Problem with Pandolfini in the Petroff

Yesterday, I was reading Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps by Bruce Pandolfini. Having won a good number of queens in the Petroff after  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4  4.Qe2 Nf6 (??) 5.Nc6+ (!) Be7 6.NxQd8,  I looked in his book for other ways to win with some other scammy, sneaky, underhanded tactic.     

Pandolfini shows how Black can win right out of the opening with C42: Russian Game: Stafford Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nc6). Oh boy!

I set Houdini to search for the six best moves after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 –

Houdini: Depth = 20: 1. + 0.22 3...d6,  2. + 0.33 3...Qe7,  3. + 0.42 3...Be7,  4. + 0.50 3...Nxe4,  5. + 0.52 3...c6,  6. + 0.54 3...Nc6.

Arg! The move 3…Nc6 came in last place.

 My problem with Pandolfini

I was extremely disappointed to discover that regardless of what Houdini says, 3…Nc6 has a horrible track record in the Chess Base database. No super GM has played this move and only a handful of 2200’s have tried it, but only when facing a lower rated player. What a bunch of chess hustlers!

Why would Pandolfini publish such nonsense?  Does it work in the parks in New York City? Did he teach this trick to child chess genius Josh Waitzkin? Maybe he’s seen it at the club level? Have you seen this trap before?

Here, I play in the under 1200 pool. Can you see someone at that rating falling for this trap?  I could. It is tempting to try, and at worst, I will be down a pawn with nothing to show for it.

After entering the diagrams, I must say, it is one slick trap.   As White, I'd probably  grab the free queen.

Here's a common error I see in the Petroff where I have won queens with a discovery tactic.

It doesn't matter if GMS don't play this because my average opponent is between 1800 and 2300.  They don't play like GM's.  When I put this gambit into the computer (Houdini), white was getting about .5 in all the lines.  There is compensation for black.  Stop worrying that Topalov, Kramnik and Anand don't play this stuff cause our opponents won't play like them.  Plus Carlsen is bringing back alot of stuff at top level that were considered dubious.  Plus I hate the term chess hustler.  When we play this we aren't tyring to hustle you we are trying to get a complicated position with chances for both sides.  The stronger player should 9 times out of 10 win regardless of opening.

So what does Houdini find as the best response to 1. e4?

Anyway, I would expect to deviate from the main lines in a book titled "Traps and Zaps".

So true. Thanks for the positive feedback. I will give this line in the Petroff a try in Live Chess. If anything, it will be fun because I already have some attacking ideas.

I didn't think of that. To get some of the traps and zaps, I guess you need to get a bit creative.

Chess hustler is such an ugly term.  Shall we say Professional Gunslinger.  But, the problem with adopting cheap tricks is that when you do face the true professional gunslinger you die.