New Opening Line: Vienna – Orolov Gambit (e4 e5 Nc3 d5 exd5 c6!)

Hello chess friends! I've recently worked on a new idea from the Vienna Game, and I’d love to share it with the community. I call it the Orolov Gambit, a sharp and tactical line starting with: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 c6!? The idea is to immediately strike back in the center and generate dynamic piece play. Here's a sample game played and analyzed using Stockfish : [Event "Vienna: Orolov Gambit"] [Site "Chessis App"] [Date ""] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [ECO "C40"] [Opening "Vienna: Orolov Gambit"] [Result "0-1"] [AnalyzedBy "Stockfish , per move"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 c6 4. dxc6 Bc5 5. cxb7 Bxb7 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. Nxe5 O-O 8. Be2 Bxf2+ 9. Kxf2 Qd4+ 10. Ke1 Qxe5 11. d4 Qd6 12. Rg1 Re8 13. g3 Nc6 14. Nb5 Qd5 15. Nc7 Qa5+ 16. c3 Qxc7 ⚔️ This line creates imbalanced positions with attacking chances for both sides. It’s still in testing, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts. Is this sound? Any improvements in development or defense for White? Would you use this in blitz or rapid games? Let me know what you think! Cheers, Akobir (aka Orolov Gambit Creator)

(Just posting the diagram for others)

Thatʼs new but you cannot play it at higher levels

There's no way this is sound, but it may trick some players and especially so in blitz or bullet. I don't think I'd use this opening at my level, but maybe in unrated games, I could try it just for fun. This opening is unsound because it just gives up too much material without enough compensation and white is much better.

In this game you shared, 7. Nxe5 was far too greedy though. White already has more material, so they should prioritize king safety and piece development. I'd recommend Bc4 and castling, or Bb5+ to develop with tempo and then castling. If white castles with the extra material, then their opening is to their advantage here.

Levy knows how to counter it! Maybe.

Actually looks sound! I will try it sometime

Like many counter-gambits it's an interestingly creative idea if accepted. Like many counter-gambits, one questions how Black might avoid serious disadvantage if White declines. For example:

or

In neither case is the game over, but in neither case do I much fancy Black's position.

I wish it were otherwise. My heart is in the era of Andressen and Spielmann. But my head is mindful of Neumann and Capablanca [et seq.].

As white I would take the pawn with the knight