Jaenisch Gambit against 1.c4

More discussion wanted on this gambit line.

@leisuretimeplayer There is not much to say about it.

unfortunately white can also shove the pawn down black's throat if the pawn stays there... 

the gambit also achieves cramping black's position on the queenside, but if the pawn can be regained (which I don't see coming), then there isn't much to say. 

A fianchetto'd bishop and a hole that can easily be covered up by the b and d pawns is very little compensation for a cramping pawn, limiting the mobility of the black pieces.

Note that after the super natural moves e4/Nc3 the extra pawn is already covered twice, without even trying.

that's what i mean.

The gambit's point is to:

1. Open up the bishop diagonal.

2. Get a small lead in development

3. Trade a semi-important c pawn for a bad b pawn.

@MatthewFreitag,

b6 would open the diagonal without giving away the pawn, and there is no trade, because the extra pawn will be defended. Development lead, really?

I never said it was a good gambit. I actually think the gambit is very bad. It's not even tricky like the Englund, it's just plain bad.

b6 is a better response, but it doesn't develop with tempo.

I think we might agree that Black gets a short term tempo as "compensation".

@MatthewFreitag, and let me point out that Black can't make use of his c pawn without spending 2 tempi - or trade it for the b pawn.

Yes I agree with you the compensation is very questionable.

 Benko Gambit works. This is rather similar but I would still prefer the good old benko. 

Jules Moussard (a GM rated 2625 Classical, or 2722 Rapid) has actually been known to play a reversed version of this gambit:

bxa6 indeed  makes no sense at all.