to the USCF or a postal chess club. He would also send money to inmates who needed chess sets, chess clocks, or needed chess books. He was also a great chess player of master to senior master strength who played fanatically throughout his life. His chess style came from the old school, and might even be described by the romantic chess players of nineteenth century as "speculative" and perhaps a bit "too aggressive". The chess world will be less interesting without him. I will miss him very much.

All of Claude’s papers (including the drafts of his unpublished books) will be donated to the John G. White collection of the Cleveland Public Library that has the largest collection of chess literature in existence. Claude was thrilled and honored that they wanted his papers. If anyone wishes to donate any material related to Claude Bloodgood, please contact the Cleveland Public Library. The library web site link is www.cpl.org and it has a link to the John G. White collection. In addition, donations can be made to the All Service Postal Chess Club (ASPCC) to assist prisoners who wish to play postal chess, but are financially unable to do so.

The following are two of Claude Bloodgood’s games. These games give a real flavor for his aggressive style of play. The first game was against British Postal Chess Champion, Anthony Barnsley. The two played several postal games against one another. Barnsley won the lions share of them, of course, but Claude was still pleased with this game both because he fought such a strong opponent to a stand still, and because he played such aggressive chess from move one. Even in his 70’s, Bloodgood still threw everything at Barnsley except the kitchen sink.

[Event "Postal Chess Game"]

[Site ""]

[Date "1997 May 4"]

[Round ""]

[White "Bloodgood,Claude"]

[Black "Barnsley,Anthony"]

[Result "1/2"]

1. Nf3 d5 2. b3 c5 3. e4 dxe4 4. Ne5 Nd7 5. Bb5 a6 6. Bxd7+ Bxd7 7. Bb2 Bf5 8. O-O e6 9. f3 exf3 10. Qxf3 Qc7 11. Na3 f6 12. g4 Bg6 13. Rae1 O-O-O 14. Nec4 h5 15. g5 Bf5 16. gxf6 gxf6 17. Bc3 Qg7+ 18. Kh1 Rh6 19. Ba5 Rd4 20. Nb6+ Kb8 21. Nac4 Qc7 22. Nd5 Qc6 23. Bc7+ Ka7 24. Bb6+ 1/2

Of course, Claude will always be best known for his grob opening. Here’s an exciting game from his book, The Tactical Grob.

[Event "VAPEN Game"]

[Site ""]

[Date "1973"]

[Round ""]

[White "Bloodgood,Claude"]

[Black "Erwin,Hugh"]

[Result "1-0"]

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 e5 3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. Qb3 Ne7 6. Nc3 e4 7. d3 exd3 8. Bf4 a6 9. Rd1 d4 10. Rxd3 Nbc6 11. e3 Ng6 12. Bxc6+ bxc6 13. Rxd4 Qa5 14. Re4+ Be6 15. Rxe6+ fxe6 16. Qxe6+ Ne7 17. Nge2 Rd8 18. Nd4 Qb6 19. O-O Qxb2 20. Ne4 Rxd4 21. exd4 Qxd4 22. Nd6+ Kd8 23. Nf7+ Ke8 24. Bc7 Qd7 25. Nd6+ 1-0

· My father Roberto Rozzoni, Cosimo Parisi, Wieland Belka, Alain Talon, Uwe Weidemann, Salvatore Montella, for their games

· Rick Kennedy for his article on the Becker together with pgn games and also for ;the American Chess Bulletin, 1905-1907 database;

· Andrew Sutton for his cbv NODAS file

· Kennedy's database (There are a couple of Anderssen openings - so far back, we remember to connect 1.a3 with Anderssen; a Macho Grob prototype; and two games that somehow didn't get into his Marshall Gambit book.)

· Paul Valle’s annotated game

· Codazza's article and database

·     Eric Schiller for his list of Gambits

"With  a  Readers'  Letters  column,  more  people  might  be  interested in  joining.  They  will  see  that  they  can  express  their  views  in their  letters.  The  column  lets  them  have  their  opinions  heard."

I would like to take this time to put to you some ideas for your consideration on UoN.

1. As I think I suggested the very first time I replied to you, some consideration should be given to the scope of UoN as far as what it covers. I think the title of the newsletter speaks for itself but what is an unorthodox opening exactly? O.K sure, the likes of 1.g4 and 1.e4 Na6 stand out but it could be argued by some 1.e4 Nc6 does not come under such a category. Better still, what about the older openings such as the Muzio Gambit (from the Kings Gambit) ?? It is so rare these days it may be classed as unorthodox.

2. What I would really like to be published with the UoN is a conversion table of piece allocations. For example Q = Queen in English but what happens when a German UoN reader comes to look at game? How does he know what Q is ??

3. I would like to suggest that games submitted as articles by UoN readers be in one language only. One of the games you sent me started with A = bishop then half way through B equalled Bishop. This may confuse some of UoN's readers, I know it confused me while I was proofing it.

42) Rozzoni, R. (2214) – Koetsier, D (2440) 3rd Latvian World Championship Semif.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qf6 4. Nc4 fxe4 5. Nc3 Qg6 6. d3 Bb4 7. Bd2 exd3 8.
Bxd3 Qxg2 9. Qe2+ Kf8 10. O-O-O Nf6 11. Rde1 Nc6 12. Ne3 Qh3 13. Ned5 Qe6 14.
Nxf6 Bxc3 15. Bxc3 Qxe2 16. Rxe2 gxf6 17. Bxf6 Rg8 18. Bxh7 Rg4 19. f3 1-0   

43) Franzoso-Parisi (Cr. C.I. 769)
1. d4 e5 2.dxe Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.e6 d6 13.exf6 a6 14.Rb3 Qxa2 15.Nc3 Qa5 16.e4 Qc5 17.Rxb7 Nb4 18.Nd5 Nxc2+ 19.Kd1 Ng4 20.Rb3 Nxf2+ 21.Ke2 Nxh1 22.Rc3 Qf2+ 23.Kd1 Nd4 24.Qd3 Bg4+ 25.Nf3 Rb8 26.Rxc7 Rb1+ 27.Rc1 Nxf3 28.Rxb1 Ne5+ 29.Be2 Nxd3 30.Bxg4 Qe1+ 31.Kc2 Qxb1+ 32.Kxb1 Ne5 0-1

43) Ciciotti-Parisi (Cr. C.I. 769)
1.d4 e5 2.dxe Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.Nd5 Nxf3+ 6.gxf Qd8 7.Qd4 Ne7 8.Rg1 Nxd5 9.Qxd5 c6 10.Qe5+ Qe7 11.Qd4 d5 12.Bd2 Be6 13.0-0-0 Qc5 14.Qxc5 Bxc5 15.Rxg7 Bxf2 16.e3 0-0-0 17.Rg2 Bh4 18.Bd3 Bf6 1/2

44) Babboni-Parisi (Cr. CEM4EB)
1.d4 e5 2.dxe Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Qd5 f6 5.exf6 Nxf6 6.Qb3 d5 7.Nc3 Bd7 8.Qxb7 Rb8 9.Qxc7 Qc5 10.Qf4 Bd6 11.Qe3+ Qxe3 12.Bxe3 Rxb2 13.0-0-0 Rb7 14.Nd4 Ba3+ 15.Kd2 Ne5 16.Ke1 Bb4 17.Bd2 Nc4 18.a3 Ba5 19.Nb3 Nxa3 20.Nd4 Nc4 21.Nb3 Rxb3 22.cxb3 Nxd2 23.Kxd2 d4 24.Kd3 dxc3 25.f3 Nd5 26.Ra1 Bb6 27.e4 Bb5+ 28.Kc2 Ne3+ 29.Kxc3 Bxf1 30.Raxf1 Nxf1 31.Rxf1 Ke7 32.e5 Rc8+ 33.Kd3 Rd8+ 34.Ke2 Ke6 35.f4 Rd4 36.g3 Kf5 37.Rf3 g5 38.fxg5+ Kxg5 39.Rf7 h6 40.Kf3 Rb4 41.h4+ Kg6 42.Rf6+ Kg7 43.Rc6 Rxb3+ 44.Kf4 a5 45.g4 a4 46.g5 hxg+ 47.hxg a3 48.Rc8 Rb4+ 49.Kf5 Ra4 50.Rc6 a2 51.Rg6+ Kf8 52.Rf6+ Ke7 53.Re6+ Kd7 54.0-1

1.Nh3 d5 2.g3 e5 3.d3 h5 4.f3 h4 5.g4 Bc5 6.Nf2 h3 7.e3 Qh4 8.d4 exd4 9.exd4 Bd6 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Be3 0-0 12.Qd2 Bxg4? 13.Bg5! Qh5 14.Nxg4 Nxg4 15.fxg4 Qxg4 16.Be2 Qg2 17.0-0-0 Bxh2 18.Bd3 Bg3 19.Rdg1 Qxd2+ 20.Bxd2 Bf2 21.Rf1 Bxd4 22.Nxd5 Nc6 23.Rxh3 f6 24.Bc4 Ne5 1-0

46) Weidemann,U (1750) - Biewer,P [B10] Vereinsmeisterschaft Vorrunde, 2001

1.e4 B10: Caro-Kann-Verteidigung 1...c6 2.Sc3 d5 3.Df3 d4 letzter Buchzug 4.Lc4 e6 Punkt d5 [4...dxc3 Schlechter scheint 5.Dxf7+ Kd7 6.dxc3²] 5.Sce2 c5 6.d3 Ld6 7.Dg4 Df6 [7...Sf6 8.Dh4=] 8.f4 Dg6 9.Df3 [9.Dxg6 hxg6 10.Sf3 Sd7²] 9...Ld7 [9...Sc6 10.Dg3=] 10.a4 [10.f5 exf5 11.exf5 Dxf5 12.Dxb7=] 10...Sc6= 11.Ld2 Lc7 12.Sh3 h6 Befestigt g5 13.0–0 Sge7 14.Sg3 f5 15.exf5 Sxf5 16.Sxf5 exf5 [16...Dxf5 17.Tae1=] 17.Tae1+ Kd8 18.Te2 La5 [18...Te8 19.Txe8+ Dxe8 20.Dd5=] 19.Lxa5+± Sxa5 20.Ld5 [20.Lb5 Sc6 21.Dd5 Tc8±] 20...Sc6 [20...Te8!?= ist zu beachten] 21.Tfe1± Kc7 22.Le6 Tad8 23.Sf2 [23.Dd5 Lxe6 24.Dxe6 Dxe6 25.Txe6 Kd7=] 23...Df6 [23...The8 24.Lxd7 Txe2 25.Dxe2 Txd7 26.Dd2=] 24.g4 [24.Lxd7 Txd7 25.Te6 Te7 26.Dxc6+ bxc6 27.Txe7+ Kd6 28.Txa7 Tb8=] 24...g6= 25.Lxd7 Txd7 26.Te6 Df7 27.g5 hxg5 28.fxg5 a5 [28...Dh7!? 29.Df4+ Kc8=] 29.Sh3± Dh7 30.Dg3+ Kb6 31.Sf4 Dh4 [31...Tg7 32.Sd5+ Ka7 33.Dd6+-] 32.Txg6 [32.Dxh4 Txh4 33.Sg2 Th3+-] 32...Tdh7 [32...Dxg3+ 33.hxg3 Tdh7 34.Tge6+-] 33.Sd5+ [33.Dxh4 Txh4 34.Sd5+ Ka7+-] 33...Ka7± 34.Dxh4 Txh4 35.Te2 Tg4+ 36.Tg2 Tgh4? [¹36...Se5 37.Tg7 Th3+-] 37.Tf6 Se5 38.Txf5 Sg4 39.Tf4 [¹39.g6 ginge schneller 39...Tg8 40.Se7 Se3 41.Sxg8 Sxf5+-] 39...Se3 [39...Se5+- die letzte Gegenchance] 40.Txh4 Txh4 41.Sxe3 dxe3 42.Kf1 [42.g6 läßt dem Gegner kaum Chancen 42...Th8+-] 42...Kb8 43.g6 Th8 44.g7 Tg8 45.h4 Kc8 [45...c4 nützt auch nichts mehr 46.dxc4 b6 47.h5+-] 46.h5 [46.h5 Td8 47.h6+-] 1–0

47) Weidemann,U (1750) - Patzer,S (1860) [C25] Vereinspokal, 2001

1/8 1.e4 C25: Wiener Partie 1...e5 2.Sc3 d6 3.h3 letzter Buchzug 3...f5 4.exf5 Lxf5 5.d4 [5.Df3 Lc8= (‹5...Lxc2 6.Dxb7 Sd7 7.Sd5±) ] 5...exd4³ 6.Dxd4 Lxc2 7.Sf3 Sc6 8.Lb5 Df6?? danach kann Schwarz alle Träume begraben [8...Dd7 9.De3+ Sge7 10.0–0³] 9.Lxc6+?? gibt den Vorteil aus der Hand [¹9.Dxf6 Weiß hätte nun das bessere Spiel 9...Sxf6 10.Sd4+-] 9...bxc6= 10.Dc4 Kd7 11.0–0 Lf5 [¹11...Se7!?= ist noch spielbar] 12.Te1± Le6 [12...Dg6 13.Sd4 Se7 14.Txe7+ Kxe7 15.Lg5+ Dxg5 16.Te1+ Kd8 17.Dxc6 Le7 18.Dxa8+ Lc8+-] 13.Da4+- Weiß droht Sd4 13...Lf7 14.Lg5 Dg6 [14...Df5 lenkt vielleicht noch ab 15.Sd4 Dc5 16.Sxc6 Kc8+-] 15.Tad1 [15.Tad1 Df5 16.Se5+ Dxe5 17.Txe5+-] 1–0

48) Luzuriaga – Montella [Event "WC12/079"]
1. b4 e5 2. a3 d5 3. Bb2 Qd6 4. Nf3 e4 5. Nd4 Qb6 6. e3 Nf6 7. d3 c5 8. Nb3 cxb4 9. Bd4 Qc7 10. c3 bxa3 11. Nxa3 Bxa3 12. Rxa3 Nbd7 13. dxe4 dxe4 14. Qa1 a6 15. c4 b6 16. Nd2 O-O 17. g4 Bb7 18. Bg2 Rfe8 19. g5 Ng4 20. Bh3 f5 21. Bxg4 fxg4 22. Bxg7 Nc5 23. Bf6 Nd3+ 24. Ke2 Qd6 25. Rb3 b5 26. Qg1 Nc5 27. Ra3 Qd7 28. Qa1 Nd3 29. Rf1 Rac8 30. Qd4 Qe6 31. cxb5 axb5 32. Ra7 Rc7 33. Qa1 b4 34.Qa4 Rec8 35. Qb3 Bd5 36. Qa4 Nc5 37. Qa5 Bc4+ 38. Ke1 Nd3+ 39. Ke2 Qd7 40. Rxc7 Nf4+ 41. Ke1 Ng2+ 42. Kd1 Bb3+ 43. Kc1 Rxc7+ 44. Kb1 Qd3+ 45. Ka1 Qxd2 46. Bb2 Qd7 47. Qxb4 Ra7+ 48. Ba3 Qg7+ 49. Kb1 Rb7 0-1

As I said in UON n° 2 I’m playing a friendly corr. Thematic Grob match with Italian Cr. Master Aurelio Napoli Costa. This is the first game, there are still 3 games in process:

1.g4 Nh6 2.h3 f5 3.d4 Nf7 4.Bg2 fxg4 5.hxg4 d5 6.e3 e5 7.dxe5 Nxe5 8.Qxd5 Qxd5 9.Bxd5 Nxg4 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Bg2 c6 12.e4 Na6 13.Bg5 Bc5 14.f3 0-0 15.0-0-0 h6 16.Bh4 Be6 17.Kb1 Bc4 18.Nge2 Rae8 19.b3 Be6 20.Nd4 Bc8 21.Bg3 Rd8 22.Nce2 Bb6 23.Bh4 Nc7 24.c4 c5 25.Nc2 Ne6 26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Bxf6 gxf6 28.Ne3 Rd2 29.Bf1 Ng5 30.Nc3 Nxf3 31.Rxh6 Kg7 32.Rh1 Bc7 33.Be2 Be5 34.Bxf3 Bxc3 35.Rg1+ Kf7 36.Rg2 ½-½

by Rick Kennedy

In studying the Becker variation of the French Defense, 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/d2 de 4.Nxe4 Qd5, I keep in mind John Nunn’s cautions in his Secrets of Practical Chess:

When looking through "dubious opening" analysis, look out for the following:

Of course, these warnings are meant for those gullible people who might read my analysis!

In efforts to rehabilitate a Dubious Opening, I occasionally meet a Refuter who bypasses Nunn with "a typical ploy used by those attempting to make a very dubious line playable: the totally irrelevant move."

Let’s have a look.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/d2 de 4.Nxe4 Qd5

Samarian, in his 1980 Opening Tactics for Club Players, notes "A very interesting idea which can be occasionally made use of... This move, which goes against the classic principles of development... can lead to complications not unfavorable to Black, especially if White is taken by surprise. To show that this move is not so artificial as it appears at first sight, let us give the beginning of a game where this move was experimented on with success by Katalymov against the great Keres"

Contrast this with the comments of Benjamin and Schiller, in their Unorthodox Openings, 1987 "We have repeatedly emphasized that early deployments of her majesty are not a proper opening strategy. Here Black is just playing for tricks." Fair enough - so far.

5.Bd3

"Another critical line" [the first being 5.Nc3] according to Minev, in his 1988 French Defense New and Forgotten Ideas. How should Black play?

5....... f5 !?

The guidance from Benjamin and Schiller here is that "After 5.Bd3 he may introduce complications with 5...f5, even though our gut feeling is that White should be able to sacrifice a pawn with excellent compensation after 6.Ng3 Qxg2 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Qe2."

..**Sigh**.. To make the defense "playable," I will eventually need to provide scores of pages of analysis based on dozens of games. To "refute" it, Joel and Eric only have to have a "gut feeling" about a bogus line.

Henry Bird liked to play with a piece on d5, supported by a pawn on e6 and protected by a pawn on f5 - but this is not the way to play this opening.

Quite simply, this loses the Queen. Of course, it would not look like independent, objective analysis if the opening’s refutation were based on simply throwing Her Majesty away, so it is not surprising that none of the Refuters mention this.

Harding and Heidenfeld, French: Classical Lines, 1979, suggest now 7.Bf4 Qc6 8.Qe2, and it is clear White has plenty of compensation for his pawn. (Don’t listen to your chess analysis engine on this one.) The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 1981, points out that White is threatening 9.Bb5 and 9.Nxf5, with a decisive advantage. In a bit of balance, ECO points out that 7.f3 right away is inadequate, being met by 7...Bd6, which gives Black the upper hand.

7.Nf3 Qh3

We have to leave Benjamin and Schiller here. They like 7...Nf6 8.Qe2 "with compensation." True, the black Queen is trapped and can still be won; but 8.Bf1 wins it for a Rook right away.

8.Bf1 Qg4 9.Bg5 h6 10.h3 Qxg5 11.Nxg5 hg

What an object lesson for Black: he takes his Queen out early, loses it - and winds up with no other piece developed!

(Beware: in Leotard - Martenot, correspondence 1990, Black won from this position in 65 moves! A couple years later Martenot improved on this whole line in another correspondence game, with 6...c5 7.dc first, then 7...Qxg2, and went on to win in 34 moves. Perhaps White should not have been so "19th century," as after 7.c3 Qxg2 8.Nf3 the Queen is again trapped and won.)

Since my own rule of thumb for playing against the Becker variation is "sacrifice a pawn as soon as you can," it is useful to point out that the correct move, 5...Nf6, (after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/d2 de 4.Nxe4 Qd5 5.Bd3) can be met by 6.Ng3 ("comes into consideration" say Harding and Heidenfeld) when 6...Qxg2 is still not to be advised. ECO gives White a decisive advantage after 7.Nf3, with the idea of Bf1; but it is not that simple. Black is effectively a move ahead of the 5...f5 line, and so rescue missions are more likely to succeed, starting with 7...Ng4.

At that point, I can’t find any way for White to trap the Queen, but I have "a gut feeling" that he has "excellent compensation" for his pawn. (Perhaps Benjamin and Schiller examined both lines and then got them mixed up - that would explain how they missed 8.Bf1 vs 5...f5, where it would have been playable, but it is not playable, here.)

(My work on the Becker variation is a lot like that of the wood carver who, wanting to produce a figure of a horse, started with a block of wood and began chipping away anything that didn’t look like a horse... Readers who have played games with this variation, or who are aware of articles or analysis, are invited to forward them to rkennedy@gcfn.org)

I hope the readers excuse me for not having more than a simple internet game to share this time. My opponent has an FIDE rating on above 2300 ELO, but I am sure he didn’t play his best here.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 This opening is enough to put both players to sleep, but here is nice Knightmare for Black: 4.Nxe5!? This thing has many names, but it is most commenly refered to as the "Halloween Attack". Usually when White sacrifices a Knight or a Bishop, he gets 2 pawns in exchange and the piece is sacrificed on the f7-square (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 or 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed Nxd5 6.Nxf7). Here White gets a large lead in development and he usually gets total control of the center.

4…Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 This is the best move, although 5…Nc6 is also playable. I’ve won a lot of blitz games with variations like: 6.d5 Nc8 (or 6…Ne7) 7.e5 Ng8 8.d6 with a plan of playing Nc3-Nb5. Better is 6... Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cd 10.ed but this is not at all that easy for white to play: 10...Qf6 11.Nb5 Kd8 12.Be3 b6 13.Qd5 Rb8 14.0-0-0 Bb7 15.Qd2 Ra8 16.Nxa7 Qe6 17.Bxb6+ Ke8 18.Re1 Be4 19.Nb5 Rc8 20.Nc7+ Rxc7 21.dc d5 22.Rxe4 1-0 Brause-babulina, ICC blitz, 1997.

7…d6 I should mention that 7…c6, 7…Bb4 or 7…d5?! are also played.

8.Qf3 Qd7 9.O-O c6 10.exd6 Bxd6 11.Re1+ Kf8 12.Ne4 Bc7 So far I had relied solely on information I had collected from the internet. Other moves that have been tried: 12…f6 13.Bxg8 Rxg8 14.Nxf6 Qf5 15.Nxh7+ Kf7 16.Qb3+ Be6 17.Rxe6 Qd5 18.Ng5+ Kf8 19.Qxb7 and Black gave up in Brause-sekere, ICC 5 0 blitz, 1998. Another quick win for White was 12…Bb4 13.c3 Ba5 14.b3 f6 15.Ba3+ N6e7 16.Qh5 g6 17.Qxa5 Kg7 18.Nxf6 1-0 Wind-Van der Kraan, Nederland, 1991.

13.Ng5 Nf6 14.Nxf7 Qxd4 15.b3 Bg4 Black’s only hope was 15…Qxc4 bc 16.Kxf7

16.Ba3+ Bd6 Nothing really helps here: 16…c5 looses to 17.Qxb7

17.Qc3!! And Black is doomed:

Giocare il gambetto Blackmar Diemer oggi, non fa più effetto, voglio dire non suscita più meraviglia il secondo tratto 2.e4!? come poteva essere solo un decennio fa.

L’avvento d’Internet, lo scambio d’informazioni, le decine di libri, articoli, riviste, e quant’altro

dedicate al nostro gambetto, l’hanno tolto dall’anonimato e lo hanno fatto accettare almeno a livello di giocatori da circolo ed anche a livello magistrale, come un’apertura "quasi" normale.

Proprio questa normalità e la mole di partite e informazioni reperibili in giro, ultimo un CD di T.Sawier con più di 10.000 partite, fanno nascere un’esigenza in noi professionisti (parlo per chi con fiducia lo gioca da sempre) del BDG di riordino della materia, ovvero quale variante scegliere e giocare ad ogni risposta del nero. Da questo presupposto nasce e spero proseguirà nel tempo questa rivista (inserto), che ho voluto chiamare per l’appunto "La scelta".

"La scelta" non offrirà una marea di partite e di varianti su tutto quello che riguarda il gambetto Blackmar-Diemer, ma proporrà una e una sola variante ad ogni risposta del nero, sia per il BDG rifiutato, che accettato. Ci occuperemo ovviamente dei rientri nelle difese : Francese, Caro Kann, Pirc ecc… sempre proponendo una variante (due in casi eccezionali).

Ogni collaborazione, critica, suggerimento, invio di materiale , sarà gradito, anzi oserei dire che ogni rivista di scacchi che si rispetti vive di questo.

Grazie anticipatamente a tutti quelli che vorranno collaborare.

Queste quattro righe (se mai avranno un seguito) non si propongono certo come un super approfondimento teorico sulle varianti presentate. Si limitano alla presentazione di qualche partita ed allegano un po’ di materiale (partite sulla variante-i in questione) trovato spulciando qua e la su libri, riviste, internet ecc..

Spetta al lettore se stimolato e se condivide la variante presentata approfondire il discorso.

Dopo le mosse 1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5 (il nero rifiuta il gambetto e contro-gioca al centro mettendolo subito sotto pressione) il bianco ha una serie di alternative tutte più o meno valide 3.ed 3.dc 3.Nd2. Fisseremo la nostra attenzione sulla mossa 3.Nc3.

Una curiosità l’ordine di mosse scelto dal nero è considerato da E.Schiller nel suo bel libro "Gambit opening repertoire for black". Per l’autore il tratto 2…c5 può considerarsi come la variante anti-Blackmar!! (Addirittura!).

Il libro fornisce alcune varianti che meritano di essere approfondite, ma da qui a stabilire che questa linea confuti o metta in seria difficoltà il buon vecchio bdg penso ce né passi.

In generale: perché la scelta di una variante specifica sul bdg?

Chi avrà voglia d’analizzare un po’ di percentuali del gambetto, noterà senz’altro l’alto numero di vittorie del bianco. Non è il caso di stare a cavillare su questa rivista il perché di queste vittorie. Ognuno la vede come gli pare, nel bene e nel male, nell’esaltazione del gambetto o nella sua denigrazione.

Questa rivista si rivolge a chi già gioca e conosce il bdg e quindi ha un’idea ben precisa di cosa si trova sulla scacchiera.

Dicevo, l’alto numero di vittorie in quasi tutte le varianti, (tranne casi particolari) possono indurre a giocare il bdg in modo meccanico senza curarsi della scelta di una variante specifica.

Tanto si vince sempre. Si, ma non si diventa esperti in nessuna variante. E’ questa la filosofia portante di questa rivista, appunto la scelta, il suggerimento di una variante. Ognuno poi potrà approfondire con il materiale allegato (file di partite) e con lo studio personale, se lo riterrà opportuno la variante proposta.

Torniamo all’argomento specificatamente scacchistico perché 3.Nc3 dopo le mosse 1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5.? Fondamentalmente i motivi della scelta 3.Nc3 sono due e abbastanza semplici:

A: 3.Nc3 è un’ottima mossa di sviluppo non abbandona il centro e costringe il nero a dichiararsi.

B: Se il nero gioca il seguito 3…de4 dopo 4.d5 si può notare che si sta giocando un gambetto Albin in contromossa, gambetto che è discretamente tattico e pericoloso con il nero, e che quindi lo deve essere a maggior ragione con il bianco. Riconoscere i vari rientri in altre posizioni oppure come in questo caso giocare con il bianco qualcosa che è buono con il nero (giocabile) è spesso utilissimo.

Dopo i tratti 1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5 3.Nc3 e6 fermatevi ad osservare la posizione. Vi accorgerete di essere rientrati in una difesa Francese Gambetto Marshall. Lo ripeto è importantissimo soprattutto nel bdg riconoscere i rientri e preparare una variante su ognuno di questi.

Avrete a che fare con la difesa Francese, Caro Kann , Pirc ecc. Il lavoro di preparazione sarà lungo, ma alla fine avrete ottenuto un doppio repertorio. Potrete giocare tanto 1.e4, quanto il vostro solito BDG .Torneremo spesso sull’argomento quando affronteremo nello specifico le difese nelle quali può rientrare il nero dopo 1.d4 d5 2.e4 (es: 2…e6 Francese) oppure dopo 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 (Pirc).

Dopo 1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5 3.Nc3 e6 oppure 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5!? Il tratto che sembra migliore per il bianco è 4.ed .Memorizzatelo cercate le partite che troverete nel file allegato e

iniziate lo studio. Il repertorio si costruisce così, mossa per mossa, rientro per rientro.

1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5 3.Nc3 dxe 4.d5 Nf6 5.f3 exf 6.Nxf3 (Siamo rientrati nella variante del bdg accettato 1.d4 d5 2.e4 de 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 ef 5.Nf3 c5 Difesa Kaulich 6.d5 un pregio di 3.Nc3 su 2…c5 è il poter rientrare dopo d5- f3 ed eventualmente Nf3 in una variante del bdg accettato discreta per il bianco) Bg4 7.Bc4 a6 8.a4 Nbd7 9.Qd3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 Ne5 11.Qe2 Nxc4 12.Qxc4 Qd6 13.0-0 h5 14.Bf4 Qb6 15.Rfe1 0-0-0(il pedone in b2 non è prendibile es: 15…Qxb2 16.Rab1 Qc2 17.Rb7+- il nero è paralizzato) 16.Rad1(Interessante era 16.a5!? Qb4 17.Ra4 Qxc4 18.Rxc4) e6 (16…Qb4 17.b3 h4) 17.de fe+=(17…Rd1 18.Nd1 fe+=) 18.Qxe6 (18.a5!? Qc6 19.Rd8 Kd8 20.Re6+-) Qxe6 19.Rxd8ch Kxd8 20.Rxe6 b5?+-(22…Be7 era migliore) 21.Rxa6 b4 22.Nb5 Nd7(22…Kd7) 23.Nd6 (23.Ra8 Ke7 24.a5 b3+-) Bxd6 (23…Ke7 24.Ne4+-) 24.Bxd6 (24…Nf6 25.Ra8 Kd7 26.Rxh8 Kxd6 27.Rc8+-.....24.Rd6 Rf8 25.g3 Rf5+-) 1-0

1.d4 d5 2.e4 c5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Nf6 5.f3 exf 6.Nxf3 a6 7.Bg5 b5 8.Be2 Bb7 9.Bxf6 exf 10.Qd2 Be7=(10…b4!? 11.Na4 Qxd5 [11…Bxd5? 12.0-0-0+=] 12.Qxd5 Bxd5-+) 11.Rd1 f5+=(11…Bd6!?) 12.d6 Bf6 13.Qe3 Kf8 14.Qxc5 Nd7 15.Qc7(era migliore 15.Qxf5!? b4 16.Na4+-) Qxc7 16.dxc7 Nb6 17.Rd6 Nc4+=(17…Bxc3 era la mossa esatta 18.bxc Nd5=+) 18.Bxc4 bxc 19.0-0 Be7 20.Rd2 Rc8 21.Rfd1 Ke8 (21…Rxc7 22.Rd8 Bxd8 23.Rxd8 Ke7 24.Rxh8 Bxf3 25.gf+-) 22.Nd5 Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Rxc7 24.Rxf5 Rb7 25.b3 cxb 26.cxb f6 27.Ra5 Rb6 28.Rc1 Kf7 29.Nd4 Rd8 30.Nf3 g5 31.Rf1 g4 (31…Kg6!?) 32.Ne5 Kg7 33.Ng4 Rd2 34.Ne3 Bb4 35.Rd5 Rxa2 36.Nf5 Kg6 37.Nh4 Kf7 38.Rd7 Ke6 39.Rd3 Bc5 40.Kh1 Rb2 41.Re1 Kf7 42.Rd7 Kf8 43.Rd8 Kg7+=(43…Kf7 44.Rd7 Kf8 45.Rd8 Kf7 46.Rd7+=) 44.Rd7 (44.Nf5!? Kf7 45.Rd7 Kg6 46.Rf1) Kh6 45.Nf5 Kg5 46.Rd5 Rf2??(46…Bf2 47.Rc1 Rb5 [47…R6b3 48.Nd4 Kf4 49.Nb3 Rb3 50.Ra5+-] 48.h4 Kg6 49.Ne7 Kf7 50.Rb5 ab-=) 47.Ng3 (più forte era 47.Nd4 Kg6 48.Rc5+-) Kg6 48.Rxc5 Rb3 49.Ne4 (49.Rf1 Rf1 50.Nf1 Ra3+-) Ra2 (49…Re3 50.Rcc1 Rc2+-) 50.Rc6 a5(50…Re3 51.Rf6! Kg7 52.Rff1 Rxe1 53.Rxe1+-) 51.Rxf6 Kg7 52.Rf2 (52.Ref1 Rb8+-) Ra4?! (52…Rf2 53.Nf2 a4 +-) 53.Nc5 Rab4 (53…Re3 54.Ref1 Rc4 55.Rf7 Kg8+-) 54.Nxb3 Rxb3 55.Ra2 Rb5 56.Rea1 (se 56…Kg6 57.Rxa5) 1-0

1.e4 c5 2.d4 (Morra!)d5?!(e adesso?) 3.Nc3(e tutto torna!) dxe 4.Nxe4?! Bf5?(perché no 4…cxd4 5.Nf3 e5 =+ ?) 5.Ng3 (interessante era 5.Nxc5!? Nc6 6.c3+=)Bg6 6.Bc4?!(ancora un tratto impreciso 6.Nf3 era la più solida) e6 (troppo timida si doveva considerare 6…cdx4!? 7.h4 h5) 7.N1e2?!(continua il festival delle mosse dubbie 7.d5 exd 8.Bxd5) h6 (7…Nc6!?=+) 8.Nf4 Bh7 9.Qe2 (sicuramente migliore era 9.d5 exd 10.Nxd5+=) Nf6??(errore per errore il nero si avvicina al baratro 9…Nc6 10.c3 cxd 11.Bxe6 fxe 12.Nxe6 Qc8 13.Nc7 Kd8 14.Nxa8 Nf6=) 10.0-0 (il bianco manca ancora una volta lo sfondamento che si aveva dopo 10.d5 e5 11.Qxe5 Qxe7 12.Qxe7 Bxe7 13.Bb3+-) g5 (ancora si poteva sopravvivere con 10…Nc6 11.dxc Nd4 12.Bb5 Ke7) 11.Nxe6 (ancora più forte era 11.Nfh5 Nxh5 12.Nxh5+-) fxe6 12.Qxe6 Be7 13.Re1 Rf8 (13…cxd? 14.Qxf6 Kd7 15.Rxe7 Qxe7 16.Qxd4 Kc7 17.Qxh8 Bxc2 18.Qh6) 14.Nh5 Nxh5 15.Qh6 Kd7? (l’ultima speranza era 15…Nf6 16.Bxg5 Nbd7 [16…Bxc2? 17.Bxf6 Rxf6 18.Qxf6+-] +=) 16.Qe6 (se 16…Kc7 17.Qxe7 Nd7 18.Qxh7+-) 1-0

Se il nero dopo 3.Nc3 gioca semplicemente 3…e6 si rientra in una Francese gambetto Marschall (Dal nome del GM statunitense Marshall Frank James 1877-1944, che ha lasciato un segno indelebile nella teoria delle aperture con il celeberrimo gambetto Marshall della partita spagnola) La mossa che suggeriamo è 4.ed5. Presentiamo due miniature, non che sia così facile confutare il gambetto in questione, ma può essere interessante vedere a cosa va incontro il nero se gioca 3…e6 così tanto per evitare complicazioni senza avere preparato la variante. Chi fosse interessato all’argomento può trovare un discreto numero di partite nel "file zippato" allegato.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.exd5 (la nostra posizione) cxd (4…exd 5.dxc Nf6 6.Be3+=) 5.Qxd4 Nf6 (5…exd 6.Qxd5 Nd7 7.Bc4 Qe7 8.Nge2 +-) 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nf3+=(7.Bb5 Bd7 8.de fe 9.Rd1+-) exd 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.Qe3 Be7? (9…Be6 10.0-0-0 0-0)

10.0-0-0 Be6 11.Bc4 d4 (11…0-0 +-) 12.Rxd4(12.Qxd4 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 Nc6) Qb6? (12…Qc8 13.Bxe6 fxe+-) 13.Bxe6 (13.Nd5 Qc5 14.b4 Qc8 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.Qg5 Ke8 17.Qg7 Rf8+-) fxe 14.Re1 Bc5?? (14…0-0 15.Na4 Qc6+-) 15.Qxe6 Qxe6 16.Rxe6 Kf7 (16…Be7 17.Nd5 Nc6+-) 17.Ng5 Kf8 (così si prende matto in una mossa se 17…Kg8 c’era il matto ma un po’ dopo 18.Rd8 Bf8 19.Ree8 g6 20.Rxf8 Kg7 21.Ne6 Kh6 22.Rd3 g5 23.Rf6 Kh5 24.Rh3 Rg4 25.f3#) 18.Rd8# 1-0

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 c5 4.exd exd 5.Bb5 Nc6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Ne5=(7.0-0 Be6+=) Qc7 8.Bg5 Ne4?? (8…Be6=) 9.Nxd5 Qd6 10.Bh4 Qxd5??(il nero doveva giocare ancora 10…Be6 con le seguenti varianti 11.c4 cxd? 12.Qxd4 a6 13.Qb6+- [13.Qxe4 axb 14.Bg3 Bxd5 15.cxd Qb4 16.Qb4 Nb4] Se 11…Bxd5 12.cxd a6 13.dxc [13.Bxc6 bxc 14.f3 cxd 15.Qxd4 Qb4 16.Qxb4 Bxb4 17.Ke2 Bd6 18.Nxc6 Nc5+-] axb14.cxb+- 11…a6 +-) 11.Bc4 Qxd4 (11…Qc4 12.Nc4 Nd4 e il bianco vince) 12.Bf7# 1-0

Eric Schiller sent us a list of Orthodox and Unorthodox Gambits. Here it is. If anyone notices any missing gambits, please let him know at overlord@chessworks.com

8 settembre 2001