I'm bringing Damiano Defense back!

All of you doubters and haters, you have to stop and think. 

Any defense or opening can be good, played by the right person against the right person.

You really don't know the advantages or disadvantages of any thing until you yourself played it through a few times.

People are not computers, people play with emotion, stress, ego, etc and can make mistakes, so therefore it is possible to find the hidden genius or at least gem in even bad openings/defence.

And above all, remember that some of the best chess stories, fiction or non, are often based around an inconspicuous guy playing some egotistical hot head 'master' who rails on the humble guys bad moves until he himself loses. I cite 'the kings own gambit' or 'tumbleweed opening' as best example.

And...if you oh so very proud chess enthusiasts would get off your high horse and look past your own nose you like to snub, you would realize this guy is obviously joking as a means to troll out you arrogant, self absorbed  (()) (#)s

Post #24:

That doesn't matter. Can you honestly tell me that Black has anything going for him at all in the position after 4. Nf3 Qxe4+ 5. Be2? There is no reason why anyone should play an opening that is just bad and nothing else. Black doesn't even have any play in the Damiano. Even your argument that "humans can make mistakes" is flawed. From the position I mentioned before, White is about +0.7 according to computers. That's a lot.

The difference between the error rate of the two players simply does not compensate for that.

Besides, playing a bad and basically refuted opening because you want to prove that White doesn't win all the time is pure, unfiltered masochism.

Is it masochism or just the love of a challenge?

Chess is challenging enough without making your position worse on purpose.

True challenges come from all of the tense and interesting positions in the Ruy, Caro, and Sicilian.

A true challenge is not playing the Damiano and hoping your opponent plays a lemon because it's apparently more challenging and fun than playing a legitimate, interesting game of chess against a competent player.

If that isn't masochism, I don't know what it is.

I played a beginner that did this damiano opening.  He didn't take the knight si ge was just down a pawn in the opening for nothing to show for it.  I don't know why openings like these attract beginners.  Why doesn't the Ruy Lopez attract beginners, or even the Italian?  No, it's always some offbeat lame line that has absolutely nothing to do with good opening theory.  You'd think they'd look up chess openings and play them dogmatically, but no, they think they "know more?" not that the move f6 by itself loses on the stop.  I mean I've played against people that play f6 just to throw people off, even good players.  but e4 e5 nf3 f6 is bad, wayyyyy bad.  Actually on the flip side of the coin I've played against people that gave away their castling rights by moving the king and then defending against mating threats in the position with inoculous little profilatic moves and made the opening work for them.  What happens is white loses his knight for a pawn and black trades castlings rights and gets the burden of having to play defensively for a number of moves.  There is however, a way to win another pawn back, along with the exchange back again, but I forgot the exact moves and it's hard for me to figure out the moves over the boards I can never think of it.  But anyway, long story short, the giving away castlings rights defense doesn't work because there is a tactic to win back the exchange, and gain another pawn in the process.  Look it up if you don't believe me.

I don't think it's a case of 'they know more' it could just simply be the fact that a beginner feels intimidated enough as it is and doesn't want to copy the most used openings but rather try and find his own place and speed. Chess is so studied and written about. We can follow games hundreds of years old...stepping into this world is intimidating. Playing a seldom used defense is a way for a beginner to test his weakness, strengths, and knowledge. And it's not like all the moves and notation are easy to learn for everyone. Why wouldn't some of you experts instead comment*would you like to play a couple of games so I can show as well as explain why that fell out of favor* I haven't seen anyone post that yet.

Damiano published his "Questo Libro e da Imparare Giocare a Scacch" in 1512.  Interesting itself, it's the first known book that does not mention the "old chess" at all.   In this book Damiano severly criticizes the moves "1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 f6?" as losing. Later translations, poor ones, misattibuted the opening to Damiano (this opening was given by Lucena).  17 years earlier, Lucena gave us 11 openings among which were the Giuoco Piano, the Ruy Lopez, Petroff's Defense, the Bishop's Opening, Damiano's Defense, the King's Gambit and the Scandinavian Defense.... many open games.

The first recorded game of modern chess, circa 1475 (20 years before Lucena) employed the Scandinavian or Center-counter Defense.

Open games have been with us from the start of modern chess.

Bat girl and alvin_cruz

Nice posts, I appreciate your comments, wish there was a like button

Batgirl,

I’ve always enjoyed reading your post and have read some of your blog. Since you are the accepted authority of chess history, let me asks you a question. Back in the 1500 was 1 e4/e5 2 Nf3 called the main line of the open game or was it called the King’s Knight’s Game?

Have people been playing what we now refer to as the open game since the early days of modern chess? Yes.

Did people who played chess in the 1500s call the chess they played the open game? No. For them the open game did not exist. In other words Back in Damiano’s day there was not such thing as the main line of the open game.

As for Damiano’s comments on 2…f6 I agree he did say it was clearly inferior, and gave 3 Nxe5 as his proof. The above statement is a long ways from saying it is a forced loss. Your phrasing of his statement as losing is more in line with mine that it is with 2…f6 being a forced loss. If you play 2….f6 you are losing the game because your opponent can play 3 Nxe5. If they do so then they are a pawn down with no compensation at best. I believe everyone will agree that being down material with no compensation is lowing, however it is not a forced loss. So Damiano’s argurment is that 2…f6 is losing because White can play 3Nxe5. This is not the same thing as 2…f6 being losing regardless of what 3rd move is made by white.

So when the OP played 2…f6 was he losing? Yes he was. Did he lose the game? No he didn’t. Why didn’t he lose? Because the person playing White made more mistakes, the first of which was not playing 3.Nxe5.

First, let me say that I'm not an authority on anything.

The term Open Game, to me, refers to a concept and isnt a specific title. If I play the 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4, I'm striving to play an open game no matter what I call it or even whether I realize it.   What we call "modern chess" - chess involving the newer Queen and Bishop moves, the 2 square pawn move option, etc. - developed in the last quarter of the 15th century.  The first modern game ever recorded as far as we know (actually a contrived game created as the basis for a play/poem by members of a Valencian literary group in Catalonia) wasn't even uncovered until the 20th century.  This game was a Scandi, which shows that the new moves were seen as a dynamic improvement.  Old Chess, called "del viejo" by Lucena and basically a modified version of Shatranj, was a slow game dependent more on strategy than tactics.  The new game, called "de la dama" by Lucena, must have been a breath of fresh air that invited stunning attacks and exciting new ideas.  While I'm sure, like today, many players feared these attackes and tried to prevent them by closing the positions, there's no doubt - from the very few texts of that time - that open games were de rigueur,  whether they called them that or not.  Remember, as mentioned, there were almost no books/manuscripts concerning this new chess - Lucena, Vicent and Damiano.  These books, like the earlier medieval books, were mainly comprised of positions.  They also mentioned some opening without much analysis.  So their benefit to us isn't theory - or even the state of theory which we could already empirically deduce as being primitve - but the timing of the development of chess itself.  It would be a half-decade later before Ruy Lopez published his book which offered some analysis.  so, yes the open game existed - in fact it was possibly/probably .the most common type of game played, but they have no name for it or even for the concept.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 forms the basis of many openings - both the Italian and the Spanish game, the Ruy Lopez, even the Damiano Defense.  Names for opening didn't exist yet.
There were no "main lines" because there was no real theory, just general advice such a that given by Damiano:
Do not make aimless moves; do not play quickly; avoid obvious oversights; do not play to win a pawn at the cost of weakening your position; try to maintain your King pawn and Queen pawnand, if possible, the two Bishop pawns on their fourth squares; when you have a good move, look for a better one;with the advantage, seek equal exchanges.

No, the history has absolutely nothing to do with determining the soundness of the defense.  It's just a side note for those who might be interested.

What is OP? I keep seeing this!

Original Poster - the guy who starts the thread.

Who?

Heh-heh! The Deadmeatano Defense. ROFL.

If this was intended as a joke, it was done in exceedingly poor taste.

Wish I'd said this.

I love how some people are spending lots of time/energy to refute what is obviously a tongue-in-cheek post haha

If it had been posted by a strong player it would obviously have been a wind-up, but as the OP was rated under 900 in the specimen game could it not have been genuine? Am I really so stupid as not to recognise a wind-up when I see one?

 General-Mayhem yeah I get these urges to troll forums... ya you caught me. I was so surprized I won a game I was meaning to lose that I was like this could be great! If you look at some of my old post you can see some are clearly for comedy. I thought the Batman would be proud comment would have given it away. But I had my fun.