Gambit Openings

Blackmar-Diemer gambit is the king of sharp gambits, especially the Ryder variation. People rarely know how to play against it, and it has loads of powerful attacks

My favorite gambit is the cochrane gambit because I'm yet to lose with it

I like it when people decline the Danish with 3...d5 because then I get to play an Isolated Queen's Pawn position with more space and piece activity, and so I get to do my favorite thing, go for kingside attacks.

If my life was on the line and I had the choice to either play the White side of the Smith-Morra or the Danish gambit, and if I lost the game I'd be shot to death, I would without hesitation select the Danish gambit to play. I find the Smith-Morra much more challenging , despite the fact it's considered more sound.

With the Danish Gambit there aren't a bunch of detailed systems acting as roadmaps for Black to consolidate their extra material. The books say you either decline with 3...d5 or you accept both pawns and then play 5...d5. These lead to equal positions just like the majority of the defenses to the Smith-Morra, one gambit is not less sound than the other, the only difference is with the Danish you'll actually surprise people and you don't need to learn nearly as much theory.

after 5...d5 and Nf6 black is much better after Bxf7

The morra is more fun..I like it from both sides although my record is better with black

@ Therearenonamesleft, are you basing your opinion that the Danish is a forced loss off of Pfren's blog post?

@11qq11

I still prefer Bxf7 and believe the position to be equal. I've done some study of this queenless middlegame position and feel comfortable playing it.

@lolurspammed The Morra is an exciting opening, it's all I've ever played against the Sicilian, but I find the Danish a whole lot more fun. I think part of it is the central pawns Black has in the Morra accepted, combined with all the theory and every Sicilian player knowing a system against it. I often have frustrating games with White in the Smith-Morra, and get the feeling that I'm walking up to a concrete wall and banging my head against it. Whereas with the Danish there's a lot less frustration and good things just seem to happen more naturally for me in it.

Yes i would...why not? i play unsound openings against weak or equal opposition, so why should i change my openings when playing against better players (i dont talk about playing versus GM´s).

I bet most class B players dont know any refutations against the Latvian, maybe they know a good line to get in advantage, but i dont think they are prepared against every sideline.

I would play the smith morra or cochrane in a 30 minute game but no way I would try it in the Minnesota open or a big tournament like that

The Danish gambit is actually quite OK after 4.Nxc3!- the real lemon is 4.Bc4?

Isn't 3...Qe7 supposed to be good, though?

ennhh the SMG and KG are much sounder than the Danish

Well, there's no "refutation" per se, but Black is better in several lines (3...Qe7, 3...d5, albeit slightly, and 5...Bb4+! in the main line) whereas he can only acheive equality in the KG and SMG.

Where is Black slightly better in the KG?

These are my favorite comments...."forget about the Latvian", but i dont think you know exactly why its unsound...

IIRC the simplest is 3 Nxe5 Qf6 4 Nc4 fe 5 Nc3 Qf7 6 Ne3 c6 7 d3 and you tell me how good of a practical choice the Latvian is with White's 80% score...

The closest thing to a refutation I'm aware of is that one:

White can probably survive, but his position isn't enviable.

Both 4 h4 and 4 Nc3!? are improvements on that line.

thanks for your honest answer...but beware when you meet the Latvian at the board, then it doesnt help to know its refuted, when you dont know how...

Black can simply play 5...nc6. 5...d5 gives white the advantage again.

It looks to me like White has the more practical side of equality after 9 Qf3.. 6...Nf6 is probably the better move.