Talk:Blackmar–Diemer Gambit

Semantics

It can be argued that it is not truly the BDG until after white plays f3 after (Diemer's) Nc3 and Nf6. The original Blackmar gambit didn't work because of 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 f3 e5!. CjPuffin 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are many who would say that the same move breaks the BDG! I agree, by the way: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 is not the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit... yet! -- AlexLane 11:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Can we have a redirect to this page from BDG? Other chess openings such as QGA and QID have this, I think. 91.105.62.35 (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp of article

I've expanded the article considerably with sections on the main lines of the opening (mostly based on Christoph Scheerer's recent book on the opening, which attempts to give an objective overview of the line, though at times there is a slight bias for White in my opinion). I realise that there were a fair number of punctuation errors (as pointed out by Ihardlythinkso) though some were carried over from the original version of the article before I started the revamp. As for the footnotes, they are presented as inline citations- quite a lot of the Start and C-Class chess articles over at Wiki are flagged for their lack of such citations. Tws45 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just another question, is this article still Start-Class given the large expansion? I don't feel qualified to upgrade it to C-class as I contributed most of the material on the individual lines. Tws45 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transposition issue with Ziegler Defence

The article gives 5...c6 as the Ziegler Defence but this is an inaccurate way because after 6.Bd3 when as the section points out (but misleadingly) "Black can transpose back to the Classical Variation of the Teichmann Defence with 8...e6". What it does NOT say is this is a transposition with loss of tempo, because playing c5 can only happen after c6 and hence moving the c-pawn twice with the 5...c6 move order. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the Teichmann Defence is Bg4 so maybe it's suppose to say "Black can transpose back to the Classical Variation of the Teichmann Defence with 8...Bg4". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now, but could be clearer. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Caro-Kann

Also can arises from the Rasa-Studier gambit. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem?

Don't want to edit it myself in case I'm wrong, but doesn't the line 12.c3 h6 13.Qg4!? in the 5. c6 defense just end with white hanging his queen for nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.193.69 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main Line with 5. ... Nc6

Perhaps there should be a discussion about this seemingly natural move. I think its called the pietrowsky defense. It invites 6. Bb5 and 7. O-O but is that so bad? There's not even a mention of it and perhaps there should be, to get out of book quickly... 160.79.125.18 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]