Random Posts

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Skunked by the Rasmussen Attack against my Lemberger Counter Gambit against the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit!!

When my opponent in this game opened with the Blackmar I felt pretty good. After all, according to GMs and other authorities, it is not very good. Of course there remains a small but dedicated group of players, my opponent included, who think otherwise. Every time a refutation is found to the latest move they find another try to rehabilitate it.

Most ‘experts’ think Black can successfully defend his position and use the extra P in the ending. IM Gary Lane thinks the opening is suitable for club players (what opening isn’t). In his book Understanding the Chess Openings Sam Collins wrote, "Nobody who plays good chess plays this line, and nobody who plays good chess ever will." IM Andrew Martin wrote, "playing the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is like shopping for a tombstone." When you read stuff like that who wouldn’t be excited to see an opponent open with the Blackmar, especially in a correspondence game!

I don’t have any books on this gambit, only the few games mostly by lower rated players that appear in my database, so I was pretty much on my own. I essayed the Lemberger Counter-Gambit where Black counterattacks against the d4-pawn instead of defending the attacked e4-pawn. White can head for a drawish endgame with 4.dxe5 which gives few winning chances for either side. I didn’t expect that from somebody playing the Blackmar though. White played 4.Nge2 which is best met by 4...Nc6! when Black has good chances of obtaining an advantage. That’s what the ‘books’ say and there ended my knowledge of the Blackmar-Diemer.

White countered my Lemberger Counter Gambit with the Rasmussen Attack, 4. Nge2. This is a versatile move. It defends the d-Pawn and reinforces the other N in case it gets pinned. I countered with 4…Nc6 which is the critical move because Black protects his e-Pawn and at the same time attacks White’s d-Pawn a second time. After the moves 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng6 Black has to make a decision. According to the book, if White is able to win the P on e4 without making any concessions he will have the advantage. So, Black has to find a way to continue attacking the White d-Pawn.

I preferred to take another route and defend the P by 6…f5. According to the book, this move is not so bad as it looks (Black compromises his K-side) because it is not easy for White to make progress in the center. According to IM Christoph Scheerer, 6…f5 is the ultimate test of the Rasmussen Attack because Black has weakened his light squares and the a2-g8 diagonal. Apparently we followed the book until I played my ninth move; White informed me after the game that Scheerer recommended 9…Ng6 instead of the clunker I played.

I spent about two hours annotating this game and was nearly done when I went to get a cup of coffee and when I returned the computer had automatically downloaded and installed security updates. In the process of rebooting, I lost all my analysis. Just an indication of the bad memories associated with this game! As a result I present it Blunderchecked with a couple of different engines.

In the end, despite the fact that the engines were telling me I enjoyed about a one Pawn advantage throughout much of the game, my gut was telling me that my King stuck in the center, lack of development and the fact that I couldn’t seem to find a viable way to generate counterplay was not going to turn out well and I just seemed to have drifted into a lost game!

No comments:

Post a Comment