Does this opening have a name?

I don't think it has a name (yet)

It looks Similar to the alien Gambit but with the bishop Instead of the knight

Kind of like a worse version of the best opening: the Jerome

Exposing the King and losing castling rights isn't much of an issue if White has given away his developed pieces. What were you planning to attack with?

The idea is that the king is exposed and they lose castling rights, allowing me to continue to develop and bully them with the queen and further checks. While a common followup I've seen is pushing the knight to threaten the queen and a fork with the king, but that is not difficult to defend against.

A video by iwantcheckmate in which he tries to never castle showed that not castling is a major disadvantage (which I think we all know). The idea of this opening is to play off of that.

I've added a game to show how I follow up the line.

It's a strange gambit but I would name it like Castling loose gambit

But it's good actually

Thanks! I'm glad you agree that it's not a blunder lol.

I just looked at the Jerome. I think the Jerome loses more material allows the opponent to develop more than this opening? But I definitely see the similarity.

As for which one is better, I personally am a bigger fan of this one

The Jerome Gambit (1e4-e5 2Nf3-Nc6 3Bc4-Bc5 4Bxf7-Kxf7 5Nxe5-Nxe5) has the response Qh5, checking the king and threatening the e5 knight. if your opponent plays king to f6, you can play f4, attacking the undefendable knight once again, and once it moves, you can capture the bishop on c5. The Jerome trades off two minor pieces for a minor piece and two pawns and a strong attack, and it is very easy to blunder in the main line.

So I think the Jerome is better. but not as good as Alien Gambit, because even though material is better in Jerome, it is even easier for your opponents to blunder, and you gain a good initiative, just don't trade things off.

It'd maybe be fine if you played a bit differently. The little play clip you shared shows you executing the gambit, then just trading off all your pieces. Exposing the enemy king is all fine and good, but if you do it, you can't trade off everything else, or that advantage disappears entirely. Your goal would be to prolong the midgame

Yeah that's valid lol, I just came across this opening and thought it was good and was confused why the computer flagged it as a blunder

Righhhht I didn't think about that, I tend to try to trade a lot and it can be kinda reckless. Thanks for the tip!

After 4...Kxf7:

- Black has an extra bishop for a pawn.

- Black has developed a minor piece, and white none.

- White's queen is attacked and must lose time protecting herself.

- Black's king is hardly exposed, and there are no white pieces on the attack (the Queen can lose more time giving another useless check).

If you think that white has attacking chances, then you are watching too many westerns.

Hi

Hi pfren! I really appreciate some insight from an IM!!

I definitely didn't see it that way, but I did realize that the knight advancing and attacking the queen and threatening a fork to win a rook (or if white responds very poorly, a queen) is very troublesome.

While I see what you mean about white not having a large advantage anyways, I want to share a line that I think helps a little bit and is based on the common responses that I've seen.

With 6. Ne2, the idea of black pushing their knight and attacking the queen or threatening a fork is stopped. Even with Nb4 as a response, Qb3+ stops that.

While I sense that you are not a fan of the whole opening, if someone insisted on playing it, what do you think of this particular line? And what do you think is a way to make this opening viable (or do you think it's a lost cause)?