A Challenge to the GambitKing

I pity whoever gets to play the part of Jane 

Nope, nothing.

What really is there to prove anyway? Ok so some people like to play crap and win with it, that's practical chess, and it can work a lot at amateur levels. I'd encourage them to play it, just gives me the upper hand early on. If I lose, I lose, but it's always nice to start with the advantage. Why do some people care so much about what openings other people play? It's not murder to play crap guys.

But yeah I don't know what draws people to like playing it with black, because really, it seems like you're defending your king for dear life the whole game, hoping your opponent screws up a couple tactics and that somehow you end up attacking. I think white would have most of the fun, as black's position is so fragile. Maybe it's the satisfaction of beating people who may think it's a forced loss? I have a more mature relationship with the game, so I don't get much joy out of that and don't take too hard losing to an inferior opening, as it's merely inferior after all and chess is no simple game!

you say even though his rating is higher, you can beat him anyways because of his opening? he's gotten that rating playing his gambits! If you say they are so weak, that means he is even better than 1764.

and I challenged Gambitking to an unrated Smith-Morra Gambit, Deferred game.

refute the king's gambit

well what would you rather do?  Have a significant material advantage but be forced to defend for the next 20 moves(especially against someone named "gambit king" or have a slight material advantage and a big attack?

Nice game Conzipe!

Gareth, I noticed that you posted in another thread that ng5 "wins a pawn" in the two knights defense.  I'd consider that more than a sound gambit on black's part.  Up for a game in either that line or the Benko gambit (another pawn offer with excellent compensation)?

I will play the white side of the main line of the two knights defence against anyone.

(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5)

Challenge sent to shoop2 (Could only find 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 as a starting point so will have to play manually to Na5.)

It seemed like he wanted to play in that line so I was just pointing out that it would start a couple of moves earlier. There was talk of a sound gambit and mentioned my statement of a line winning a pawn so I assume he was talking of the 5... Na5 line as I can't think of another single pawn gambit in the Italian game two knights defence. (There might be one, but I don't know of it [I have rarely seen the two knights defence and when I do it normally goes into the Lolli attack])

edit -  thinking about it there is a 5... b5 gambit but I don;t think he was talking about that

 Myself is the refuge of idiots-- Red Smith. Look up that quote. Just use I. I probably pissed off everyone who read this post.

indeed

Nah.  Me just rolled eyes and laughed to I.

On the Net it's not so bad, but is there anything more irritating in real life than a grammar cop?  The proper response is to turn slowly and walk away, and resist the temptation to turn around to make sure they're not following you . . . 

There are a few ways White can get a very reasonable advantage in the Latvian, Kosten's objective work The Latvian Gambit Lives! accepts this.

For instance, chapter 4 deals with Bronstein's Variation, 6. Be2, and he says;

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2

In his excellent book 200 Open Games, David Bronstein goes into a deep discussion of how he came to discover the strong move 6.Be2 (which is odd, as it had already been analysed by Betins).  In essence, his idea is to stop Black's queen from settling on the important square g6, from where she simultaneously surveys g2, protects the e4-pawn, and also allows the king's knight to develop naturally on f6.  The other advantage of 6.Be2 is it's flexibility: White can attack the black e-pawn with Nc3, and, if necessary, with f3 and yet is ready, should Black play ...d5, to play Ne3 and c4.

Black has tried many replies:

A 6...Nc6

B 6...Qd8

C 6...d5?!

D 6...Qf7?!

E 6...h5?

... without ever finding one that is completely satisfactory.

-Kosten

Deep Rybka 3 also likes this approach, giving White a score of +0.91 at depth = 18 in this line:

Sorry - I only analyse games on this site, I don't actively play.

Why should someone play you if you're going to use a computer?  He could just play the computer instead.

May the force be with you, Gambitking.

Did I miss something? You've always seemed perfectly polite to me, I remember being surprised at the maturity and sensibleness of all of your reactions to everything I have said, I play other games and I would think that if I said anything like this there the reaction would be properly rude and very immature.

I can't see that you have done anything wrong tbh. I might be missing something though,