I invented a Gambit!

Okay, I almost certainly didn't "invent" this. But I'll be honest - I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. I would think something this great would have a name, but I couldn't find one anywhere. The 365Chess database has the move sequences (it scores very well), but it's just an unnamed variation of the QGD. I've never seen it played and it looks very, very strong to me. Here it is:

White sacs a pawn and then offers another for a massive lead in development. Here lately I've been playing 1. D4 almost exclusively (moved over from 1. e4) and my rating has gone up 100 points. So I've spent time looking at QG variations and felt this was a nice novelty. This was the first time I sprung the gambit on an opponent. The opponent was roughly equal to my level but I was able to get a massive lead in development and by the time he castled the damage was done and he was lost. I ended up going into the endgame up a piece and won quite easily.

I look forward to using this again. What do you think? Is it as strong as it looks? Am I missing something?

Looks like the Blackmar-Diemer.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094855

it's called Diemer-Duhm Gambit of French Defense over there

Black can also easily transpose into Semi-Slav kind of thing with 3... c6 4.Nc3 dxe4 ( alternative 4... Bb4) so check Marshall Gambit and Gunderam Gambit in D31 Semi-Slav

Where is this "massive lead in development"?

It's a pretty big lead in development - at least early on. Three pieces developed as opposed to one. But it's deeper than that. Blacks pawn on e6 obstructs the natural development of the bishop (a fianchetto might be preferred - which costs another tempo). White has total control of the center and is almost castled - after which the rook will be immediately brought into play thanks to the open f file. I consider this good compensation. I feel most players would agree that white is well compensated.

I don't understnad why the question is asked. What do you mean? In terms of development? You want your pawns developed - absolutely. They control the center. They open lines for the development of the minor pieces. After move 5, it's because of the pawn development that my pieces were ready to spring into the game. Pawn development is absolutely critical in the opening.

There's no lead in development

You control the center, but that's not the same.

One downside I see is if black gets in b6 and Bb7, that bishop becomes arguably the most powerful minor piece in the game thanks to my king's somewhat weakened position.

I agree.

I never said they were the same thing. What I mean by lead in development is not only the fact that after move 5 I have three pieces/pawns moved as opposed to two, but that my bishops are both active and ready to develop because of the open diagonals (he only has a single bishop active). Additionally, there is the fact that my rook is primed to be developed the moment I castle thanks to the open f file.

But you're obviously entitled to your own opinion. Thanks for your input.

4.f3 doesn't actually threaten to recapture the pawn due to ..Qh4+ so let's give Black an intelligent move here.  4...Nc6 counterattacking d4 which can't be conveniently defended seems good.

GreenCastleBlock:

Why not 8. Be2? After which, blacks a little better by about half a point according to my engine (which is admittedly weak - Chessmaster). Taking the knight looks to me to be stupid. I would reject it just on principle, even if it is the best move.

I guess the problem is the gambit can be declined. I still think it's good to play against amateurs who won't know the proper refutation.

Thanks for your time - insightful. Appreciated.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts. It really means a lot to have a community to run ideas across. I guess I never considered the player not taking the second pawn. To me it was an automatic move - "the pawn is leaving, get something for it" type of deal.

"Pawn moves are no developing moves" - Nimzovich
In the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit you do not want to play c4, you want Bc4.

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is not sound, but this is a worse version of it.

I kind of invented this kind of Gambit

Indeed, all we can think was already been thought by a GM in the past.

Great idea! I like it!

this is the Diemer-Duhm Gambit of the French after 3.e4 being fused with a Blackmar-Diemer Gambit after 4.f3