colorado gambit sound?

hey guys, ran into this opening the other day: 

You can use it for blitz but in correspondence/daily chess it isn;t very sound, e5 is much better.  But in most cases white will play d4 on principle anyway instead of Nf3

TBH Nf3 is encountered about the same as d4. F5 hasn't been refuted, certainly leads to an interesting game, but ultimately I think it has to be bad

You could literally choose 2 random moves for the first 2 moves a game, and it would most likely not lose you the game. 

It's a bad opening that black has no reason to play really. I'd stick to 1...e5. 

My opinion is that this is both a bad opening, and not even "fun". Just leads to a worse position really. 

As Hou Yifan almost demonstrated, that "most likely" is necessary: 1.f3 e5 2. g4 Qh5#

I don't see any reason to play this way -- definitely doesn't have any advantage for black, and doesn't even seem exciting like some other gambits.

I've faced this a lot lately, and also twice OTB (which I find stunning- I can only guess that aww-rats is behind this). In the first game which was over two years ago (and I was about 150 points lower-rated) I was totally, completely winning against an 1800 player, and instead blundered checkmate in mutual time pressure. In the second, which was against a 2000 player in an open tournament a little while later, I actually got rather badly beaten. This I found really embarrassing so of course I had to do some research into the line. The way to go is 3. exf5 d5 4. Bb5 Bxf5 5. Ne5 Qd6 6. d4. You should know more than just this but if you're looking to get a very large positional advantage in this opening, that's where you should look.

Lucky

If you want to prove a "bad" line is playable, much better to go with something like this

Chess YouTuber GJ_Chess has actually done some extensive analysis on this opening and how he believes it should be played. It’s actually quite interesting. Yes, according to any engine, white is better, but the same goes for opening the Traxler Counterattack vs 4. Ng5 in the two knights, and it has been worked out to be draw, or with chances for both sides. So I think that GJ’s series is very comprehensive and this opening should be taken into consideration, at least as a surprise weapon against an unprepared opponent. 

The traxler has been worked out to a draw? Not in bxf7 or d4 I'm afraid. 

This is not completely certain.

Those guys, who have worked it out to a draw, are basically using engines,

and engines are fallible.

There might well be lines that have not been checked satisfactorily.

My humble opinion is the Traxler should lose.

I mean, not only the Traxler, but The 2 knights, the whole opening, is most certainly lost.

Fischer knew that, and 9. Nh3 indeed should win for white.

"or with chances for both sides." Yasser Seirawan says in response to any Bxf7 lines, black has lost a pawn but has ample development for compensation, practice favors white however. 

Certainly not a forced draw by any means however. And Lyudmil..just because an opening includes a pawn sacrifice does not mean that it's a lost position, it seems even sound gambits are lost in your eyes. If GMs don't think the Marshall or KG or Benko is lost why should anyone believe you?

I did not say KG is lost, this is a white gambit, so perfectly playable.

The Benko is almost certainly lost.

I am not 100% certain about the Marshall.

It is up to you to exercise your faith discretion, but you should realise that few GMs are

pushing Stockfish in opening analysis sessions all day long.

How you guys actually wiki these openings and then find out if they’re lost of not. Cause you guys have the most conflicting, incorrect views of openings that i have ever seen.

That is because you follow mainstream chess authors, with traditional views and

routine approach to investigation, that mosly rely on human played games.

How many top engine games, for example from TCEC, do you find in opening analysis books,

or even opening databases? Not many, true?

On the other hand, such books and databases are full of reference games dating back some 20, 30

or even more than half century back. Of course, such authors will find nothing.

There are many openings/systems of play humans simply can not play/play far from perfect,

so the inclusion of engines into the decision process is very important.

That is what I have done: include high qualoity top engine games/databases plus high quality

top engine analysis into my reference material. That completely turns things around, for some openings.

It completely does not make sense that, as in the Benko, black starts a tempo down(first move disadvantage), sacs a pawn, cedes the center, and then manages to hold. Of course, this is simply

impossible.

Or, to take the Alekhine, e4 Nf6 e5 Nd5 d4 d6 c4, black starts a tempo down, then gives the opponent 2 free tempos by allowing the own knight to be kicked across the board, and then holds.

Just makes no sense.

These are 2 inaccuracies in a row, plus one more tempo down, a larger number of inaccuracies certainly should lead to a loss.

And can a human play like an engine?