Gambit Openings

So what is the concrete line you're suggesting?

I sent you a corr. challenge to play the Latvian btw. Accept if you dare! 

why should i refuse?

maybe iam a caveman chessplayer and a moron (as IM pfren titled me both), but iam not a coward 

I'm also a 1...e5 player, but I meet the KG very rarely and only play it as White occasionally. What I do know, however, is that after years of research for his book, GM John Shaw was unable to find any path to advantage for Black.

Yes because your personal statistics are the key to an opening's soundness.

3...g5 4 d4 d6 5 g3!?

No, it's not going to transpose, because I'm planning on sticking a Knight on c3 instead of a pawn, and not castling in order to break up your g4/f3 chain with h2-h3.

Nah, I'm going long...

Pfren has written an excellent blog post called "Danish Cracker" where he says 5...Bb4+ is the refutation, with analysis for the three different replies 6.Kf1 6.Nd2 and 6.Nc3.The problem is, who would invest the time needed to memorize these labyrinthine variations to play against a gambit they hardly see (and that must be followed exactly) when all they have to remember is playing d5 on move 3 gets equality?

I liken it to trying to cross a lava pit on a narrow, slippery, and twisting stone path. Objectively it may be possible, but practically there may be some major difficulties. Why should anyone attempt that when they can instead turn around and walk out of the cave? I've played a game as Black following Pfren's analysis and at the end of his line found myself stranded in a cramped undeveloped position, and got smashed off the board in a few moves. Computer analysis showed I was supposed to go through some kind of contortion in order to give one of the pawns back at that point. At the end of some of the lines given in Pfren's blog post, despite the fact he's calling them a refutation, I would prefer to play the White side. It's a great blog, but I don't think its shown the entire way to get out of the woods. Especially if the White player has studied the positions arising from this so called refutation, as opposed to the Black players who read it once and now go around in the forums saying 5...Bb4+ is the refutation to the Danish despite the fact they wouldn't be able to recite any of the lines.

Yeah, I agree completely with you, and the fact that 3...d5 serves as an antidote to both the Danish and the Goring is an added appeal, and in fact I play that line myself the rare times I meet these gambits. However, in terms of objective soundness, 3...d5 is much less of a threat to the Danish than pfren's 5...Bb4+ variations, regardless of practicality.

@Dolphin27

Do you have the game you played by chance?

Doesn't it say something that each of the three stem games Pfren used in the article were won by White?

 I just think if you're looking for a defensive system for accepting both pawns of the Danish gambit and consolidating, it's difficult. For example, the Smith-Morra has things like the Taylor Defense, Finegold Defense, Kingside Fianchetto variation, Larsen System, etc with books devoted to some of these telling you in minute detail how to get to a consolidated position. Meanwhile the Danish Gambit only has Pfren's article, where all the stem games were won by White, and which doesn't have nearly enough verbal explanation if he's expecting people to practically use this. Write a book like Timothy Taylor did Pfren, then perhaps they'll be something called The Pfren Defense.

I've had my share of losses in the Danish accepted, I don't mean to make it sound like a forced win for White. I've had games where my opponent accepted the pawns and won by playing various 5th moves. But I've also had surprising success with the Danish, it's one of my most successful openings against higher rated opposition (unlike the sound Smith-Morra which I find harder to win with) and my wins with the Danish are spectacular wins that I'll remember for the rest of my life.

I can show you some games I played with my lichess account. The Danish Gambit games I've played here have been automatically deleted from my archive apparently, but I remember doing here what GM Murray Chandler calls "The Refined Back Rank Mate", well it was a variation of it anyway where I saced my queen on the seventh rank, when a rook captured it  I was able to deliver back rank mate because the rook blocked the escape square and it was pinned to the king by my light squared bishop so it couldn't go back to the 8th rank.

Have you ever read books like Fred Reinfield's 1,001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate and said to yourself "I wish I could do things like this more often in my own games", when the Danish Gambit is accepted you will start to get wins like this more.

Here are a few of my Danish Games. Maybe they're not perfect, but man is this a fun opening that yields good practical results. In the first one I beat a >2000 player who played 3...d5

http://en.lichess.org/6PUVdeDd468O

http://en.lichess.org/LTZAS9HXe5mn

http://en.lichess.org/nf7vFkFSs8ym

http://en.lichess.org/AfnFNQmFyylo

http://en.lichess.org/Igo5YSpLKgkJ

http://en.lichess.org/PLMtGmhqMhRi

http://en.lichess.org/5WA4ot69qmue

http://en.lichess.org/Mg7GeEZs1MXH

http://en.lichess.org/jct8OrFiJPjA

Yeah, 4 Qh5+?! is probably good but needlessly complicated...IMO White's just a pawn up for nothing in the line I played.

Damn...you are right...its really hopeless for Black and forced!

I also play a match actually versus the OP of this thread an its also lost for me...

I think in my match versus Mainline Novelty, i have good chances, although he stated he is a pawn up for nothing, but i dont think he is right.

Lets see, how this continues...

Black is dead lost in the 3...Nc6 Latvian. 6.Qh3 is a nice finesse (to avoid ...Rg8-Rg4 stuff), but even after the less exact 6.Qh4 it is doubtful if Black can survive.

3...Nf6 is better, although the ending after 4.ef5 Qe7 5.Qe2 d6 etc, while surprisingly difficult to turn into a full point as white, isn't exactly what Black was thinking about when playing 2...f5? Anyway, after 4.Bc4! Black is again in all sorts of trouble.

Our game, I think its a really tactical crazy opening even though I don't really understand it, but I still feel like the queen check line just has to be good for white..

Haha that guy was bragging about how quickly he beats his opponents and you beat him in 15 moves! That's hilarious, nice job! 

Everything's at least plus equals against the Latvian, really.

Nah, the "poor relation f5", the Schliemann, is far far far far far far far far far far far far far (and that's understating it) more respectable than the Latvian.