C21 : Danish Gambit : Your Opinion

See here:

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/jwatsonbkrev62.html

The first mentioned line is virtually a refutation of the gambit, but first you must repair the holes in Watson's analysis- there are plenty of them in there!

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.

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 )? :)

I think it's a confusion between "refuse" (same as decline) and "refute" which means you are proving that the opening is bad.

3...Qe7 may not be a refutation but it may be the simplest good move that also immediately circumvents White's intentions.

It may not be the most favorable position that White was hoping for, but the isolani is easily defended and white will have open b or c files to attack Black's  king.

The line mentioned in Post #37 actually has a name which deserves to be mentioned here. It was proposed by Schlechter and is called the Schlechter defense. This was the line that 'killed' the Danish gambit and is the main reason it ceased to be played at high level.

Yes watcha but 7 Nc3 has changed all that

@87654321:

After 7. Nc3 black can still take the bishop and has the bishop pair + extra pawn without white having enough compensation in development:

This position still favours black so it can not be deemed the 'refutation of the refutation'.

Most convincing refuation of the old Danish gambit here:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/danish-cracker

Using the 3.c3/ 4.Bc4? move order, the gambit is virtually unplayable.

So, white either has to play 4.Nxc3, or use the move order 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 ed4 4.c3 etc., which allows extra possibilities to Black.

IM pfren:

Your comprehensive article (http://www.chess.com/article/view/danish-cracker) only covers 5. ... Bb4+ for black. Does that mean that you favour this move over the Schlechter defense or just wanted to prove that even a 'natural' move like this is enough for the refutation of the Danish.

Yes, of course 5...Bb4+ is Black's best, and leaves Black at a big disadvantage.

Schlechter's system is no more than a mild technical endgame edge for Black, which is quite neutralizable.

We have jumped in recent posts from 5 ... d5 to 5 ... Bb4+ which are of course completely different positions.

Switching back to d5 for a moment I don't think watcha you can claim to have in any way refuted 7 Nc3 the refutation of the refutation, much deeper analysis would be required with the probable starting point as the first paragraph from David_Star

White is down a piece for a pawn and though black's king is in the center it is surrounded by its own pieces and key squares around the king are well covered. The knight and the advanced pawn don't seem to give a big enough attack for white to compensate for the lost piece.

That was quick analysis, how about the prospects of Re1 a move earlier, 13 Re1.