My last post has been censored. It is not my fault, that the first name of the Dutch corr. GM D.Smit is spelled with ck.

One of Watson's latest reviews compare the Watson/Schiller analysis with the specialised Danish Dynamite


http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev62.html

As I already wrote, I do not trust Schiller. After 5.Bxb2 d5 6.Bxd5 Bb4+ 7.Nd2 Kf8 White has 8.a3!? Ba5 (Be7 9.Qb3) 9.Ngf3 Nf6 10.o-o Nxd5 11.Nc4 and White's lead in development compensates the pawn. I would not like to defend an open position with a king on f8.
The reversed move order 5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5 is a tougher nut to crack.

The lines given in this summary were not the
reason for me to give up the Danish. I think
5.Bxb2 d5 is imprecise, because of 6.exd5
Bb4+ 7.Nd2! Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Nf6 9.Qg5 o-o
10.Nf3 Nbd7 11.Rad1 Qe7 12.o-o c6 13.Bb3
h6 14.Qg3 Nc5 Szczepanski-Krüger, corr
T-6802 GER 1986, 15.Bc2! Be6 16.Bb1 Rad8
17.Nd4 plan 18.f4 with compensation (MNb).
But Black might try a transposition with
5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5!
See for more details amongst others Firnhaber's
book Nordisches Gambit from 1989.
Note that Schiller is a very unreliable source. The Danish is really not that easy to refute!

You gave a fine summary on the important 5.. d5 6.Bxd5
Nf6 line. To be honest, I have never met this defense.
The sporting move is 7.Nc3!? of course and Bc5 is
critical indeed. But I think White was not so bad in
Hector-Setterqvist, Linköping 1984.
At the other hand, if you are interested in a queenless
middlegame with a very asymmetrical structure, then
there is nothing wrong with 7.Bxf7+. It is a matter of
taste.
Harder to meet is 5.. d5 6.Bd5 Bb4+
A) 7.Kf1? is unnatural and bad.
B) 7.Nc3 leads to some advantage for Black.
C) 7.Nd2 is White's best chance; the recommended
Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Nf6 9.Qg5 o-o gives some interesting
possibilities after 10.Nf3 or 10.Rd1. Being a pawn down,
White has to play actively of course, but in an open
position the pair of bishops should compensate.
Alas I do not have a clear cut solution for the transposition
5.. Bb4+
A) I distrust 6.Kf1 again, though Keres investigated it.
B) 6.Nc3 d5 7.Bxd5 is the transposition.
C) 6.Nd2 is promoted by Estrin, but Qg5 is really not
so clear: 7.Nf3 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 (8.Ke2!?) Qxd2+ 9.Kxd2 f6
10.e5 with some compensation.
Still, the Danish remains unrefuted. As long as Black
players can not believe this, this opening offers great
practical chances. At the other hand, White can not
afford cautiousness.
But it is possible, that I have to change some verdicts
after studying the new Danish Dynamite book, of course.

So we agree on 5...Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6.
But do not conclude to soon that Black wins because
of his material advantage in the Danish Accepted!
7.Qc2 d6 8.Nge2 b5 9.Bxb5 cxb5 10.Nd5 Qd7
11.Nc7+ Kd8 12.Nxa8 Bb7 is still unclear with the
Black king stuck in the centre.

Maybe I was not clear enough. I am not sure at all
that 5...Qe7 6.Nc3 c6 7.Qb3 d6 8.o-o-o is better for
Black. That 1951 corr. game was won by Wysowski
after Be6 9.Bxe6 fxe6 10.Nf3 Na6 11.Ba3 with nasty
pressure.
Initially I did not like 5...Qe7 6.Nc3 c6 7.Qc2 because
of d6 8.o-o-o Be6 and the book line is very unconvincing.
But better is 8.Nge2 (8.Nf3 Bg4) with the idea b5
9.Bxb5! cxb5 10.Nd5 Qd7 11.Rc1 Na6 12.Nc7+ Kd8
13.Nxa8 Qxa8 14.o-o. So critical is 8...Be6.
Now my verdict is: this is the usual Danish mess;
dubious and highly unclear. According to Tartakower
these lines must be playable then.
5...Qe7 6.Nc3 Nf6 does not feel good. 7.Nf3 d6 8.o-o
Nc6 9.Nd5 Qd8 10.Ng5 Ne5 11.Bxe5 dxe5 12.Nxf7
Kxf7 13.Nxc7+ Ke7 14.Qxd8+ Kxd8 15.Nxa8 was
Sturm-Mitchell, corr USA 1950, which ended in a
draw. But it is easy to find improvements, as f7 is a
very weak spot: 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Bxe5 fxe5 13.Nxf7
Qf6 14.Qh5 is just one of them.
Note that 7...Nxe4 8.o-o is great for White.
Really, after some ten years nobody dared to accept
anymore, even not clearly stronger players. I gave up
the Danish, because my opponents started to
outprepare me with boring declining lines.
Still I love to analyse the Danish Accepted, as it
never fails to cheer me up.