Peculiar Opening

I have a special reason for asking this.
Has anyone ever played or played against this opening?
If so, can you either post the game(s) or describe what you remember?
I never played it, and I am not convinced.
3...Qh4+ 4.Nf2 (what else ?) Nf6 with the threat of ...N(x)e4 does not look very pleasant for White (5.d3 Bc5). Unless I am missing something ?

Batgirl the Tartakower game is the only one in my 5.5 million game DB. Are you not beginning to see a pattern here?
Daryl_F read this:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-use-the-chesscom-diagr

Thanks Daryl_F. I'm aware of Tartakower's venture into this. I was hoping to see members' games.
Thank you Irontiger.
This line proved pretty good for white in the few games I have:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nh3 Qh4+ 4. Nf2 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxe4 6. O-O

6...Nxf2 7.Rxf2 c6 8.d4 d5 9.Rxf4 Qd8 10.Bd3 Bd6 looks just good for Black. Is there an improvement on that line somewhere?

The game went:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nh3 Qh4+ 4. Nf2 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxe4 6. O-O Nxf2 7. Rxf2
f3 (7...f6 has also been played) I haven't seen 7...c6

The game went:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nh3 Qh4+ 4. Nf2 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxe4 6. O-O Nxf2 7. Rxf2
f3 (7...f6 has also been played) I haven't seen 7...c6
It seems to me that ...c6, ...d5, ...Bd6, ...Nd7-f6 etc. is the most natural scheme of developement, and that Black has a very comfortable position with an extra pawn.

The game went:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nh3 Qh4+ 4. Nf2 Nf6 5. Bc4 Nxe4 6. O-O Nxf2 7. Rxf2
f3 (7...f6 has also been played) I haven't seen 7...c6
It seems to me that ...c6, ...d5, ...Bd6, ...Nd7-f6 etc. is the most natural scheme of developement, and that Black has a very comfortable position with an extra pawn.
With a diagram, for people like me who fail miserably every time they try to analyse more than 3 moves ahead :

I think he means 7...c6; 8....d5; 9...Bd6, etc.
The purpose of 7...f3 was, of course, the threat of 8...Bc5, so black was trying to develop with threats rather that to establish a central dominance.
This opening is very weird.

The purpose of 7...f3 was, of course, the threat of 8...Bc5, so black was trying to develop with threats rather that to establish a central dominance.
The fact the Bc4 hangs is also a good factor for 7...f3.
But I do not think Black should play like that - he is just creating tactical problems, when he has a huge and safe edge with my 7...Bd6. Possibly he is better in the tactical line after the smoke clears, but winning is enough for me.

Personally I find 3.Nh3 in the KGA underwhelming, to put it mildly. It doesn't seem to be one of GM Tartakower's more inspired opening ideas, although he had a lot more than I was previously aware of:
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Tartakower Var 1.d4 d5 2.e4 de4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3 ef3 5.Nf3 Bf5
CKD - Fantasy (aka Tartakower) Var 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3
CKD - Tartakower Var 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 de4 4.Ne4 Nf6 5.Nf6 ef6
DD - Staunton Gambit, Tartakower Var 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fe4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g4
FD - Classical Tartakower Var: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Ne4
Old Indian Defense - Tartakower Var 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4
QGD - Tartakower Defense 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Nf3 h6 6.Bh4 O-O 7.e3 b6
Sokolsky Opening (aka Tartakower Gambit) 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 Bb4
Torre Attack - Tartakower Var: 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Bg5
According to Wikipedia Tartakower "invented" the Catalan Opening (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2) in 1929 after the organizers of a tnmt in Barcelona asked him to create a new variation honoring the chess history of Catalonia.

NimzoRoy, this wasn't Tartakower's idea. It was invented two decades prior to Tartakower's game by a Russian player from Odessa who later moved to the US.
I agree that's it's everything a gambit shouldn't be and defies about every chess precept. It should fail immediately from it's own deficiencies and the fact that no master other than Saviely ever seemed to have tried it seems to confirm it's poor qualities.

But I do not think Black should play like that - he is just creating tactical problems, when he has a huge and safe edge with my 7...Bd6.
That does seem to be a strong line, maybe what I'm looking for.

NimzoRoy, this wasn't Tartakower's idea batgirl
Well I guess Tartakower has enuff openings named after him as it is. Unlike the hapless Damiano, at least he's not getting credit for a turkey opening he didn't invent
Actually Damiano condemned the opening named after him (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 "Damiano's Defense")
Very few chess opening "inventors" were actually the first player to employ an opening named after them, they are usually the first world-class player to employ the line named in their honor and/or the first well known master to contribute lots of new analysis and theory to an opening.

I tried this opening against a chess program ( she as white ) :
Here we interrupted the game.When i am able to end it, i will show the rest.
White have a pawn less, but strong pawn advantage in the centre ( after Be2 and c4 white pawns can become dangerous - in combination with bishops couple )
Black's passer ' h ' is somehow not easy to become in movement .

I tried this opening against a chess program ( she as white ) :
Here we interrupted the game.When i am able to end it, i will show the rest.
White have a pawn less, but strong pawn advantage in the centre ( after Be2 and c4 white pawns can become dangerous - in combination with bishops couple )
Black's passer ' h ' is somehow not easy to become in movement .
What's wrong with 5...Nxe4 ?
Oh, I should have read the thread more carefully, that is the main line.
Interestingly enough I stumbled upon a champion of 1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Nh6 3.Qh5+ Nf7 once.

Thanks qqrnprn. I had been convinced that 5...d5 6.exd5 Bd6 was a complete refutation, now I'm not so sure. It's certainly Black's best line so all analysis should probably start from this position:

Thanks qqrnprn. I had been convinced that 5...d5 6.exd5 Bd6 was a complete refutation, now I'm not so sure. It's certainly Black's best line so all analysis should probably start from this position:
1-I believe there is still a case to make for 5...Bd6 (without sacrificing the d pawn).
2-White is already facing serious problems, the two main being ...Bg5 and ...f3 (attacking c4). And even if both sides manage to castle without immediate damage, Black has a long-lasting attack on the kingside, not White.
For instance, 7.0-0 (?) Bg5 ? is a mistake because of Be2 and Black will lose castling rights due to a check, but something like this does not look thrilling for White :
I have a special reason for asking this.
Has anyone ever played or played against this opening?
If so, can you either post the game(s) or describe what you remember?