Danish gambit - crush anyone under 1800

My son changed my username as a joke without me knowing from my account settings. Have to wait 90 days before can change again

OK Genius, show us the refutation of the Danish. We need a good laugh.

Let me hand it to you:

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2, just play 5...d5

If 6.Bxd5, then 6...Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 c5, Black reaches a better endgame, zero risk, zero fireworks

If 6.exd5, then 6...Nf6 7.Nf3 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 O-O, development is complete, the extra pawn is safe, and Whites so called “compensation” is already gone

This isn’t some GM novelty. it’s been in the books for over a century. One simple move, and your initiative disappears. If ur clinging to a random Magnus blitz game and some useless "it's fine according to stockfish analysis" as proof the Danish works, you’ve already lost the debate

This endgame is known since 120 years ago, and it is just equal- Tartakower won the initial game after a bad blunder by white, while he had a suspect position for quite some time.

Since all major Black replies to the Danish lead to rough equality, I would expect a line which poses Black some practical problems to achieve this equality. Your suggestion does not pose any problems - so it is a safe line, and far away from any sane man's definition of a "refutation".

If rough equality is the best case scenario for White after giving up two pawns by move five, then we’ve already left the territory of a sound gambit. The whole point of sacrificing material is to pose problems. if the defender can neutralize everything with a single known move from 120 years ago, thats as close to a refutation as it gets in practical chess. Calling it “safe” doesn’t save it, it just means Black can stroll into a comfortable game without breaking a sweat, which is exactly why serious players abandoned the Danish decades ago.

Alright, I'd have to agree with CockroachDolly here. Even though I'm only 1600ish OTB, I can help provide some insight and share my opinion.

The Danish IS refuted. Even though stockfish itself considers it equal, none of us here are supercomputers that can calculate 40 moves ahead in an unclear position. The Danish's refutation is definitely real and can cause huge problems for the opposing side. Most of the time, your opponent will fumble if you have proper preparation against their Danish Gambit. Even then, there's no guarantee you'll be okay if you have proper preparation against the Danish either. The refutation is not something to toss aside, as it helps break down some of the main ideas of the opening itself, bringing you into a position you wouldn't normally expect.

I'd like to end it off by saying that being an IM is not some kind of title that makes all your opinions correct. Just because they have a title, doesn't mean they did more work than @CockroachDolly, and all of our opinions should be respected equally.

And who are you to say that @CockroachDolly hasn't dedicated their life to chess?

Titles don't equal skills. There are plenty of untitled players that can destroy titled players at a glance.

You are my hero. 🤗

I felt your post came across as a bit condescending, though I’m sure that wasn’t your intention. I’d be genuinely interested to know your real name so I can look up your students’ successes — I’m always eager to learn from others.

He is a certified FIDE Trainer (which is the second highest trainer title awarded by FIDE), and he is experienced enough to tell between a real player/trainer, and a bad troll.

So I'm a troll? I gave you valid arguments, valid points and detailed analysis to the Danish gambit, and you just conveniently turn blind to all of it and label me as a troll because you've decided in your head that you MUST be correct. If anyone here is a troll, it is by far, you, Mr. pfren

Funny how the moment you run out of actual chess arguments, you default to “troll.” fhat’s the oldest, laziest move in the online handbook and you clearly seen to have mastered it. I’m here discussing lines and ideas, I'm not throwing braindead responses. Do you understand what a troll is?

I said you are a troll? My mistake. You are both a troll and an anonymous idiot, and my time is way too precious to waste it replying to your nonsense.

Roach is a troll but its not intentional. They can't release from a position and get constipated, and that makes them roachy. Danish-rage makes them irregular,they just can't let go of it.

Resorting to calling me a troll and an idiot just proves you’ve got no argument left. If you can’t handle someone pointing out the flaws in your busted opening, thats your problem but don’t pretend it’s because my points lack substance. You lost this debate the moment you started swinging insults. If your time is too precious to waste, stop throwing tantrums every time someone dismantles your pet opening. Maybe use that “precious” time to study some real openings so you don’t have to cling to 19th-century junk and personal insults to stay in the conversation

AFAIK anonymous cowards aren't granted OTB rating-yet.

The rest are too stupid to comment.

You are correct—kids should play gambits to become strong players later. Thank you for helping my post reach such a wide audience; thanks to you, I gained three new students from the USA.

Chill polimac

I'm unsure, exactly, why this thread is so contentious. If someone denigrates true gambits, fine, no one is forcing anyone to play them. If one considers a gambit unsound and is dead set on debating it, fine, no one who plays it is listening. Knock yourself out with whatever you wish to play as white. It's like discussing various time limits in chess, many traditional time limit players consider blitz to be a poorer version of chess, while many blitz players consider bullet to be "clown-town chess". No one is going to be swayed by any arguments.

Wonderful. Happy coaching.

I think we should all thank the 85 year old braindead IM in this thread, the one who the moment he runs out of valid arguments, defaults to calling people trolls. At this point, there is only one brain cell functioning properly in his head. The rest have deteriorated. It’s a masterclass in how to lose a debate without actually admitting it. When your entire defense of an opening boils down to century old analysis, casual blitz games and playground insults, you’ve officially stopped talking chess and started performing damage control for your ego.