I accidentally played the Carlson Gambit in a blitz game not long ago (meant to play Nc3 but got in a hurry) I won the game and since have tried to find out about this opening but hit a brick wall.  No master level player is recorded on this site as playing the Carlson and no one ever responds to the Perseus by accepting the gambit.  Strangely there seems a lack of information on these systems and my abilities are insufficient for their analysis.  The masters play purposefully however and I was wondering why accepting this gambit never appears an option....

My impression is that with the deffending pawn the only way for black to oust the knight (short of a knight trade on d7 [to trade on c6 is foolish resulting in another pair of doubled pawns]) is f6 which leaves black with doubled pawns and his knight blocked from normal development whereas white shifts his knight to c4 and is fine.  The beneifit to all this of coarse should be evident as it throws the normal French way off task.  Bd6 seems to me a rather moot attack since Nc3 or Be2 keeps the queen in safe sitting... if your goal is to disrupt I am having trouble seeing the true danger

---

I'm not sure f6 is a good idea? [edit: btw I like this, might give it a try]

 

that was my point.. that it is not dangerous, I am just wondering why the masters have not accepted the gambit a single time according to this site.  Unpopular sure, but NEVER??  what is wrong with it?

You can get about 35 games here:

http://www.masterchessgames.com/C/0/1/ECO-C01/Chess-ECO-Database.htm

Where black accepted 19 times, with a 76% success rate. Nf6 and Nd7 seem to be the main responses

thanks

According to the site rooperi gave the Perseus has a 39% rate for white.  Also the line 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ng5 has a much better rating despite how odd it is .. 37.5%... Given all this I might maintain this would still be a good surprise weapon esp. at lower levels

It's just bad.  You give up a pawn for nothing.  The Ne5 isn't even a start at compensation, as Black easily repels or forces exchange by playing ...Nf6, ...Bd6, and ...Nbd7.  His e4P is strong.

What's the point of playing an unusual opening which can be countered by natural play? 

Masterchessgames.com lists this opening (the Perseus at Nf3) at 39% for black and this site has it at 100% for black (albeit with only 3 played games) this is nothing to sneeze at as far as statistics go.  It is what follows this move that counts.  Now that I have found some material to study I would say that it is a very dangerous but worthy opening.  The thing to be gained is knocking black out of traditional french play.  If you know your opponent and he is good at the french and your not and if it is a relativly low rated game I see no problems with this as a surprise weapon but its inherent weaknesses would make it dangerous to play alot lest regulars pick up on your style.  Just bad... no, but I do begin to see the dangers now.  Notice that very few masters accept the gambit meaning it can't be sure fire

Let's not look at any statistics yet, they can be wildly off for so many reasons (who knows what strengths both players were, whether games of the Flemish Girls U10 Blitz Championship were included, ...)

First: White gives away a center pawn, and doesn't even get any extra development out of it. Why would White not be clearly worse here?

worse maybe but not despaired.  In the games I have looked at the theory seems in the broadest of ways similiar to perhaps the Alekhine.  White draws black into a prolonged lunging attack which opens them up.  It is inferior no doubt but its strength as I see it is taking someone not familiar with it and who sees it as very week and drawing them into problems.  Here are some examples of what I am talking about.

In the later white feeds pawns to keep black coming and then changes into an attack.  I am not saying this is a good opening.  I am submitting however that it has certain qualities that make it interesting and perhaps redeem it from total disregard, as I already mentioned a possible surprise weapon vs. slighty weaker opponents