RS in the game you gave the move 9. Bb2 has to be a bad move...
@melvinbluestone: I'm afraid you are missing the whole monty.
Shit will always taste like shit, no matter if you dress them with cherry syrup, or not.
Wow! Thanks for the imagery! I think I'll skip lunch today........ But let's be realistic here. The Danish Gambit may have faded from master-level play, as have other lines that have become the victims of opening theory evolution. But on a club level it's certainly playable, and can lead to some interesting contests. Remember, guys like Alekhine and Marshall used to employ this thing, and it was considered quite respectable in their day. But then again, people liked to sit on flagpoles back in their day.......so go figure.
Factly, white is material down for nothing in the Danish.
Do you have any "refutation" over the lines I'm suggesting on # 12?
Not nothing. You can't deny that he has rapid development. I never said it was a winning opening. In my opinion, it makes black better as White needs to attack quickly to regain his lost material. I don't believe he has enough compensation but I know that he still has a lot of play from the position. Black has to be careul. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opening knowledge; I just disagree that it screws White over. Black can screw White over if he has the skill; i never denied it.
Relax, I'm not pretending I know everything. I just know the basics that White does have compensation for the two lost pawns, just not enough compensation for a won position.
And what lines are you suggesting sorry? I don't know what you are talking about. Could you please post them? (again if they were already posted)
Thanks for all the comments. Yes the game got ridiculous after 10th move. But hey we were blitzing so didn't have much time.
This line is a theoretical win for White. Black does not have enough compensation for the two lost pawns.
I agree with ponz111, as said earlier. The point of the Danish is to have an advanatage in development. If your opponent gets an extra move in, there is no compensation for the two lost pawns.
I only put the bishop there to keep the idea of the danish - bishops on c4 and b2. It wasn't very well thoought out, but I thought the c-pawn could be moved for a discovery.
If the bishop moves along the other diagonal to e3, f4 or g5, the c-pawn is left weak and undefended. Again, proving white to have no real advantage.
RS You need lessons from a player higher than yourself. You do not understand the value to getting your pieces out immediately in a gambit.
You also do not seem to understand that a gambit that might be playable as White will not be playable as Black as you have lost a move in developing your pieces and that makes all the difference in the world.
This is why I stopped playing the Danish as white:
I know I probably missed something, but that is how I see it. If you play the 'Reverse Danish' then there is no advantage in development to start with.
Yeah you missed something, it's clearly no use to to put the bishop on that diagonal, already as a danish player I see a good plan is to put the bishop and a3 and play for an e5 break. At least that's what my instinct tells me to do.
I was expecting someone to notice something and suggest a better alternative. I don't think White has any real advantage no matter what he plays. I was only choosing those moves because they seemed to have some value, even if they weren't the best. I stopped playing the danish a while back because I was never good at regaining the lost material. Now you know why.
I mentioned earlier that a gambit played as white isn't good for black because of the extra move, did I not?
I do understand the value of getting the pieces out immediately in a gambit, it just didn't look like it would matter to me. The bishop opn b2 has proved to be quite powerful for me in my games when blocked by a pawn on c3 becuase of discovered attacks. There didn't seem to be a place that would make the bishop any more useful to me. I know my opinions are probably wrong, but I have to start something.
I have never been really good at chess openings and I still have trouble playing against unfamiliar ones. I know I need lessons from a player higher than myself, but I don't personally know anyone that could provide this.
I study games and positions in videos on YouTube and chess.com as well as complete a lot of puzzles and a play a lot of games, but I need a more sufficient form of training; I know that.
RS from your statement "It just did not look like it mattered to me." indicates you do not really understand the value of immediately devloping your pieces in a gambit. You did not win because eventually the bishop which was blocked by a pawn proved useful--you won because of various mistakes by your opponent.
If you understood the value of developing yor pieces in the opening-you would not even play a "danish gambit" two pawn sac where you are a move down compared to the real danish gambit--that one move lost means everything and gives you a terrible game before you even get going. Moving your bishop behind a pawn and then having to take another move so the bishop is developed also loses another move. Just because you won against another player does not mean you really understand what is going on.
As a very general rule and all things being equal-a player with a 2/3 of a pawn advantage in the opening has a winning game [with good moves for both sides] In your opening you gave up one move to start with and another move when you moved that bishop behind a pawn--or 2/3 of a pawn disadvantage to your opponent . It is hard enough to win with an equal game but to do well with a 2/3 of a pawn disadvantage is like driving a car blindfold and someone giving you directions.
If players far stronger than you tell you that you are doing something wrong in your chess play--best to heed their advice rather than to try and defend what you are doing? A personal instructor will not help you unless you are willing to follow his/her advice?
This suggestion also goes for those new, novice players who think they are all of a sudden "inventing" some opening that had never seen the light of day for the past 500 years.
Wait a minute..... What about the alternative given after 6.Bb2 (post #7): 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.f3? Doesn't white just play 7.Qxa5, or 7.Bxf7+ Qxf7 8.Qxa5. I thought this was a well-known line in the Danish. Not necessarily winning for white, but better than that f3 lemon.....
Melvin, if I remember he was talking about a pseudo danish gamit with one less move of development?
You might be right. This whole 4...Bb4 line is pretty suspicious for black. One time I tried 4...Bb4 5.bxc3 Qf6 6.Bb2 Bc5 7.Nf3 Bxf2+?! 8.Kxf2 Qb6+ 9.Qd4 Qxb2+ 10.Nbd2 (cripes! the g7 pawn hangs!) Nf6 11.e5 Nc6 12.Qf4, and black's game quickly collapsed.
RS, I just looked at your play with White per the Danish Gambit.
Like I said, the 4...Bb4 line is suspect. This hilarious game ended in a draw.....
I see your point and I never denied that it was right. I believe what you are saying, I am just defending what I did because at the time I thought it to be alright.
"It just didn't seem to matter to me" was a bit of bad word use. I meant to say that it looked like neither line would make a difference at all. I understand that it makes sense to develoop rapidly, but I thought development onto the long diagonal could be just as good or possibly better.
When I said I had won with it, I meant that I had beaten quite a few people with it. Even when they see the discovery after I move the pawn the bishop is really powerful. I understand that I may seem stubborn, but I have admitted that it wasn't a very good move.
I am just telling you why I made the move Bb2. Maybe you could tell me a better line rather than make degrading comments. I would listen to your advice if there was any, I really would.
Thanks for the analysis. I always knew there was something wrong with Bb4 for black, but I stopped playing the Danish ages ago, before I understood the power of sacrifices such as Bxf7+.
Now if I play the Danish in a lightning game against a friend I will have a reply to Bb4. :)