When I've played it, my opponents don't take the b2 pawn. Instead, they start developing their pieces with the extra pawn in hand.
Gambits
Sort:
Actually the Goring Gambit which is similar to the Danish is stronger.
Nf3, Nc6 are played before d4.
Well, some gambits are better than others... but specifically and more to the point, is the Danish sound and will Black too easitly neutralize White;s attack?
As Black, I've always decline the gambit when offered... so I've really never played the gambit accepted from either side.
I play the Danish Morra, but not in serious OTB games.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/is-this-the-danish-morra
The problem with the Danish for me is that it is so easy to decline in a safe and boring way. 3...d5 is really not a fun line. Otherwise I would probably play it. The fact that black can do a bit better than equality in theory would not deter me. As long as the position is complex, I like it. And at my level, it is unlikely that people will be very well prepared in a sideline.
Thanks everyone. When the so-called Danish Gambit was first introduced, as far as I can determine, in 1857, it must have been a stunning idea (the same for the Muzio around 1600, the Evans Gambit in 1827 or even the Halloween Gambit whenever it was introduced). Of course, as with most aggressive openings that sac material, ways to neutralize (even if not refuting them) them are developed over time taking away much of their bite.
Actually the only line in the Danish Gambit, more accurately the Northern Gambit, I'm interested in is the 4.Bb4 line, also called the Lindehn Gambit, named after the best Swedish player in his day, Dr. Hans Lindehn who also introduced the original (recorded, that is) and published Danish Gambit.
Henry E. Bird, it may be interesting to note, played Lindehn a series of games using that opening in Philadelphia in 1876 as wasn't impressed in the least: "I had the pleasure of defending a few attacks at this opening at Philadelphia in 1876 against Dr. Lindehn, a very strong Swedish amateur. It is dangerous to inexperienced practitioners, but properly met quite unsound."
Again thanks for the input. I appreciate it. I'll post here when I compile the article I'm working on.
my engine analysis shows no weakness for the danish gambit. please see
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2598867
Thanks, Jamalov. That will definitely take some time to read and try to absorb.
In the meantime, here a historical look at the Danish:
The Northern Gambit
The Northern Gambit II
I'm working on an article right now. Although it's not about gambits per se, it greatly involves the Danish Gambit.
I don't think I've ever actually played the Danish Gambit as White, but on the surface it seems like an attacker's dream. Or course, many gambits are like that, which is why people play gambits.
While researching this article I came across articles from as long as 150 years ago deploring the death of gambits as, even then, some people could see that totally safe and sound play, as theory increased, was the future of chess. But they also regretted the loss of gambit excitement and inspiration, a double-edged sword, I imagine. I think many people today have that same feeling. Other than the Queen's Gambit, which isn't a gambit in the spirit of the name, gambits aren't exactly popular in high level or maybe even in mid-level chess.
In the Danish Gambit, White more-or-less starts off 2 pawns down but much better developed and poised for attack. I am curious if people find White's position enough compensation for those two pawns. Even though White is better developed, Black's position seems solid, while White's defense seems more shakey (but I could be way off base in that evaluation). So I see pluses and minuses.
Anyway, I hoping to garner some insight into this opening to help me understand my subject better.