The Urusov Gambit is the best gambit! (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6? 3.d4!)

The poor kid probably read Goeller's funny analysis in his site, and thought he discovered America.

Goeller is a weak player, and his analysis is both outdated and severely flawed.

Sample of his stupid analytical claims on the aforementioned variation, with my own corrections:

My verdict is that if played like that, the Urusov is quite closer to being an opening fiasco than a sound gambit.

Pfren wrote, "Goeller is a weak player, and his analysis is both outdated and severely flawed. Sample of his stupid analytical claims on the aforementioned variation..."

Ok, I'll defend Michael Goeller. I've enjoyed his site. It's full of creative ideas and interesting articles. No, I wouldn't think of playing any of his ideas without checking them fully against the extant literature, game databases and chess engines. That's true of any article I read, even one written by Vladimir Kramnik. But I have found his site to be entertaining and thought-provoking. 

Here's a link to his site:

http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/index.html

No, he didn't miss it- he simply claims a white advantage after 7.Qa4+ (duh!).

And I have already given a game on that line, some posts before (uncommented).

side note, it has been theorized (but never proven) that there are more possible chess game variations than atoms in the known universe - maybe one of you idiots can take some time and examine that so that the rest of the internet can be spared from your complete and utter incompetence.

I like how Chess.com does not archive its discussions so we can comment on historical documents of significant importance like this one. 

lol

Honestly, I seriously doubt as many as 1/5 of all chess players know the Urusov by name. It's been more than two decades since Polgar (I'm not even sure which one anymore) published her analysis in Chess Life. Even then, she took time out to explain the name of the opening. 

And yes, I did see that 2.Bc4 was played this week by none other than Carlsen against the #2 player in the world and his challenger in the World Championship. That doesn't mean people know the name of the opening, or when it is/isn't a Urusov.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/norway-chess-carlsen-round-1

It's worth springing on an unsuspecting opponent, but let me say that the Bishop's Opening is my favorite opening but I've NEVER played the Urosov.

I coached a high school team in the '90's, before Kasparov played the Bishop's Opening when it had been out of favor for 60 years.  No one knew the Bishop's Opening and its typical K-side attack middlegames and we rode that opening to three consecutive county team championships in our state's most competitive county and 3rd, 4th, and 5th state team trophies.

So I encourage 1 e4 2 Bf4 - or it's cousin the Vienna Game, where an early f4 often works.

Carlsen had some games with 1. e4 Bc4. The newest one was played recently at Altibox Norway Chess.

Re post #31 quoting post #30, please read post #29.

Plus, the percentages don't add up to 100%!

So, these stats are obviously fake!

Nah, I knew that already.

Can't tell if you are joking or not, but the percentages are from 2 different statistics and therefore don't need to add up to anything

I played Urusov in a few matches as thought it was a good gambit. Guess my thoughts were wrong after playing with urusov for 3 months i finally realised its just a beginners trap

I hope you are joking. Fakeness of those stats aside, they should not be expected to add up to 100%. You are aware that most chessplayers can identify more than one opening, right?

The sum of players who know, for example, the Ruy Lopez and players who know the Sicilian will add up to almost 200%.

Also, we must define "chessplayers" to make this meaningful. OP just said "people," and I daresay that most people, i.e. general population, wouldn't know a Ruy Lopez from an Oranguntan...

@pfren

In the first game you offered, doesn't 9.Re1 lead to equality? Also, why would you play 6...d5 when you could go 6...Bc5 with a clear plus? Forgive me if I sound like I am interrogating you; I am just curious to find out what you think about those questions.