I have studied opening theory extensively. In my youth I loved gambits above all else. I was just slightly over 2000 at my otb peak (c1997). I can only lay claim to being c1950 at best now. Age and so forth, but with age cometh experience or so they say. I do not trust this objectively for the same reason I do not trust the Moller Attack in the Giuoco Piano. The path to a potential advantage is insanely narrow. After 6..., Nxc3 Black's best moves seem fairly natural. But against a bemused Blitz or Bullet opponent "there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip" and at fast time limits it's harder to defend than to attack. I do not see an objective advantage here, but I see much scope for fascinating Practical Play. Good luck to you with this.
Nakhmanson
Sort:
Jan 20, 2026
0
#3
PS: I have absolutely no desire to post a potential Best Line for Black. My sympathy is all on the White side here (heart says x, head says y). It is for the sceptics to prove their point and I will not assist them. I do not want to be part of a chess world in line with Swinburne's "Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath".
I have recently been playing the nakhmanson gambit. For those unaware of its existence, the line goes 1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. Nc3??
Although the engine deems it a blunder, I have literally drawn the engine using the opening. Please only respond if your rapid or blitz rating exceeds 2000, and you have studied opening theory extensively, otherwise your opinions likely won't be taken seriously. The question behind this horrendously jumbled forum post is as follows: Can the nakhmanson gambit be refuted? If so, please provide the refutation in your response. I want to completely understand my openings before using them in OTB tournament play. Thank you for understanding. (I'm but a humble 1500, though I've studied all the lines including Black's Queen sacrifice after Be7.)