Is there an accepted refutation of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, 1. d4 d5 2. e4 or what is the strongest line for Black to prove that the gambit is unsound?

  • At the moment, Ziegler's defense is threatening to refute it. Alchemy Variation seems to "hold" the opening, but White really struggles. Seek out the current theory on Alchemy Variation -> if that line fails then BDG is refuted. To know how just seek out Ziegler's defense. – AlwaysLearningNewStuff Sep 21 '15 at 22:09

The simplest refutation is 2...e6, the french defense, one of the most stable openings for black. It is also fine to accept the gambit 2... dxe4, but you have to know some specific traps....

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    If (and only if) the French defense is a part of black's opening repertoire, then 2....e6 is indeed the easiest reply. But what if black doesn't want to play the French? – Maxwell86 Sep 20 '15 at 16:55
  • 3
    So 1...e6 is the refutation of 1.e4? – bof Sep 21 '15 at 9:51
  • In fact you are right. 1...e6 or 2..e6 is not a real refutation but a simple way to avoid Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. For many players it is simpler to know a simple and positional way to avoid this gambit tactics (which is typically much better known by the gambit player than by someone who is playing it for the first time....). And finallly in fact I know of no real strait forward refutation of this gambit. – Oliver Sick Sep 21 '15 at 15:24
  • When I played the BDG, the French was the only reply I didn't want to be played. – Mike Jones May 29 at 10:18

Not an expert, but I'd say the onus is on the gambiteer (White) to prove anything. W is delaying development and must waste time to capture the pawn later. Black has natural moves like Nf6 and Bf5 which both develop and delay W's capture of the pawn (and can possibly even hold on to it). W is just giving away some of the opening advantage. I don't think Black can expect more than this. W can also choose to give up a pawn altogether with f3, exf3, Nxf3 with in-adequate compensation.

| improve this answer | |
  • It would be a bit silly to offer a gambit and immediately start to worry about regaining the material – Philip Roe May 30 at 2:09
  • I didn't suggest regaining the pawn "immediately"; the very word that I used is "later", and as I said, the alternative to not regain the pawn is to truly gambit it with a move like f3. I doubt that this gives W anything, but opening choices are also a matter of taste, and you are welcome to play this if you like it better than, say the QGD. I am not a master level player (yet). – Aravind May 30 at 5:16
  • And I did not say that you would try to regain the pawn immediately. I said that you would start to worry about it immediately. That is not how a gambiteer should think. (And I did not claim to be a gambiteer myself) – Philip Roe May 30 at 15:28

Just accept it. the traps are the only thing you have to know except the opening principles.

| improve this answer | |
  • The BDG, like the Benko Gambit, is a long-term, pressure gambit. Avoiding these so-called traps won't get you a good game. – Mike Jones May 29 at 10:19
  • the blackmar diemer is not the bad trap only opening, but it's not so good for white. in the blackmar diemer, accept it and play the principles. – Rookie May 31 at 1:01
  • Restating you answer isn't a useful comment. Black doesn't have a good until he beats back the attack starting around move 20. – Mike Jones May 31 at 9:37
  • @Mike Jones, If the BDG has similar principles to the Benko Gambit, and works well, then why isn't it played more often in master games? – Reinstate Monica Sep 7 at 22:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.