[Event "Beverwijk"] [Site "Beverwijk"] [Date "1956.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "BDG (Hubsch Gambit)"] [Black "v Alekhine Defence"] [Result "*"] [ECO "D00"] [Annotator "Martin"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "1956.??.??"] [EventType "game"] [EventCountry "NED"] {We can transpose into a BDG after 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.e4 and in about two thirds of the games Black plays 3...dxe4. However, White also needs to know the Hubsch Gambit as Black can also play 3...Nxe4 4.Nxe4 dxe4 but this only represents approximately a fifth of games. In the remaining games (about 10%), Black declines the gambit by playing the French Defence with 3...e6. At least here the White player will avoid the Winawer variation. Which side benefits from the exchange of knights in the Hubsch has been open to a lot of debate! In the normal BDG the black knight on f6 is often a good defensive piece and the white knight on c3 is an innocent bystander but as more pieces come off the board the easier it is for the defender. One thing for certain is that by offering the BDG the game should look nothing like an Alekhine Defence. We do not have space to include a full review of the Hubsch but here are a couple of sample games which show White's potential attacking chances if Black plays the opening incorrectly. We start with a fine win by Diemer himself!} 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Nxe4 dxe4 5. Bf4 ({In the following game, Black falls for a common trap!} 5. Bc4 g6 6. c3 Nd7 7. f3 exf3 8. Nxf3 Bg7 $2 9. Bxf7+ $1 { Black resigned (Stader-Suhrmann 1977) in view of} Kxf7 10. Ng5+ $18 Ke8 (10... Kg8 11. Qb3+) 11. Ne6 {trapping the black queen}) 5... Nd7 6. f3 exf3 7. Nxf3 Nf6 8. Bc4 e6 9. O-O Be7 10. Qe1 O-O 11. Bd3 Nd5 12. Be5 Bf6 13. c4 Bxe5 14. dxe5 Nf4 15. Bc2 Qe7 16. Qe3 Ng6 17. Ng5 h6 $2 18. Nxf7 $1 Rxf7 19. Bxg6 Rxf1+ 20. Rxf1 Bd7 21. Rf7 Qd8 22. Qf3 {Black resigns in Diemer v Durao, 1956, as there is no safe defence to 23.Rxg7+, 24.Qf7+ and 25.Qh7 mate as} Be8 23. Rf8# *