There's my opinion:
C21 : Danish Gambit : Your Opinion
Sort:
Lovely Game, thanks for sharing it!
Jan 26, 2012
0
#24
erixoltan, I could not find the Danish thematic tournament you mentioned. Was it cancelled or is it already in progress?
'IM pfren', for opponent must be awesome! 
Jan 26, 2012
0
#26
litevibe wrote:
erixoltan, I could not find the Danish thematic tournament you mentioned. Was it cancelled or is it already in progress?
You are right. I created a new one.
http://www.chess.com/tournament/danish-gambit-thematic
Hopefully enough people from this thread will join, so it goes to the first page of the tournament list!
this is a line recommended in my book beating the open games by mihail marin. im sure white has some kind of improvements but i really dont think this is the kind of position white wanted when he went for the gambit
Feb 1, 2012
0
#28
tigergutt wrote:
this is a line recommended in my book beating the open games by mihail marin. im sure white has some kind of improvements but i really dont think this is the kind of position white wanted when he went for the gambit
Keres gives the position after 10...bxc6 as equal. In your example, White horribly misplayed the endgame. A Danish Gambit player needs to be a proficient attacker, and also a good endgame player.
Marshall tried 10.Be3 and drew against Capablanca. Ljubojevic preferred 10.Qb3 and got equal games with it in the early 1970s.
I agree that this variation is a psychologically effective way for Black to meet the Danish Gambit. It can lead to a drawish position. However it's certainly not a promising attempt by Black to win, unless he feels that his opponent doesn't know how to play the ending. Black is saying in effect, "I am afraid you will mate me if I accept the two gambit pawns, so I am going to give them back and try to force a draw."
Perhaps some players play d5 for that reason but i do it because i want simple lines against most 1.e4 openings so i have more time for more serious white tries for a win like the ruy lopez and also the kings gambit because one mistake there is game over. But thats just my opinion. Im sure others feel differently
I like to play it sometimes, for fun.
I always thought blacks best bet (at least vs the accepted variation) was:
Feb 1, 2012
0
#31
stubborn_d0nkey wrote:
I like to play it sometimes, for fun.
I always thought blacks best bet (at least vs the accepted variation) was:
In your variation, I prefer to play 7.Nc3!? instead of simplifying down to an ending with 7.Bxf7+. There is a lot of analysis still to do in that variation and I haven't drawn a final conclusion on it. After 7.Bxf7+ it's an imbalanced ending that should be a draw with best play, but personally I would be playing for a win as either Black or White.
This line is the "refutation" and usually ends in a draw i think.
Feb 4, 2012
0
#33
IM pfren,
Are you sure there is a refutation of the DG? I read somewhere that a German Grandmaster had recently determined that there is no refutation of the Danish Gambit; but I can not find the reference.
Feb 4, 2012
0
#34
Thank you IM pfren for Watson's interesting review of Muller and Voight's "Danish Dynamite". Both authors of the book, as well as Grandmaster Tim Harding, say the Danish Gambit has not been refuted. Although I have not made it through Watson's analysis; I gather he must disagree with them.
I also recently read a comment by a German Grandmaster who also said the DG had not been refuted; but as I said before I have not been able to find that reference. If anyone else knows about that reference I would appreciate your posting it. Thank you.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Feb 8, 2012
0
#36
If you have a confident, aggressive style mixed with a certain disregard for popular opinion, then you can be very successful with the Danish Gambit as White. It's interesting to weigh my own good results against the authorities who confidently predict my demise.
It's popular for GMs to publish a "refutation" of the Gambit and for advocates to find an antidote. These things don't matter to the average player because your opponent won't have read them anyway.
Isn't "DG refused/declined:
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5
Or what is conversation going about (sorry, my english isn't perfect 
)? :)
Refuted and declined are two very different things. Refuting is grabbing that pawn and showing him he is a pawn down for nothing Declining is avoiding the gambit. You could be afraid of the gambit or you might simply like other lines better
Feb 8, 2012
0
#39
I think it's a confusion between "refuse" (same as decline) and "refute" which means you are proving that the opening is bad.
Regarding the Rosentreter, there is the Glazkov plan of the ...d5 and ...f5 clamp (instead of your ...Nc6) which IMO is not very effective, since white always has a way to force e3-e4 and liquidate to a totally drawn ending (which is quite an achievement for white after such a lame opening), but black may well do better with ...0-0, d6 and Nd7, when white at some point must prove that his central control (his only trump) is worth a pawn.
That is fascinating stuff. I actually don't disagree with you, because I can imagine that at your playing strength the definition of 'fun' might be a little different. At my level (where the stupidity of my opponents is matched only by my own), I can say that I've had a lot of fun with the Danish Gambit. I'm perfectly happy to simplify into a drawn ending: at least I didn't hang my Queen, and some of my opponents have no idea how to play the endgame...
I don't have the Glazkov game you're referring to, but I can see why you don't think the plan is effective. After 10...d5 11.O-O f5 12.Qc2 Bxc3 13.Bxf5 Bxf5 14.Qxf5 looks like the kind of unclear tactical melee that a Danish player might enjoy.
I may not be fully understanding your plan of ...O-O, ...d6 and ...Nd7, but 10...O-O 11.O-O Bxc3 12.bxc3 d6 13.e4 Nd7 14.Rae1 Nf6 15.e5 dxe5 16.Nxe5 Be6 17.Qg5 Rae8 18.Qh4 still looks like fun to me.