This may be unsound, but if the pawn isn't accepted, simply convert to something like the London System with a king side fianchetto.

"May be unsound," huh?...I'd say that was pretty seriously unsound.

this is mad

I meant for this to be more of a thought-provoker than a serious consideration for an opening. I used it to demonstrate development vs. material to a member of my chess team that was wondering about attacking technique. Try 8. Bxc7 Qxb2 9. Kf2 QxR 10. B-c6+ with a forced mate in two.

oh, and zebsine, you're not a very nice person.

That's a pretty interesting idea you got there.

Zebsine that's awfully offensive. I know america isn't a perfect place but there's no need to make remarks like that. Exspecially in a place that's supposed to be friendly. O well I guess there's jerks all over the world.

I agree with what you're saying, Zebsine should never have insulted all Americans using an over-generalisation.

However, careful what you say- you yourself are using an over-generalisation:

"Exspecially in a place that's supposed to be friendly."

This is the same sort of thing Zebsine did, except yours was a positive generalisation and Zebsine's... welll... wasn't.

But I'm not sticking up for him. He should never have said any of that.

Well, looking at the actual opening... it's a bit unsound. I don't think black should have took that pawn in the end, or take the knight with his bishop. The pinned and hanging knight is a great thing to exploit. Instead of Bh5, Bf5 might be a more problematic response for your idea, and that gambit will fall apart. It will just be a lost pawn.

Maybe in blitz, but I dunno...

1. I think what Katalyst meant was chess.com, not Sweden

2. As the descendent of fugitives from the Swedish rule of Norway, I will only use what Zebsine said as support for my stereotype of all Swedes being major dick$.

3. Well, the gambit is unsound, but it does make one think about how much the difference between one move vs. another (like Bh5 vs. Bf5) makes a difference in a game.

really a mad gambit

If you were playing a have way decent player he would not take the pawn on d4 with his queen.

i think the only time this would even be considerable to play is against someone who just learned how the pieces moved.

So, can we all agree then that this serves less as a serious consideration for an opening and more as somewhat-decent lesson on development (mostly on why one shouldn't neglect development)?