1.e4 f5 : me and my oversized ego vs all of you

Elroch wrote:

I suggest that this black gambit be renamed the Dumas defense, with a slightly non-standard pronunciation.

Pronounced doo-mayz. Good enough.

Quite frankly, that position already looks horrible for Black, if not outright lost.  His dark squares on the kingside look very vulnerable, the light-squared bishop is very badly placed, the pawn on e7 makes his development awkward, and it isn't clear at all how Black can untangle, much less survive this position.  It really looks like a grotesque combination of a Leningrad Dutch and Advance French with a Snake Benoni-like bishop on e6, with basically no advantages of ANY of those openings.  Meanwhile, White has a nice central position, much easier development, and overall a better position period.

If White is kind enough to decline the pawn with 2.d4 transposing to the Staunton Gambit, count your blessings and accept the pawn.  The positions are perfectly fine for Black, and much more preferable than what you get after the correct 2.exf5.  If you absolutely MUST decline the gambit, at least decline it with 2...d6, transposing to the Balogh Defense.  It isn't a good opening, but you can get positions where you have some hope for an okay position.  That isn't saying much, but it's much more preferable than the monstrosity Jion provided.  In fact, I see zero reason why White should avoid 3.exf5!, other than the fact that he decided for some unusual reason to avoid the pawn in the first place on move 2.

Is the game done yet? 

What was the final position?

I don't see how it is lost...

5.Ng5 isn't even necessary.  White can just simply develop with 5.Nc3 in a much easier position, while Black's formation is full of holes, his development is awkward, and it's not even clear how he can even really proceed to get any good counterplay, especially since his only real idea of a pawn break, c7-c5, is hampered by the e7-pawn blocking in the dark-squared bishop.  White already has a big advantage after five moves, while I honestly cannot find any reedeeming factor in Black's position.  If it isn't lost already, then it's so bad that I'm sure even a tiny inaccuracy will make sure that it's lost.

While we're on the subject of this position, please explain what the point of 4...Be6? is, because I am truly confounded.  Similar ideas in the Snake Benoni "work" because the goal is to transfer the bishop to a possibly better diagonal, either the e1-a5 or a1-h6 diagonals.  Here, however......to put it mildly, that bishop is useless on e6.  Might as well explain the point behind 2...g6 as well, and why you think it's better for white to play 3.e5?! instead of the more natural and superior 3.exf5.

Be6 is to throw off your opponent into thinking he/she wins.

It certainly succeeds at that by making Black's position much worse.  Makes it a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, in fact.

Yeah, this 3. exf5 idea seems to win.  Black goes into full defense on turn 3.

Or something.

If I was gonna play all that stuff, I Would probably play 5...Bg7 rather than ...Rg8.  Might as well keep the rook on the h-file, and the king can go to f8.  Not sure it will do much better, but at this point, why cling to the pawn on g6?

What's wrong with 2...fxe4?

Ha ha umm no.

Nothing at all, but if you are gonna play that gambit for whatever reason, why play ...Rg8?

I'm not really sure if it matters too much but even after a move like Bg7 White is going to have pawns on d4 and c3 that play against that bishop. I figure if White allows fxe4 then Black can just get rid of White's center pawn without having to gambit anything.

I totally agree.  I am a Dutch player, so I wouldn't hesitate to play ...fxe4.  I have actually played e4 f5 quite a few times for kicks.  I think it requires a pawn gambit to get reasonable play. 

I don't understand the OP. Is the idea to exhibit a game with the most consecutive blunders?

The idea is to have fun.

Seems to me chess is more fun if you respect the objective of the game. Here is my view. (?? means probably changes the theoretical result, ? means may possibly change the result.)

1.e4 f5?? 2.d4?? g6?? 3.e5? d5? 4.Nf3 Be6 5.Ng5 Qd7

So it's not all bad.

[Exercise: spot the often quite obvious best moves].

P.S. I checked my assessment with an engine and the assessments above are consistent with it, I am pleased to say.