I realize there is another topic about new openings, but this one is about a specific new opening. It goes like this.

Sacrificing a pawn for superior development and drawing out the enemy queen to chase it around. ramynaguib used this gambit on me, though I came out ahead a minor piece later(game still continuing though). Any way to make it official? Any name suggestions? I personally prefer either Sean's gambit(since I found it-sort of) or fiancheto gambit(since it happens in the bishop fiancheto area where the queen is).

Since he's the one who played it, it should be named after him.

How about...uh, Scandinavian?

tonydal wrote:

Since he's the one who played it, it should be named after him.

 Well I know that for a fact that the opening: The Scotch Game, which name was decided from a match in 1824 between the London and Edinburgh chess clubs. The London team were who played this opening, but the Scots liked it so much that they claimed the opening name.

So the way I see itif your opponent doesn't want to claim this new opening then why not, but to get an opening globally recognised and accepted it must be played in a major tournament.

It is along scandinavian lines I know, but scandinavian is not a gambit and this is, so it is not wrong to name this one other than scandinavian(or center counter). Anyway, though I don't know how to make it official, Sean's gambit it is.

wel there are three games on the Games explorer on this site with those moves

Scandinavian is a gambit...2. exd5. But you can, like with any gambit, refuse it (2. e5 for example)

Good, so my gambit already has some citations.

srn347 wrote:

Good, so my gambit already has some citations.

I might add it's a losing proposition imo.

scandinavian defence?

This is a gambit 3 moves into a mainstream opening. If it was any good it would already have a name.

In one of my current games I'm also playing this (with black) against a guy called gramos here. On the database of chesslive.de I found one game from 1996 between a mr Rafael Roca Cruz and Jose Francisco Munoz Agullo, played in Cullera, a small city on the mediterranean coast in Spain. That makes me think we should call this the Mediterranean gambit of the Scandinavian defense or something like that. But, I don't really care, I just liked looking this up! Maybe the "srn347 gambit" is a nice name, or what about "Oops I lost my pawn on g2 gambit" . I have to give the distinguished gentlemen that play this opening some credit though, it is not all that easy to play against!

isn't this the scandinavian defence

Chess_Lobster wrote:

This is a gambit 3 moves into a mainstream opening. If it was any good it would already have a name.

Not necessarily. The 20th Century saw a rash of new openings with the Hypermoderns. I don't think it's safe to say we've completely explored chess openings yet.

This isn't a good line.  Compare the position after after 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Be2 Qxg2 4. Bf3 Qg6 5. d4 Qd6 6. Nc3 Nf3 to a normal 3... Qd6 Scandinavian (a very respectable line which doesn't even have a name):  1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6.  What's different?  White is a pawn down, his king is exposed, and his bishop is badly placed on f3, while the Black queen is perfectly safe on d6.  Not exactly the sort of initiative (typically three tempos for a pawn) one hopes for when gambiting a pawn in the opening.

Be careful what you ask for...  Remember Damiano's Defence -- a terrible opening (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6) named after the first guy who published an analysis of it (who, BTW, said it was a terrible opening...).  For his trouble, he's had his name attached to it for the last 500 years:  a true case of no good deed going unpunished!

Being down a pawn is of coarse part of the gambit(and how could you criticize that part of a gambit), black's queen is out and may need to use tempi to get back(or block development by hiding back in front of the black pawns), white can develop more quickly or gain more tempo by chasing around the queen, and his bishop is already fiancheto'ed(sort of).

i would say:

"the Sean white fianchetto diagonal scandinavian counter gambit"

or:

the suicidal queen.

YeOldeWildman> This isn't a good line.

Agreed.

YeOldeWildman>  Compare the position after after 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Be2 Qxg2 4. Bf3 Qg6 5. d4 Qd6 6. Nc3 Nf3 to a normal 3... Qd6 Scandinavian ... 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd6 4. d4 Nf6.

Great comparison lines! For White, I definitely prefer the mainline...

YeOldeWildman> What's different?  White is a pawn down

Check.

YeOldeWildman> while the Black queen is perfectly safe on d6.

Check... well, as safe as in the comparison line.

YeOldeWildman> his king is exposed

I don't agree. How is this different than in the comparison line?

The e-file's open in both lines. The only difference in the gambit line is that White's commited to castling queenside, which is a bit slower than castling kingside. But Black's lagging development (and the fact that he also has to castle queenside or fianchetto before castling kingside due to the open g-file) make it unlikely he can take advantage.

YeOldeWildman> and his bishop is badly placed on f3,

I don't agree. Perhaps f3 is not the bishop's ideal post, but he's certainly stronger on the h1-a8 diagonal than on the home square (in the comparison line).

White has gained at least two things for the gambited pawn:

• Better development (Bf1 -> Bf3)
• An open g-file (which slows down Black's castling)

I agree it's not enough, but White probably has 1/2 pawn compensation plus retained his first move advantage... so maybe he's only very slightly behind.

TiagoDevesa, I wrote a short article (based on My System) on counting tempi. It's a useful tool, although like all tools it can be misused (examples provided).  :)

Scandinavian itself is not a gambit(because the pawn is retaken immediately). And if you all think that the gambit is bad, play me and start out with me using the gambit and you accepting it and we'll see(you'll have to mention it before my first move since I usually start d4 not e4).