The Danish Gambit

Would it would be ok to play the Danish at a  1600 level. i wanted to try something different after playing the kings gambit for 3 years. I am a very aggresive player who likes open positions and likes to sac and attack. Any help or advice?

Ive been having much trouble fighting against this

I would just develop normally after that but i dont think thats the best

I think 6.Nc3 looks ok. 

6...Qb4 7.Qe2 isn't so great and 6...Nf6 7.Nf3 Nxe4 8.O-O should be good for White. 

Agree with Titan 6 Nc3 would be perfectly fine for white.

5...Qe7 is not the most theoretical move for black. 5...d5 or 5...Nc6 seem the best moves to me.

The position can get very sharp very quickly and black needs to play accurately despite his material advantage. At lower levels it is quite possible that your opponent will not find all the good moves, especially in short time controls. So I guess you just have to try it.

On higher and highest levels there is probably a reason why this opening is rarely played by white.

[Event "AI Factory's Chess"]

[Site "Android Device"]

[Date "2014.11.25"]

[Round "1"]

[White "You"]

[Black "Cpu (9)"]

[PlyCount "105"]

[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bc4 Bg4 5. f3 Bf5

6. g4 Nxg4 7. d3 Nf6 8. Nc3 Nb8d7 9. Bf4 h6 10. Nb5 Rc8

11. Qe2 Nb6 12. d6 c6 13. dxe7 Qxe7 14. Nd6+ Kd7 15. Qxe7+ Bxe7

16. Nxf5 Nf6d5 17. Bxd5 Nxd5 18. Be5 f6 19. Bd4 c5 20. Bf2 g6

21. Nxe7 Kxe7 22. O-O-O Rc7 23. Nh3 Kf7 24. c4 Ne7 25. Nf4 Re8

26. Rh1g1 a6 27. Kb1 Re8c8 28. Ka1 h5 29. Rd1e1 Rd7 30. Rg2 b6

31. b4 Rc6 32. bxc5 bxc5 33. h4 f5 34. Bg1 Ng8 35. Rg2e2 a5

36. Kb2 a4 37. Ka3 Re7 38. Kxa4 Rb7 39. Re6 Rc8 40. Ra6 Ne7

41. Re1e6 Rb2 42. a3 Rd2 43. Ra7 Re8 44. Bxc5 Rd1 45. Ra7xe7+ Rxe7

46. Rxe7+ Kg8 47. Bd4 Rxd3 48. Nxd3 Kf8 49. Bf6 Kg8 50. Ne5 Kf8

51. Nxg6+ Kg8 52. Rg7+ 1-0

I think I can say another sensible thing, like:

STFU, idiot.

Why does black need to play more accurate than white? Look white is two pawns down, he needs to desperately prove his compensation or he will just be two pawns down. The pressure is on white as well.

In the Bb4 lines I really wouldn't want to be white, simply because I would need to struggle to force my opponent to play bad moves in order to have a winning chance.

I have exclusively used the Danish Gambit against 1...e5 since I started playing the White pieces. This opening has improved me more as a player than any other opening, especially in regards to learning how to use the initiative and be an attacker.

5...Qe7 is called Chigorin's defense. According to engines, it is actually one of Black's five best moves (I think it's the fifth best) after accepting both pawns, although engines also would find ways to give back material at some points to save themselves, which human players may be unable to find, or reluctant to do.

Qe7 threatens to win a piece with Qb4+, so White should play Nc3 or Nbd2. The queen on e7 is both on the same file as the king and blocking in the kingside bishop. I'm happy to see this move and I've never had problems against it. I don't believe someone can do this. White has a 3 unit development lead with the two bishops and pawn on e4, and now Black's move is an early queen development that's going to block in his own bishop? In his book Danish Gambit John Lutes remarks that Black's "game remains very cramped far into the middlegame because of the placement of his queen."

As for 5...Bb4+ which is a very old move, first seen in master play at Copenhagen in 1863 by Hungarian merchant and chess player Baron Ignatz von Kolisch. Accordingly it's sometimes called the Copenhagen or Kolisch defense. I've never had many problems against this move either, it weakens the g7 square, it's really easy to go wrong for Black here (like it always is when they try to keep both pawns) and many charming miniatures have been won by White off this move, like this famous one here http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1336769

Pfren's made a blog post about 5...Bb4+ and many chess.com forumites now believe it is the refutation of the Danish. It's a claim I'm not really too impressed with as throughout history various masters have claimed different moves are the refutation to the Danish. In the 1950's, I.A. Horowitz wrote a similar "Danish Cracker" based around the move 5...c6, which he detailed in his book Modern Ideas in the Chess Opening and described a detailed contorted defensive plan Black could use based off it. In an article by Stewart Reuben published in a 1964 issue of Chess magazine he writes

"It has been demonstrated beyond question that if Black accepts all the pawns in the Danish Gambit, he must return at least one immediately to secure the urgently necessary development of his pieces. Here 5...d5 6.Bxd5 Nf6 is undoubtedly best, yet 5...Qe7, 5...d6, 5...Bb4+, and 5...Nf6 are all seen. 5...c6 was suggested by Horowitz about ten years ago but naturally has been little seen outside of New York since."

I agree with Mr. Rueben, I think the people who try to refute the Danish Gambit, refuting as defined by accepting both pawns and trying to keep one or both, are using computer defenses. I think if you're not a computer, you shouldn't try to use a computer defense because when you do so, you're building a house of cards. One inaccurate move and your position is going to completely collapse. Instead you should try to use a human defense. By a human defense I mean using our intuition and general principles to guide our actions. General principles say, especially in the open games, we shouldn't go pawn grabbing in the opening. Thus I think best is the Schlechter Defense, or the Sorensen defense which is declining the gambit with 3...d5, and it's indeed that move that I've had much more trouble with than the Danish accepted with 5...Bb4+ or 5...c6.

The Danish is a great opening, for people who talk badly about it I say to them just don't play it and instead leave it for those of us who want to accelerate our tactical/attacking skills by playing fun and exciting chess. The Danish Gambit accepted is not a forced win for White, if you play it you'll sometimes have some frustrating losses, but you'll also have a lot of fantastic wins. More importantly you're going to have some fun, adrenaline-fueled games.

+1

3...Qe7 is also a good way to decline the Danish.

Now

Certainly a far cry from what the player of the Danish Gambit was trying to do (give away all the center pawns so as not to have to defend them)

Wait, why is the floor laughing?

Roll On Laughing Floor. LOL good catch

I play the Scotch and Danish a lot; you should be fine at around 1600 on here.  As I am never likely to get much further than 1800, I'll carry on playing it.  Sometimes I come horribly unstuck, other times it 's great.

In the diagram position Nc3 is fine.  Black will probably have to shuffle his queen around so keep developing and you should be ok.

Mighty please, post a counter-refutation of my analysis.

I can help you- I have spotted a couple of inaccuracies in it, which are not serious (although nobody has spotted them up to date).

You can't? Ah, too bad for you. Chess is ideas, moves, and concrete logic, not nonsensical jive talking.

It's no use trying to sweet talk him pfren...

3...Qe7 against the Danish is just equal- white has adequate compensation for the pawn following the lines in Kaufman's book. Bologan in his recent book advocates a slightly different approach with an early ...d5, where computers say white is fine. Bologan may well be right, but I have not analysed this seriously up to date.

3...d5 is a fine move, which gives Black a risk-free (very) slight technical edge at the ensuing ending. Yet, I can't resist taking the pawn- there is always a great chance finding a fool who will play 4.Bc4?

After the correct move 4.Nxc3! I play according to my mood: I have a line which gives easy, solid equality (with really few chances for an advantage) and a riskier, more ambitious one.

3...Qe7 is Rosentreter's Defense, named after German player Adolph Rosentreter. If White is so inclined, he can offer another gambit of the g2 pawn with 5.Be2 as Alexander Alekhine did against IM Andre Cheron in this game  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012390. But playing Be3 and having hanging pawns is a good thing for White, not least for the subjective reason that learning to play isolated queen's pawns and hanging pawn positions is important for chess improvement.

@Pfren, I do appreciate that you wrote that article for us, but I think it's very telling that all three stem games you used in your article were won by White.

As it is now most of my 5...Bb4+ games look more like the Lindhen Maczusky minature than any of the computer analysis you posted. Therefore, I don't need to bother with a counter-refutation as it seems most people are either A. not reading your article, B. not remembering it, or C. not memorizing it in the first place, which I find most likely because not many people want to prepare to face the rare Danish gambit as if they're preparing to play the Sicilian Dragon when they can just play 3...d5 and get an equal position, and if they do spend all the time to do it that's hilarious and White has already scored a psychological victory by making them do so.

I actually tried to play the position as Black of your mainline against 6.Nc3 against an engine and I found myself lost very quickly. It reminded me of the position resulting from Timothy Taylor's recommendation against the Rubenstein variation of the Budapest that you said was bad, where White just had a ton of space, and Black still has to give one of the pawns back but it's not entirely clear how to do this. I don't think 5...Bb4+ poses a practical problem whatsoever, especially not in live standard time control games.

Ah, yes, I sort of expected more jive talking. Not surprised at all.

I don't think yadah-yadah-yadah, i don't think because I can't think... oh boy.

It's like saying that "the Danish is losing, but it's a great opening, because I always play against patzers, which always lose".

I rest my case.