Jan-21-14
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: No kibitzing for the game which introduced the refutation of 3.f3?! For shame. Mr. Wurm deserves some credit for his innovation, and some for his Morphy-like hurricane that follows. If nothing else, the position after 4...exd4 looks rather picturesque, doesn't it? |
|
Jan-21-14
 | | perfidious: One might say that the Wurm turned on White's gambit. While terrible at puns, maybe 'the Wurm turned' is worthy of submission, but I've no idea how to set about it. Not something which has been of particular interest to me, really. |
|
| Apr-15-16 | | Calaszlo: Is there something wrong with 22...Qc5? |
|
May-03-21
 | | Breunor: Caladzlo, hard to beat mate in 1! |
|
| May-03-21 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: Good game, but I don't understand the pun reference. |
|
| May-03-21 | | Autoreparaturwerkbau: What is pun all about? Maybe a reference to the last ice age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%...)? |
|
| May-03-21 | | Brenin: Plenty of swash being buckled in this game, and also in the reverse fixture A F Wurm vs A E Blackmar, 1883, which has a pretty finish. |
|
| May-03-21 | | goodevans: We have the refutor of the gambit demonstrating that refutation against it's inventor. And his name just happens to be <Wurm>. Full marks for avoiding the obvious pun. |
|
| May-03-21 | | Messiah: Terrible! |
|
| May-03-21 | | siggemannen: I vote for perfidious' pun, sometimes obvious is better |
|
May-03-21
| | perfidious: Lol; had not even recalled having a look at this game, much less commenting, though the surname provides an opportunity only too apparent. |
|
May-03-21
| | Breunor: I think the pun is referencing a song called Dr. Worm by They Might Be Giants. |
|
| May-03-21 | | areknames: <If nothing else, the position after 4...exd4 looks rather picturesque, doesn't it?> It does, but even more so after 6.Bf4 perhaps? |
|
| May-03-21 | | ajile: <Calaszlo: Is there something wrong with 22...Qc5?> Nothing I can see. Looks like Mate. |
|
Dec-08-24
 | | FSR: Wurm may well have known of Blackmar's game in the prior year's New Orleans Championship, A Blackmar vs E Farrar, 1881, and possibly A Blackmar vs A Lapeyre, 1882, in both of which he played 3.f3 successfully. Wurm may have prepared 3...e5!, which is today regarded as the refutation of 3.f3, as an improvement. After this debacle, surprisingly (a) Blackmar kept playing 3.f3, Repertoire Explorer: Armand Blackmar (white), and (b) his opponents didn't respond with 3...e5! Repertoire Explorer: Armand Blackmar (white). Blackmar died in 1888. The improvement 3.Nc3! was played at least as early as 1844. Borsdorff vs A Peter, 1844. It was also played by players such as Ryder, for whom the Ryder Gambit (5.Qxf3?) is named, and world champions Lasker and Alekhine in simuls. Ryder vs NN, 1898 Lasker vs R J Webb, 1898
Alekhine vs L Blount, 1923. The man who became the co-eponym of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Emil Diemer, was born in 1908. He always played 3.Nc3! - 105 times. Repertoire Explorer: Emil Diemer (white). He apparently discovered the gambit in 1934. In his first known game with it, he won in 10 moves with what is now called the Halosar Trap. E Diemer vs H Halosar, 1934. This and other successes made him an evangelist for the gambit. Blackmar-Diemer enthusiasts became, and remain, something of a cult. It's a bad opening (about -0.6 according to Stockfish 17), though White gets enough compensation to draw with best play. After 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3, Black has three roughly equally good responses: (a) 4...Bf5; (b) 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 g6; and (c) 4...exf3 5.Nxf3 c6 (I think this is the simplest, though I played 5...g6). The Ryder Gambit, 5.Qxf3?, is refuted by 5...Qxd4 6.Qf3 Qg4! 7.Qf2 Qf5! G Kvakovszky vs Mishra, 2019. I played in, and expect to win, a BDG thematic tournament. My games as White: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che.... As Black: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che.... |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 20...Rxd3+