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

This Gambit is the best gambit, its better than the queens gambit and is definetly better than the kings gambit. 87% of people who play chess know the queens gambit and the kings gambit - try the Urusov, and 21% of people who play chess know the Urusov gambit, it is a surprise opening also. If ur a tactical player and don't like positional games - try the Urusov!

I've had the Urusov played against me and knocked it to pieces from a cold start. You can be as passionate as you like but I strongly doubt you've made an outstanding breakthrough in chess theory that justifies putting a ? against the Berlin Defence to the Bishop's Opening.

Panayotis, why does white have to play 4.Nf3 in ur analysis? (why not 4.e5! to gain tempo?)...and @jempty method, 2. ...Nf6 should be a question mark(and is not absurd) because black suffers for a very long time(and jempty I would'nt put a ? In 2.c4 in the queens gambit!), they crushed me with this opening(opening surprise, as it was the first time I saw this opening), although playing as black - better was 2. ...Nc6 or 2. ...Bc5 :)

4.e5 d5! (an important idea to remember in the Open Games)

Can you cite the source you got these statistics from? (your ass doesn't count).

APPLY COLD WATER TO AREA OF BURN

This may be alright to try in blitz. I'm no pfren advocate at all so I hate to say it but I think he's right. It doesn't seem white gets any initiative or compensation for sacrificing a central pawn.

Panayotis, I know how the pieces move(and I am faaaaaaaaaaaaar better than a beginner or a newcomer)...I'v beaten a 2000+ rated player convincingly in just 12 moves(I think in my old account)...The game : Passionate Fighter(1453) - Previul(2030) ; 1-0 ; Chess.com Online Correspondance 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 xd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.a3? Be7 6.f4 Nf6 7.Bd3 d6 8.0-0 Qb6 9.Kh1?! Bd7 10.Be3?! Qxb2? 11.Nb3!! e5? 12.Bc1!! (black resigns) :) ...u see, In chess I can even defeat an IM blindfolded playing the Urusov :)!!! (I'm not saying u pfren)...but there is an IM out there that I know that I can defeat in a chess game convincingly:)

I think I should open up a thread about "pfren", because I think he could be a chess legend aswell(what do u think pfren?)...(anyway I'm wondering why pfren is'nt a GM...maybe he is about to recieve the GM norm sooner or later this year)...and amazingly - he has'nt even lost a single game. all-hale to the lucky nigga who is going to be the first to beat pfren.

A long time ago, Susan Polgar wrote a couple articles in Chess Life about the Urusov Gambit. It may be an acceptable line for young scholastic players to learn, but I agree with Pfren that it really doesn't hold up well to close scrutiny. If you really like an opening, play it in serious correspondence games against strong opponents and see how well it holds up.

Pfren loses about 1/3 of his games in bullet and about 1/8 of his games in standard chess. 

Your insinuations are foul.

Sorry, Correspondance Online games I mean't! (blitz or bullet doe'snt really count because i.e any 700-900 rated player can defeat magnus carlsen in a bullet game:) there is no master in blitz or bullet games, those u see in top 5 blitz in the chess.com homepage I think in my eyes 'do sometimes/always cheat to stay in the top 5')

Sorry, Correspondance Online game I mean't!

Just a minute, I think someone's trip-trapping over your bridge.

Don't forget the Frankenstein Dracula :)

e4-e5 Bc4-Nf6 Nc3-Nxe4 Qh5! 

On an old chess server, I once convinced a computer-player operator to let me play the black side of "grob counter gambit". This new opening, I explained to him was very tactical and there was little theory on it. He didn't see it in the computer's opening book and agreed to add it.

Without further ado, here is the opening with the computer playing White

1. f4 e5

2. g4

Please analyze.

Ericfleet 2. ...Qh4 checkmate. (fools mate)... Dnt ask for something ridiculous like that to be analyzed pls

I figured that turnabout is fair play. Mine at least allows for a laugh.

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