Control the center

He probably learned something, but the topic should have been in question form not a solution to 1 e4 e5.

That Gambit is playable and as a surprise opening to take opponents out of book I'd say it's playable as hell. 3...Qh4+ only looks horrifying... after 4.Ke2 White has an interesting game. I don't like the KG but I like this line! Black's Queen is vulnerable to tempo gaining attack from White, and yes the White King has lost castling privileges but Black has development problems of his own to compensate.   Check out the Traxler countergambit for a similarly hair raising "oh that just can't be good can it? " line that is actually pretty strong.  The Poleriu doesn't get played a lot... but I wonder if that's just prejudice against this kind of uglyness.

Here's a nice game from "Analyze to Win" author Byron Jacobs:

It's playable, but you can't say it's better than Nf3. I'm sure correct play can make it hard for white to attack because of this awkwardness. If you really want to move your king, 3 Bc4 is much better because the king is relatively safe on f1 where it can make the queen move but on e2 it blocks the bishop and is more exposed so the loss of time is justified.

So you expect a beginner and a kid to know all the chess "dos and don'ts" of how to share something actually quite complicated? As a line I don't think in practical play it's even that terrible..

I stand by what I said. Calling every misguided individual a "noob" is surely discouraging and unnecessary.

Well no matter how true something is it always hurts to call people that, but this guy is bragging like he solved chess with the most basic rule of "control the center" without looking at anything else in the position. I do not like that and it shouldn't be done like that even if those comments were rude. Then his argument of why ...Qh4+ is bad is because it's a queen move... this guy is teaching us something? Sharing this stuff does not help too much but if he asked questions about it not automatically claiming good (otherwise it's not so bad) we can calmly explain the problems. As for the line itself, it's better than it looks, but it really isn't very good. He doesn't deserve to be called a noob, but he shouldn't be stubborn like that. I don't have anything against the guy, (maybe you thought I did) but as a beginner he should not be giving this unchecked advice to people but it's ok. It even caused a discussion about the variation that he wasn't expecting.

JG27Pyth,

Wow, what a game. Thanks!

Who would have ever thought that White could raise that much caine with so odd, and superficially weak, an opening variation. And White was rated more than 100 points under Black.

I think 3. Bc4 in the KGA is generally considered slightly preferable to 3. Nf3 (since it eliminates some of Black's strongest rejoiners), though they're pretty much equal.

You're right, as players more experienced we know that it is ridiculous but clearly he doesn't. His view of chess as a whole is obviously more simplistic. So why can't we calmly educate him on the matter? I see no problems with leaving out the "stubborn noob" comments.

Well it's clearly being used here in more of a derogatory manner than descriptive.

What's wrong with this kind of less cruel explanation?

Isn't Nf3 the main line? I thought Bc4 was just an alternative.

I thought so to but batgirl generally knows what she's talking about..

3.Bc4 allows the Qh4 check, losing castling privileges ... it's just not unusual in the KG. Here, Nigel Short beats up some (*initiate sarcasm protocol) weaky in 15 moves using the KG with 3.Bc4 -- he loses his castling privileges, and if he tried this against a strong player he'd certainly be crushed (*end sarcasm*)

3. Nf3 is the main line.

BTW after 3. d4 black has an advantage after 10 moves according to Glazkov.

Since 2000 with both players +2500 rated, my 4million game database gives 62 KGA, 48 games with Nf3; 13 with Bc4; 1 with Nc3   Bc4 has the best statistics. I don't know if that makes Bc4 an alternate main line, or just an alternate, but it's certainly not an unusual 3rd move in the KGA.

BTW after 3. d4 black has an advantage after 10 moves according to Glazkov.

If you've played 3.d4 in the KGA, against a player who is booked up 10 moves deep on that line -- LOL-- well, God help you!

Maybe because the theme also required ...b5 which is a totally substandard move. Helps to report the full story.

In my database 3.Nf3 scores 55% from 10152 games, 3.Bc4 scores 54% from 2588 games.

After 3.Bc4, theory doesn't consider 3...Qh4+ as the strongest response, because the queen gets misplaced. Instead 3...Nf6 is considered better, or perhaps 3...d5. Statistics bear this out: 3...Qh4+ scores a poor 40%, while 3...Nf6 scores 50% (very good for Black) and 3...d5 scores 52% (excellent for Black).

I didn't know the full story!  I don't think I'd agree that b5 is totally substandard. And how'd they get short and kasparov to waste their time playing  "totally substandard" theme games?

I know nothing about this event, tell me more if you know it, please.

They are somewhat substandard. It's hard to say why they played it.

polerio gambit

Against 3. Bc4, black is supposed to play 3... Nf6 or Qh4+

Oh of course! Shows what we know... that beginning was the theme so that Short and Kaspy could have a whack at recreating Anderssen vs. Kieseritzky's Immortal Game!  There is some disagreement about b5, some call it playable, others not... after the game (I stress after because kasparov has an ego to match his talent and had he trounced Short in 15 moves he might have seen things differently) GK wrote that b5 was horrible and being forced to play it, he'd prefer to have resigned straight away. I don't think GK came up with a reason why b5 compelled him to play his very bad tenth move, though.