Is there a name for this gambit?
Sort:
I discovered a gambit for black that sacrifices 2 queenside pawns to activate both bishops and the queen for a kingside attack against white's castled king going for an early checkmate. Is there a name for this? Obviously I am aware that this can be refuted but I have won a surprising number of games playing this line. Here is a perfect example game where I defeat white with checkmate on move 11 against a player rated 1401:
[Event "Asante6886 vs. gcn3030"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2021-11-23"]
[White "Asante6886"]
[Black "gcn3030"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1401"]
[BlackElo "1323"]
[TimeControl "standard"]
[Termination "gcn3030 won by checkmate"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bd6 7. O-O Nd7 8.
d4 Bb8 9. Bg5 Qc7 10. Nc3 Bxf3 11. Bxf3 Qxh2# 0-1
[Event "Asante6886 vs. gcn3030"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2021-11-23"] [White "Asante6886"] [Black "gcn3030"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1401"] [BlackElo "1323"] [TimeControl "standard"] [Termination "gcn3030 won by checkmate"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bd6 7. O-O Nd7 8. d4 Bb8 9. Bg5 Qc7 10. Nc3 Bxf3 11. Bxf3 Qxh2# 0-1
Dec 11, 2021
0
#3
It's called the "Black Wants to Lose" Gambit and White played the "I'm a Moron" variation!
Here is another game where I win with this gambit against a player rated 1572
[Event "alannabananna vs. gcn3030"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2020-05-09"] [White "alannabananna"] [Black "gcn3030"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1572"] [BlackElo "1340"] [TimeControl "standard"] [Termination "gcn3030 won by resignation"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bd6 7. O-O Nd7 8. c4 Bb8 9. d4 Ne7 10. Nc3 Qc7 11. h3 Bxf3 0-1
Here is another where I win against a player rated 1586 using this gambit [Event "Eiviajero vs. gcn3030"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2019-03-30"] [White "Eiviajero"] [Black "gcn3030"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1586"] [BlackElo "1340"] [TimeControl "standard"] [Termination "gcn3030 won by checkmate"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Bd6 7. O-O Nd7 8. Nc3 Bb8 9. d4 Ne7 10. Be3 Qc7 11. Qd2 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Qxh2# 0-1
Yet another example of an early win with this gambit this time against a player rated 1529 [Event "mohammadraheman12 vs. gcn3030"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2016-04-29"] [White "mohammadraheman12"] [Black "gcn3030"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1539"] [BlackElo "1340"] [TimeControl "standard"] [Termination "gcn3030 won by checkmate"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7 5. Nf3 e6 6. d3 Bd6 7. Be3 Nd7 8. Nbd2 Rc8 9. Be2 Bb8 10. a4 Qc7 11. c3 Ne7 12. a5 O-O 13. O-O Nf5 14. Nc4 Bxf3 15. Bxf3 Qxh2# 0-1
Won playing this gambit against a player rated 1604 [Event "Janiko31 vs. gcn3030"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2015-08-29"] [White "Janiko31"] [Black "gcn3030"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1604"] [BlackElo "1340"] [TimeControl "standard"] [Termination "gcn3030 won by checkmate"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7 5. Nf3 e6 6. Be2 Nd7 7. O-O Bd6 8. d4 Bb8 9. c4 Ne7 10. Nc3 Qc7 11. Bg5 Bxf3 12. Bxf3 Qxh2# 0-1
Won playing this gambit against a player rated 1831 Event "desperado132 vs. gcn3030"] [Site "Chess.com"] [Date "2015-09-12"] [White "desperado132"] [Black "gcn3030"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1831"] [BlackElo "1340"] [TimeControl "standard"] [Termination "gcn3030 won by resignation"] 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nf3 Bd6 7. d3 Nd7 8. Nc3 Rc8 9. Bg5 Ne7 10. O-O Bb8 11. Ne4 Qc7 12. b3 Nf5 13. Qd2 h6 14. Bh4 Nxh4 15. Qe3 Nxf3+ 0-1
Question 1: why would you play 3.a6? It is terrible and pointless. Any other move is better.
Question 2: are you sure that your posts look exactly how you want them to look?
A6 prevents bishop b5
I made these posts on my phone so I guess that made it wonky
I think that as you improve and start encountering players who can see mate in two when it's staring them in the face, you will discard that opening
There is no name for this gambit, at least from my awareness. The rest of my answer will be quite long, and will address some chess philosophy in light of this gambit.
After 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7, A few aspects stick out about this position:
Black has sacrificed 2 pawns for positional compensation. With the tempo gained, Black has played 3...a6 and 4...Bxb7. 3...a6 to prevent Bb5+, and 4.Bxb7 to control the a8-h1 diagonal.
In the short term, it would seem that Black is okay, and under practical circumstances (especially with subpar gameplay and/or short time controls) Black’s initiative may incite mistakes if White does not play the position well. Controlling the long diagonal surely increases White’s likelihood of making mistakes.
However in the long term (especially with strong gameplay and/or long time controls), going into the middle game and endgame, Black’s initial disadvantage will continue to worsen as the disparity of material becomes more and more significant.
Material advantages are permanent and usually become more dangerous over time. Initiative and tempo are temporary and only become tangible when converted into material or structural advantage (often by accurately taking advantage of an opponent’s mistakes). Initiative and tempo often give a practical advantage because they increase the likelihood of the opponent making a mistake. For a gambit to work, the practical advantage gained by initiative must outweigh the material advantage gained by the opponent. Note the game progression below:
KQRRNNBB7P vs KQRRNNBB5P doesn’t seem so bad.
KRN5P vs KRN3P is worse.
KN3P vs KNP is awful.
K2P vs K is completely lost.
This is likely what would happen with good play from both players. And unless your opponent makes mistakes (though they usually do), and unless you can exploit your opponent’s mistakes well enough while simultaneously not making noticeable mistakes yourself, the progression above, or worse, will always end up being the result.
In practice, you have to make that long bishop diagonal and that extended a6-pawn worth two pawns. That’s pretty hard, in my opinion. And there are probably easier ways to go about using the bishop diagonal without sacrificing 2 pawns.
But if you think it’s a doable strategy, feel free to try!
After 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 a6 4. cxb7 Bxb7, A few aspects stick out about this position:
Black has sacrificed 2 pawns for positional compensation. With the tempo gained, Black has played 3...a6 and 4...Bxb7. 3...a6 to prevent Bb5+, and 4.Bxb7 to control the a8-h1 diagonal.
In the short term, it would seem that Black is okay, and under practical circumstances (especially with subpar gameplay and/or short time controls) Black’s initiative may incite mistakes if White does not play the position well. Controlling the long diagonal surely increases White’s likelihood of making mistakes.
However in the long term (especially with strong gameplay and/or long time controls), going into the middle game and endgame, Black’s initial disadvantage will continue to worsen as the disparity of material becomes more and more significant.
Material advantages are permanent and usually become more dangerous over time. Initiative and tempo are temporary and only become tangible when converted into material or structural advantage (often by accurately taking advantage of an opponent’s mistakes). Initiative and tempo often give a practical advantage because they increase the likelihood of the opponent making a mistake. For a gambit to work, the practical advantage gained by initiative must outweigh the material advantage gained by the opponent. Note the game progression below:
KQRRNNBB7P vs KQRRNNBB5P doesn’t seem so bad.
KRN5P vs KRN3P is worse.
KN3P vs KNP is awful.
K2P vs K is completely lost.
This is likely what would happen with good play from both players. And unless your opponent makes mistakes (though they usually do), and unless you can exploit your opponent’s mistakes well enough while simultaneously not making noticeable mistakes yourself, the progression above, or worse, will always end up being the result.
In practice, you have to make that long bishop diagonal and that extended a6-pawn worth two pawns. That’s pretty hard, in my opinion. And there are probably easier ways to go about using the bishop diagonal without sacrificing 2 pawns.
But if you think it’s a doable strategy, feel free to try!
blackburne kloosterboere gambit in the scandinavian
Dec 12, 2021
0
#17
I discovered 2+2=4 but then I discovered it is already discovered and no one cares...
It's ok. It gives black more space on his queen side for attack setup. Nothing wrong with a little creativity.
