I like it. I've been considering playing the Danish Gambit OTB at some time... haven't stepped up to the challenge yet though! 
The Pseudo~Danish Gambit
Sort:
I think this is why it is not played at the higher levels of GMs. However, I am not a GM or of GM strength; so I do not play people of that level and I think white can get good attacking chances, & a lot of fun with tactics. Open games are good teaching/learning tools for lower level players.
Why the obsession with sacrifices?
I am not a fan of Ne2--Black has to play something like ..d5 for a break. The Knight belongs on f3 so if allowed can play Ng5 at some point.
Scarblac wrote:
Why the obsession with sacrifices?
A: It's fun!
I posted this game because I posted on a forum a game where I was ahead in material but managed to lose on time; I was counting the points of captured pieces and there was a comment on there that beginners do not know how to sacrifice due to the point system; I don't remember the wording. Anyway, I am very capable of sacrificing pieces for the win.
aansel wrote:
I am not a fan of Ne2--Black has to play something like ..d5 for a break. The Knight belongs on f3 so if allowed can play Ng5 at some point.
Thanks for replying and the suggestion. You are a much stronger player than I am and I appreciate any help in learning. I have played games (Danish Gambit) where I sometimes wish I had an attack stemming from the f4 square by the Knight when my opponent gets an opportunity to castle anyway. So I figured that even if I do not get to use the f4 square for a launching pad for the Knight I can at least use him for defense, (maybe trade him off for an attacking piece trying to assault the castle) which I did in this particular game. I also do not like blocking in the f-pawn, which I planned/intended to use for an attack when possible (in this game I did not get that opportunity).
Hammerschlag--no dis-respect intended but developing an opening approach should be consistent with general concepts and appropriate for various level of play--at 1400 something may work but you do not want to completely learn something new at 1600 etc. I happen to play the Danish and think it is perfect for under 2200 (and perhaps more)--it teaches White the idea of using his pieces for an attack and quick development.
One also can not assume their opponent will let them play all their dream moves. In the Danish, Black has to either develop quickly and/or play a ...d5 break. Your approach of Ne2 and an f4 push takes too much time and does not ideally place pieces on their best squares. Perhaps after a Ng5 White can follow with f4 but if you play passively Black will get the time to develop and counter the strength of the Danish.
Perhaps your opponents were confused and did not understand how to play against your set up so it did work. What I am suggesting is that in the long run it will not work and you will have missed out on learning more about regular Danish set-ups
aansel wrote:
Hammerschlag--no dis-respect intended but developing an opening approach should be consistent with general concepts and appropriate for various level of play--at 1400 something may work but you do not want to completely learn something new at 1600 etc. I happen to play the Danish and think it is perfect for under 2200 (and perhaps more)--it teaches White the idea of using his pieces for an attack and quick development.
One also can not assume their opponent will let them play all their dream moves. In the Danish, Black has to either develop quickly and/or play a ...d5 break. Your approach of Ne2 and an f4 push takes too much time and does not ideally place pieces on their best squares. Perhaps after a Ng5 White can follow with f4 but if you play passively Black will get the time to develop and counter the strength of the Danish.
Perhaps your opponents were confused and did not understand how to play against your set up so it did work. What I am suggesting is that in the long run it will not work and you will have missed out on learning more about regular Danish set-ups
I do not get offended by anyone's view or opinion, so fire away. Actually I welcome it; it's a good way to learn (at least in chess - especially if it comes from another player who is of higher level).
Just my opinion, I hope black does not fall into trouble after 1) e4, e5 2) d4, exd4 3) c3, dxc3 4) Bc4, cxb2 (if black follows along and complete the entire gambit line) at 2200 level. I am just suspecting that black (at 2200) would not follow along that deep into the gambit.
If you can give me lines as to better play for black after Ne2 I would be able to follow along (as I am a capable person). I feel that I do understand the concept of the Danish (I have played the Nf3 variation of it in the past), but maybe not as well as I should. I don't really know if I would call it passive to play Ne2, maybe "not as aggressive" as Nf3?
Like I said before, I think you are of much higher level than I am as I do not even have any kind of rating whatsoever of any kind (other than the one here on this site); you are ~2000 US (I can only wish I was near that). So any information (or help in any way) you (or anyone else) can give me is much appreciated, by me. I will in no way be outraged.
I do know that my opponent in this game did not play great (or good), making the mistake of taking too many pawns and leaving the King in the center. But isn't that (part of) chess? --- I mean the mistake and maybe even setting up a trap for the opponent to fall into (a shallow 1-2 moves or deep 3 or more moves trap). I thought that placing the pieces to squares that can possibly be of best value (controlling more squares/tactical opportunities) is what you want to do while keeping your opponents opportunity at bay. I feel that people learn that the c4-square is the "best" for the Bishop (c5 for black); and that c3/f3 is the "best" square for the Knights. However, this is situational. In most cases, yes this is true, but it cannot be true 100% of the time.
I just can't go along when someone says, "that's the wrong way to play" and take it as it. I need information, analysis, lines, reasons. I need to see why it's wrong and then I can learn from it. I am not saying you are wrong or that I do not agree with you. If you can give me something (definite/concrete) to work with, I would really appreciate it.
OK--there are many lines to choose from but here is how I would play as Black
5...Nf6 I am assuming you would play 6 Nbc3 I would then play 6...Bc5 and 0-0 next move
I could also play 5....cxb2 6 Bxb2 Nf6 7 0-0 Be7
One trick White has to be careful of in some lines is when Black plays ...b5 and white can not play Bxb5 because Black can play Rb8 attacking both pieces on the b file and giving him some play
I hope that helps a little
aansel wrote:
OK--there are many lines to choose from but here is how I would play as Black
5...Nf6 I am assuming you would play 6 Nbc3 I would then play 6...Bc5 and 0-0 next move
I could also play 5....cxb2 6 Bxb2 Nf6 7 0-0 Be7
One trick White has to be careful of in some lines is when Black plays ...b5 and white can not play Bxb5 because Black can play Rb8 attacking both pieces on the b file and giving him some play
I hope that helps a little
That does help...Your examples a fine, I have no problem with them...
Although I was more concerned as to where Ne2 goes wrong. What lines black has to make white pay for it.
Or, what lines with Nf3 is much better...something that demonstrate that Nf3 should be played without a doubt over Ne2.
5...
5 Ne2 does not lead to a forced loss and there is no direct refutation to it. I just do not think that in the middle game White's pieces are not properly positioned.
May 28, 2009
0
#13
Not to sound too serious or anything, but a parallel can be made between greed and the current world economic crisis. People are greedy by nature. They take and take and take. They want more and more material, thinking it will improve their lives.
The Danish Gambit is counterintuitive to this philosophy. In the Danish, White sacrifices pawns as if they don't matter. Raking bishops, quick development, and early mates are common. We need to be selfless and less greedy. That's the lesson of the Dutch.
Diabeditor wrote:
Not to sound too serious or anything, but a parallel can be made between greed and the current world economic crisis. People are greedy by nature. They take and take and take. They want more and more material, thinking it will improve their lives.
The Danish Gambit is counterintuitive to this philosophy. In the Danish, White sacrifices pawns as if they don't matter. Raking bishops, quick development, and early mates are common. We need to be selfless and less greedy. That's the lesson of the Dutch.
"That's the lesson of the Dutch." Diabeditor
You mean the Danish.
Actually, the Dutch are cheap, not greedy...just kidding.
My friend (she is Dutch) jokes around about how Dutch people do not like to spend...I would not know, I am not Dutch or Danish.
The Danish Gambit [C21]- 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 sacrifices one or two pawns for the sake of rapid development and the attack…
I use to play the DG and I have no problem sacrificing pieces for the win as the game below will demonstrate. It’s a game I played a long time ago; a game I feel is probably "the best game I have played". My mind was clear and my ideas were all planned out. I could see the game unfold as I saw it happening.
My idea is to play a semi-Danish game/gambit; what I call...
The Pseudo-Danish Gambit...
In this game I counted 5 different pieces sacrificed; on 2 occasions, the pieces sacrificed had compensation 1 to 3 moves later, which should not be considered a true-sacrifice.
3) Bc4 – what I call the Pseudo-Danish Gambit…normal move is 3) c3 offering/sacrificing a second pawn.
5) Ne2 – attacking the pawn on c3 with a 3rd piece (although not necessary). The Ne2 can transfer to either f4 or g3 later on for an attack or defense.
6) Bxb2 – black is up 3-pawns to 1-pawn; although white has active pieces and open lines of attack as compensation.
10) Bxf7+ – the sacrificial-offering…not a true sacrifice as there’s compensation 3-moves later (as you will see).
13) Qxc6 – the compensation after move 10) Bxf7… The exchange is actually 3 (Bishop) to 5 (2 pawns + Knight). Material is now even and white has very good attacking chances + King safety.
15) Qxc7+ – another sacrifice…the Knight on g3 will be sacrificed to open the f-file and give a discovered check. Thus far white has sacrificed 2 pawns (gambit), a Bishop, and a Knight…
16) Qb8 – continuing to menace the Queen-side; eyeing Qxa7 after removing the defending Rook.
17) fxg3 – the sacrifice and the discovered check…
18) e5 – a little premature…might be considered a mistake by a computer; although with time constraint, a human can err. Black should respond with Qxe5…
19) Rxd7+ – removing the defender of the a7-pawn…
20) Qxa7 – additionally pins the Bishop on d7…
21) Ne4 – a 5th sacrifice by white; not a true sacrifice as Qxd7+ is an even trade of material w/ tempo…white could play 21) Rf2 attacking the Queen and defending the Bishop, however 21) Qe1+ forces Rf1 and we are back to where we started…Another option Qb7 (Qb8, or Qb6) [very defensive minded – not my plan]…
21)…Qxb2 – is actually a bad idea…black loses if he takes.
If Qxb2; Qxd7+, [King must move as Be7 loses to – Nd6+, {Kf8, Qc8+, Bd8 (forced), Qxd8#} Kg8, Qxe7 (the Bishop is loss & the King is still in danger)]
Options for black: 1) Kg6 or 2) Kg8
Kg6, Nxf6, gxf6, Qf5+, K(h6, g7 or f7), Qxf6+,
{Kh7, Qg5, w/ Rf7+}
or {Ke8, Qf7+, Kd8, Rd1+, Kc8, forcing the King to the side of the board and placing the Queen (on b2) in danger}
Kg8, Qe6+, Kh7 (forced), Ng5+,
{Kh6, Nf7+, takes the Rook}
{Kg6, Qf5+, Kh6, Nf7+ & mate} Kh5 is best try…
22) Qxd7+ – possible due to the pin on the Knight by the Rook…
23) Kh7 – forced...
25) Kh5 – forced...
26) g5 – forced...