Danish Gambit?? for black

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.

Melvin, if I remember he was talking about a pseudo danish gamit with one less move of development?

RS, I just looked at your play with White per the Danish Gambit.

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. :)