| Nov-27-06 | | Autoreparaturwerkbau: 7.Nxh7! Aaaah, a beauty...!
Well, black didn't even try to develop pieces anyway. |
 |
| Jan-03-07 | | Silverstrike: <Autoreparaturwerkbau> Well, in all fairness, before 7.Nxh7, black's moves look quite reasonable on the surface. |
|
Feb-11-08
 | | FSR: It figures. A guy like Blackmar isn't going to let the fact that Black played 1...f5 instead of 1...d5 stop him from sacrificing a pawn with 2.e4 and 3.f3. Presumably after 1.d4 Nf6 Blackmar would have played 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4, the Huebsch Gambit. |
|
Feb-21-08
| | FSR: <FSR: It figures. A guy like Blackmar isn't going to let the fact that Black played 1...f5 instead of 1...d5 stop him from sacrificing a pawn with 2.e4 and 3.f3.> Silly me. Modern Chess Openings, Fifth Edition 1932, refers to 1.d4 f5 2.e4 as "the Blackmar Attack" on pages 159 and 185. The same book, on page 153, observes that "the Blackmar Gambit" (i.e. 1.d4 d5 2.e4) "has not the same force as the similar attack in the Dutch Defense." MCO-4 (1925), p. 120, had referred to 1.d4 f5 2.e4 as simply "the Gambit continuation." In MCO-6 (1939), p. 215, and MCO-7, p. 258, it becomes the Staunton Gambit, "[a]lso known as the Blackmar Attack." In MCO-8 (1952), pp. 22 and 29, and all later editions, Staunton gets all the glory and poor Blackmar is forgotten. |
|
Feb-21-08
| | FSR: <Silverstrike: <Autoreparaturwerkbau> Well, in all fairness, before 7.Nxh7, black's moves look quite reasonable on the surface.> Yes, 3.f3 is pretty dangerous if Black takes the pawn. 3...e5, as in Elo (yes, THAT Elo)-Powers, Milwaukee 1948, is considered safer. See, e.g., Harding, The Leningrad Dutch, pp. 128-29; A. Martin, The Contemporary Anti-Dutch, p. 64. Christiansen and Silman say that 3...e5 equalizes, but that 3...d5 4.Nc3 Nf6 is a better try for advantage. Dutch Defense, pp. 195, 202. |
|
| Jun-07-09 | | WhiteRook48: 13...Kf8??? was the fatal mistake |
|
|
 |
|
sac: 7.Nxh7