In my childhood I was easily influenced by fanatic chess players: the U.S. American Bobby Fischer as an idol for his superiority, for beating the east (and later the west), and the German
Emil Joseph Diemer who propagated "Vom ersten Zug auf Matt", playing for checkmate from the very beginning.
Let's be honest: What is better than checkmating? It ends the game, often is beautiful, what more do you want?
Well, nowadays I could have many answers to what is better, but back then I didn't know the wonderland of composition much.
Diemer was a controversial figure of chess, in a list of the most controversial chess players he would rank far at the top, a bit behind Fischer. Diemer was much more of a fanatic even than Fischer. He apparently called himself the "
Messias des Schachs" at one occasion even. I read his books about his gambit, a radical way of playing - win or lose, with few in-between. Checkmate or gain a lost position with a missing pawn or two. And of course it was the plethora of beautiful combinations as well as the perceivable ease of winning that hooked me up to the Blackmar Diemer gambit. Nowadays I would only play the Blackmar gambit 1.d2-d4 f7-f5 2.e2-e4 d5:e4 3.f2-f3, or 3.Sb1-c3 Sg8-f6 4.f2-f3, but not the more known Blackmar gambit 1.d2-d4 d7-d5 2.e2-e4 d5:e4 3.f2-f3? (3.-e7-e5! and Black is better) or the Blackmar Diemer gambit 1.d2-d4 d7-d5 2.e2-e4 d5:e4 3.Sb1-c3 Sg8-f6 4.f2-f3. The reason is easy and sad: The Blackmar Diemer gambit most probably is incorrect. There is one very much forced variation that Georg Studier showed me and that refutes a critical line of the gambit.
Diemer had - apart from his important although controversial theoretical work - another side to him, he wanted to be a prophet. He used a lot of things that he believed to help but in reality are just scam, such as some mathematical stuff, biorhythms, etc.
There is however one episode that is worth being told: At the very end of Diemer's life, he predicted the
assassination of Wolfgang Schäuble. Diemer tried to visit Schäuble, but Schäuble was not at home. The event took place indeed after Diemer had died. I don't know what exactly Diemer said, but Schäuble survived, although since then unable to walk.
What happened there? Had Diemer - after over half a century of nonsensical pseudoresearch - finally found a connection to the universe that enabled him to make an accurate prediction? Did he have only the lucky hit that inevitably comes at some time for someone? Did he become a prophet, or did he completely descend into madness?
Unfortunately, we will never know. The greatest chess propagandist of our country took this last secret with him.
One thing is sure, and Studier admitted it: When he wrote the biography of Diemer, he made a crucial mistake: Diemer died on 10 October 1990, but the assassination took place two days later. Diemer saw it indeed in advance...
I want to believe! I want to believe that for him - just as it did for me - the universe answered when he asked, even if it takes a lifetime...
