What's wrong with 1.b4?

Sorry to say you are totally clueless.

And- in any case, no engine is needed to understnd this gambit is a joke.

Best regards.

That "Orang Colorado gambit" seems completely refutable. On move 6, all black had to do to ensure the win was 6...exd2 7.Nbxd2 Qe7+ and what the hell is white going to do? He's just losing badly. That IM should be ashamed of losing that game.

I already expect Black to play those moves. I have seen them many times in other gambits that I do play. Trying to refute those gambits will be more
difficult over the board with the clock ticking. At the Hawaii International
my opponent was Arianne Caoli 2000+ and a very young kid. I played a 
Diemer Duhm Gambit 1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.e4 and when she saw the move e4
she took 45 minutes to find a reply to this move. I used that extra time to
spend 30 minutes on a move with was the turning point in the game. If
I had played the wrong move I would have lost.  It actually takes me many
blitz games to develop some of my gambits. I would initially take many
losses before winning with them.  And I have to discover its many secrets. 
I am fascinated with the unknown and no longer am interested in regular
opening lines, although I have standard opening lines in my repertoire.
I started out playing many standard openings and learned the Stonewall
Attack and the Sicilian Dragon. I studied middle game books like Pawn
Sturcture Chess and the Euwe middlegames series of chess books. And
I regularly run engine tournaments and matchs to do research on an opening. 
And I check my 50 million + chess database to see if those openings exist.
I got tired of playing regular openings because you have to keep up with 
current opening theory. I might have given up chess along time ago. Chess
should not be about memorization but actually about understanding of the game.
And also enjoyment of the game. 

BEst Regards
DarthMusashi
 

Sorry to say you are totally clueless.

And- in any case, no engine is needed to understnd this gambit is a joke.

Best regards.

GMs do analysis of their openings with chess engines such as Houdni and
Rybka. And I do go over my games with an engine such as Houdini 1.5a
which can point out errors that occur in a game. You need to keep up
with the GMs. 

Best Regards
DartMusashi 

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the obvious 3...Bxb4 but I am wondering if Black can profit from inserting 3...Qf6.  After 4.Nc3 then take on b4.  If 4.c2-c3 instead it looks like Black can just play ..g5-g4 causing trouble.  Thoughts?

DarthMusashi, in your quest to play openings nobody else plays, you have named a lot of ways to lose material in very strange ways. There is already a dumb Diemer gambit though. It goes 1.d4 d5 2.e4. To be fair, your line is no worse, and at the board I would immediately play 3...dxe4, although I wouldn't end up in that position as I don't play the French. (Disclaimer - I am aware that this opening is named after actual chess players and that DarthMusashi did not invent it. I am also aware that DarthMusashi 'invents' very bad gambits such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 g6? and 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g5?)

Your comment that engines don't make mistakes, however, is probably the dumbest thing you've said in any of these opening fora. Engines don't deliberately make mistakes, but if you follow engine lines in many positions that are not lost, you will lose. Can you still claim that engines don't make mistakes? GMs use them in addition to something called a 'brain' to process chess positions. One without the other is useless. The other one is still useful in the absence of an engine.

I wonder if the other guy who still like the 1.Na3 is still here ?

Sometimes seen. Usually short games :)

Here they change their minds! 

Why didn't white just do 17. Qxh7?

When says ''U20'' not sure how young they actually were? :)

DarthMusashi, in your quest to play openings nobody else plays, you have named a lot of ways to lose material in very strange ways. There is already a dumb Diemer gambit though. It goes 1.d4 d5 2.e4. To be fair, your line is no worse, and at the board I would immediately play 3...dxe4, although I wouldn't end up in that position as I don't play the French. (Disclaimer - I am aware that this opening is named after actual chess players and that DarthMusashi did not invent it. I am also aware that DarthMusashi 'invents' very bad gambits such as 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 g6? and 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g5?)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 g6? is not a ganbit, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g5? is the Medusa Gambit.
I actually do not believe that the Medusa is totally sound however I enjoy playing it because of the many unique positions that are not found in any other openings.

 There is already a dumb Diemer gambit though. 

The opening with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 is called the Blackmar
Diemer Gambit and there are books devoted to this opening. I have seen
a comment by GM Yermolinsky who said that it is at least equal and is very
much under rated.  Eric Schiller wrote a book on the BDG with the premise
that the BDG was playable. It is true that I do invent some bad gambits but
I also do invent some good gambits such as 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 the Gibbins Weidenhagen Gambit which took me to the Hawaii State Championship
title in 1986 and 1987.  

Your comment that engines don't make mistakes, however, is probably the dumbest thing you've said in any of these opening fora. Engines don't deliberately make mistakes, but if you follow engine lines in many positions that are not lost, you will lose. Can you still claim that engines don't make mistakes? GMs use them in addition to something called a 'brain' to process chess positions. One without the other is useless. The other one is still useful in the absence of an engine.

What I meant was that engines do not make dumb mistakes that lose right
away and I do like to run engine matches and tournaments because they
reveal other variations that I had not considered.  The engines do surprise
me with various lines. Of course I use my brain in conjunction with the
chess engine to evaluate my new opening. Engines do make strategic 
mistakes which is beyond its event horizon because the chess engine
cuts off its analysis some moves down in the game. Humans are able to
see beyond this event horizon. But the chess engines are only a tool to
understand the game better. 

Best Regards
DarthMusashi 

That was a much better reply than the ones you were offering pfren. You did not invent 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4, it's way too natural, I independently came up with it many years ago as well. Also I disagree that it is sound.

Eric Schiller's books are terrible. Why would him writing a book about the BDG make it good? At least name a better author, as there have been at least 10 better books written on the BDG than Schiller's.

You called 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 g6 the Springdale Gambit, although now I think you may not have made that name up, though I can't find any reference to it other than your own. http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/the65thsquare/message/16954

It seems that some people think there's a refutation to 1.b4, and it begins with 1...e5. 

I played this game a couple years ago as Black in a correspondence game. I have pages upon pages of notes on it, but decided to post it with only a few comments here. 

Nothing's wrong with b4. That's why it has such a secure and solid past among the worlds elite. Its a main attraction to many world championship matches. Just look up the results, you'll see.

A gambit I play is the Kings Gambit. Here is a fun game I played with it.

The toughest line is one page one... 

Here's a game I played against 1.b4 recently. Apparently, this guy really didn't know much about this opening. It was an easy win.

That was a much better reply than the ones you were offering pfren. You did not invent 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4, it's way too natural, I independently came up with it many years ago as well. Also I disagree that it is sound.

I had also independently discovered the opening 1.d4 Nf6 2.g4 but when I contacted
Hugh E Myers of Myers Openings Bulletin, he had said that it was played by a number
of other players such as GM David Bronstein and the late Claude Bloodgood. I even
had correspondence with the late Claude Bloodgood after I wrote an aritcle on this
gambit for Chess Horizons a New England chess magazine. He sent me the manuscript
for his book called the Poisoned Spike Gambit. This was a sub line of the Gibbins Weidenhagen Gambit. There had also been 2 German books published on this opening.
The 2 books are no longer in print.

Best Regards
DarthMusashi

thats weird, i just recently read an article about the history of the Blackmar Diemer Gambit, i think it was in the 1930s were a chess journalist (hated by everyone because he would work for very little money) propagated the Blackmar Diemer Gambit and all leading players considered it bad. I really believe in the knowledge and the competence of Yermolinski, but its still hard to believe that despite such a long line of top players considering  it bad its good. Im not 100 % sure but i believe even now many titled players consider the Blackmar bad.

Anyway i still think b4 is crazy but had really nice ideas and played the attack pretty good.

I am glad you don't like my answers. The opposite would be extremely alarming- I should start figuring out where I have gone wrong...

Pfren has his weird way to admit that he insults people. I cannot accept this however as an apology.