Any aggressive gambits I should try out with white?

Let's take your examples and lable them examples 1, 2, 3, 4.

I'll only go through 1 and 3 briefly. These are just showing bad play by white to make it look better.

Example 1: The Rousseau Gambit sells this trick where taking on f5 is bad because of e5-e4. Anyone who has any decent chess sense would not give up the centre and allow this.

Example 2: This is an obvious centre fork trick. Anyone who is any good at chess will know this idea from the 4 knights Italian.

These are literally baby steps.

So case one, you can't show that an opening is good by showing bad lines for the other side "Look how good this opening is when the opponent makes this BAD move."

Example 4: This is transposing into the Lucchini Gambit. It sells another trick where this Knight Attack doesn't work, as black gets a strong attack. This might be a bit harder to see for some but after 5. Nc3, white is significantly better.

Example 2: This is the good line for white, but you cut it short, as to not show how horrible it looks for black.

You have to play stuff like Qd6 and be passive. Normally when someone plays a gambit, it's for rapid development, initiative and attack. This is doing none of those things. It's a gambit where you basically strangle yourself.

In the Ruy Lopez, d4 isn't as strong because of 4. d4 fxe4 5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. dxe5 c6. And c6 comes with tempo on the bishop.

Maybe some of the tricks you showed work against inexperienced players. If they don't work then you just have a garbage position.

It's not a serious opening.

I also don't remember example 2 having a center fork? Defending with the knight on move 4 is a losing mistake.

It's aggressive and fun and at most levels, +1 for white at best if they know the best moves isn't always converted easily, or at all.

Let's take your examples and lable them examples 1, 2, 3, 4.

I'll only go through 1 and 3 briefly. These are just showing bad play by white to make it look better.

Example 1: The Rousseau Gambit sells this trick where taking on f5 is bad because of e5-e4. Anyone who has any decent chess sense would not give up the centre and allow this.

Example 3: This is an obvious centre fork trick. Anyone who is any good at chess will know this idea from the 4 knights Italian.

These are literally baby steps.

So case one, you can't show that an opening is good by showing bad lines for the other side "Look how good this opening is when the opponent makes this BAD move."

Example 4: This is transposing into the Lucchini Gambit. It sells another trick where this Knight Attack doesn't work, as black gets a strong attack. This might be a bit harder to see for some but after 5. Nc3, white is significantly better.

Example 2: This is the good line for white, but you cut it short, as to not show how horrible it looks for black.

You have to play stuff like Qd6 and be passive. Normally when someone plays a gambit, it's for rapid development, initiative and attack. This is doing none of those things. It's a gambit where you basically strangle yourself.

In the Ruy Lopez, d4 isn't as strong because of 4. d4 fxe4 5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. dxe5 c6. And c6 comes with tempo on the bishop.

Maybe some of the tricks you showed work against inexperienced players. If they don't work then you just have a garbage position.

It's not a serious opening.

I don't remember saying it was a serious opening.

This discussion was about d4 and how the bishop's scope is irrelevant and how d4 can take advantage of where the bishop is placed in many cases. Once again, +1 for white is not considered "Horrible".

But then you have to know all the best moves as well to cling on. If you are talking about conversion, then this could apply to any opening, "even though the opening is bad, opponent might not be good at endgames".

Also it's not aggressive, as in most of these main lines I'm looking at, black is getting pressured, squeezed and attacked. I don't actually mind openings which are a little bit dubious as long as there is enough activity, pressure and opportunities.

However, this just looks plain miserable to play as black. You get an ugly, broken position where you allow white quick initiative with d4. There are no long terms plans past the traps.

If they find or know the right moves, they still would typically have to be higher than a certain level to be able to exploit the weaknesses of the opening cleanly.

You mean d5. It's d5 if it's black's move.

Yes, and I'm explaining why that's actually still very good for white compared to the Schliemann, which is actually respectable.

The engine is wavering a bit but it's generally around +1.5. You're focusing on the engine too much as well. I'm not just talking about the engine. I'm talking about how pleasant it looks to play for black, which is not at all. It looks miserable. Black just doesn't have anything.

I don't understand why you need to care so much about what people play. Go back to your Ruy Lopez theory please.

These are basically the same position, right?

The only difference is 1 pawn move. It's basically the exact same thing. Wow, chess is simple. I guess you can just change random moves and it makes no difference.

@chainlincfence

I was pointing out that you said that the Schliemann and the Rousseau Gambit are basically the same thing because one bishop move makes no difference.

I responded, showing that it does make a difference and the Schliemann is better, and now you get upset. So you just get upset every time someone disagrees with you or proves you wrong?

I responded to something you said, so how can it be off topic?

So if white moves the Bishop one square further, the opening is genius, but if it goes to c4, it's outlandish and unsound at any level?

Sorry. I'm mostly confused about what the Misclick means. Do you mean that you can't play the same lines against different moves? If so, yeah that's true but the Jaenisch and Rousseau are different openings.

Like it or not, this opening scores 51% for black in the lichess database.