I Created A New CounterGambit!! I Call It "Tintas CounterGambit"

• This Is The Gambit. In This Gambit, White Sacrifices A Bishop To Open Up The Black King. (I Think I May Be The First Person To Find It. If Im Not, Please Tell Me.)

Thanks for the comment on my gambit! I really worked hard to create it.

It could be an alternative for white, but it's probably better to just play 4.Nxd4, and it's entirely risk-free.

this is a well known line you have invented nothing here

Leetsak, can you please tell me the gambits name? I want to check it thanks.

If you found an opening that has not been named or not known, it's either like 10-15 moves long or too bad with random moves.

this gambit does not a have name cause it is not a gambit, if you check the engine, black is ahead, and the line you proposed only works when played like you showed it, but black doesnt have to play this way, this is not a forced line

Many gambits work just like how you decribed it soo...

well the bishop sacrifice is actually a blunder, cause if black doesnt take e4 with a knight white is simply a piece down and engine gives this a pretty substantial advantage for black and im pretty sure that even 800s could calculate this line and that taking e4 is a bad idea

Well black still has a high chance of blundering in bullet games since black has low options in moves so still could be a gambit I guess.

I mean, ...8 d6 is an obvious move when Black is up a piece and needs to expel the pony from e5.

I would never even think 1/5th of a second on Nxe4 when the e-file is opened and Black has to defend against Qh5+ and White's rook is waiting to jump on the e-file. I looked at the position, and it took me one second to see ...d6 worked. Then I loaded up stockfish and it verified it. I don't think a 1000 rated player would fall for Nxe4 question mark, unless he were trolling.

There's nothing special about trying to "create" an opening where you're relying on your opponent to blunder for you to win a game. 3...Nd4 question mark is already bad enough for Black (Nxd4 followed by castles and Re1 and c2-c3 to take the center), but then White throws it away by thinking he can play a bad version of a Fried Liver with 4 Bxf7 question mark.

This is very different than 3 Bb5 Nd4, which is actually rather respectable, but with no point when Black can just play the Berlin Defense.

It does not seem to be working, and in any case there is no need for a gambit here: It is well known that after the simple 4.Nxd4! exd4 5.0-0 Black's position is very bad.

I wrote a long message.

Then the forum page refreshed and I lost everything I wrote.

I don’t feel like re-writing it all again.

So what I will say is have you considered castles?

I think it could be an improvement move to the variation your talking about.

I wrote a very long and detailed message explaining the virtues which I liked about castles vs. 7.d4. Sadly, the page refresh was brutal.

2 hours to write the message for it to get erased in 5 seconds.

No auto save on these forums or nothing.

Wow, 1 day ago

The line you've posted has been played before. It's also a common idea throughout the Italian. But I don't see much of a need for risking the game with a sacrifice when you're already way ahead if you just play precisely for a couple moves.
Also, can you stop capitalizing every word?

Gambits like these could actually put you in very great positions, good for you for finding this!

That bishop sac is a pretty common theme in the Italian game , and most players who play the Italian will address the monster bishop on c4 right away , they undoubtedly have trauma from the fried liver when they were a 800. It is a nice sequence following the dubious sacrifice, however there is nothing forcing here and with correct play from black you will either, not ever have this opportunity, or will lose from being down material. It’s a neat trick but the tactical themes are pretty common is this type of opening. It’s kind of like the “gambits” higher rated players use against lower rated players where they march a knight down the board and sac it for a f pawn, essentially giving their opponent knight odds for loss of castling rights. The better player will tactically overpower their opponent with to good play , however, this will not work against probably any one over 1600.

When I play 1 e4 and encounter the Petrov i will sometimes play the Cochrane gambit which sacs a knight for 2 pawns and loss of castling rights. I have beaten some 2000+ players with it, but it is less dubious than this bishop sac; the engine calls the sac in that gambit an inaccuracy, my engine calls this bishop sac a blunder because it is!

if you’re going to post a “novelty” it shouldn’t include a blunder on move 4 lol