what about 1.e4 e5 2.d4 Q-h4. blacks second move wins a pawn.with Qh-4.and there is no defense against  e4 e5 2.d4 Qh-4.[color=#cc0000][/color]

MNb wrote on 06/03/07 at 20:03:52:


I concede that 5.Be2 Bb4+ is lame.  No safe route for Black here.  

Muller/Voigt doesn't give a lot after 5...Qxg2.  (In fact, they give 5.Be2 a '?'.)  After 6.Bf3 Qg6, besides the line with 7.Ne2 you quoted, they just give "7.Nc3 Bb4 -/+ (ECO)."  Not too helpful!  Seems kind of murky to me.  Not only is Black behind in development, but his queen is stuck out in the open.  How does Black develop?  I don't have an answer yet.  I think I would actually prefer to play White!

Markovich wrote on 06/02/07 at 15:37:03:


The Half-Danish is a new opening for me. Maybe because it has one Swedish (Von Lindehn) and one Russian parent (Alekhine)? All opening sources I know (and the only relatively recent one I don't know is Lukes) see 4.Nxc3 as a part of the Danish Gambit. If 4.Nxc3 really deserves a seperate name - which I find quite useless, as 4.Bc4 d6 5.Nxc3 just transposes - Alekhine Gambit is more appropriate.
Whatever you name it, from the beginning I have displayed my preference for 4.Nxc3 above 4.Bc4. That is also my starting point for the question, if 2.d4 or 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 is to be preferred. The idea 16.h5 Rc8 (I assume 17.hxg6 Ba3!), which puts the double sac quite out of business indeed, only confirms this point of view.

After 3...Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 the only game I know is:

Alekhine,A - Cheron,A [C21]
Vevey, 1925

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Le2 Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Ne2 Ne7 8.Nbc3 c6 9.Nf4 Qd6 10.0-0 f5 11.Re1 Qc7 12.Qb3 Na6 13.Ncd5 Qa5 14.Re5 cxd5 15.Nxd5 Kd8 16.Bg5 1-0.

Müller/Voigt also give 7...d5?! (iso Ne7) 8.Nf3 Qf5 9.Nxd5 Bd6 10.Nbc3 Ne7 11.Nxe7 Qe6+ 12.Be3 Qxe7 13.Qb3 c6 14.0-0-0 0-0 unclear, Corbat,P - Morin,S corr IECC 2002.
M/V suggest 7...Nf6 and an old suggetion of Mikenas is 7...Bb4. In general my computer only gives -1.46 and normally that would be reason, to raise my interest (it means more than +0,5 silicon compensation!). So when I say, that I don't trust it, it is only because I don't see how White should continue. That again merely shows my lack of chess understanding.

What I do understand, is that 5.Be2 Bb4+ is quite lame. White gets about the same positions as after 5.Be3, but can try to find better moves than directly transposing with a quick Be3. What I don't understand is the benefit of 5.Be3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 and 7.Be2 compared to 7.Nf3. Black gets the option of snatching an extra pawn; if this is too dangerous, then he just can transpose as White has to play 8.Nf3 anyway. Moreover I am not convinced, that the bishop should be on e2 iso d3.

To partly answer my own question:

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.bxc3 looks promising for White:

a)  9...Qc2 10.Qxc2 Bxc2 11.Re1 seems to give White excellent compensation.  What does Black do with his king?

b)  9...Nc6 10.Re1 0-0-0 11.Ng5 Qe7 12.Bh5 (12.Bg4 Qd7 holds) looks dangerous for Black.  I think Black has problems here.

Maybe Black's best is 5...Qxg2?

Quote:


As I said to MnB, I think Be2 on move 5 or 7 is good, in either case before committing the g-knight to f3.  How many isolated pawns White has is hardly important when he's already two pawns down.  In fact, he'd much rather have the half-open g-file than not.  5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5 and White can switch back to 5. Nf3 with reasonable compensation.  There is nothing wrong with the B on e2.

MNb wrote on 05/30/07 at 20:30:16:


In the line 9.Bd3 Nf4 10.0-0 Nxd3 11.Qxd3 Bxc3, after 12.bxc3 I think white gets serious pressure that fully compensates for the pawn.  I prefer the pawn capture since white can meet ...d5 with a later c4.  This doesn't look very promising for black to me.  I don't see anything better than 9.Bd3 Nxe3 which transposes back to the line black was trying to avoid (and I still like white's compensation there).

MNb wrote on 05/29/07 at 20:37:15:


You don't need Firnhaber's tricky 13...Bxf2, of which I am suspicious, you just play 13...Nce5! with ...Rc8 very soon.  Also I didn't say that this is too dangerous to play over the board, only that I myself prefer not to.

It's a matter of opinion, I think we can agree, whether the Danish or the Goering move order is the best way of reaching these gambit positions. You allow a host of strong defenses, Schlecter's not the least, when you play the traditional move order.

In this game 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Nf3 Nd5 8.Qd2 Qe7 9.Bc4 Nxe3 10.fxe3 c6 11.0-0 d5 12.Bd3 0-0 13.Rae1 f5 seems strong for Black, but White may try :
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be2 !? and if Qxg2 6.Bf3 Qg6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Nge2 with Rg1 Bf4 etc. time is money !

Markovich wrote on 05/29/07 at 13:17:32:


Theoretically the Danish is refuted by the variation Markovich gave indeed according to Müller/Voigt, though Markovich is a little imprecise:

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nf6 8.Qc2 0-0 9.0-0-0 d6 10.e5 Nfg4 and now either 11.h4 Ncxe5 12.Ng5 g6 13.Nce4 c6 (Harding) or 11.Nd5 Bc5 12.exd6 cxd6 13.h4 Bxf2 (Firnhaber). See for details Müller/Voigt's book.
Markovich is also right, saying that this is too complicated and risky to try OTB.

But he is wrong, saying that the Göring move order is to be preferred. While this avoids 3...Qe7, it gives Black extra possibilities (especially the sharp 4...Nf6 5.e5 Ne4). It also denies White some options, especially 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Be3. This is equal, but avoids the far less interesting 6.Nf3 Bb4+ (or Bg4 7.Be2 Bb4+ 8.Nc3) 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Qc4 10.Bxc6+ bxc6.

The simplest way to obtain equality, I have stated this several times, is 3...Ne7 (or 4...Nge7 against Göring's move order). The idea of course is to get an improved version of the Capablanca line. Everybody also knows, that a knight is a better blockading piece thant the queen. Where the Capablanca line (3...d5) gives White the choice between a complicated middle game (6.Be3) and a dead draw (6.Nf3), 3...Ne7 preserves winning chances for Black.

Above all Markovich forgets to mention the version Alekhine preferred: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3. Black is theoretically OK, but not more than that. This is what I would recommend to youngsters etcetera. This way the Danish remains playable, despite of all fast food swallowing couch potatoes. In fact I would say, that their health might improve by playing the Danish more often.   It would get their adrenaline running faster.

Markovich wrote on 05/29/07 at 13:17:32:


Daives himself in  (Play 1 e4 e5 ) as well as Marin (Beating the Open Games) recommend 3...d5 as a safe way to eqaulize. 

I have to agree with Markovich here that is it quite easy to produce reams of analysis refuting a gambit in a message board. It is another to face it over the board unexpectantly. I always find it more pratical to decline espesically when I can get a comfortable position declining and resist the temptation to prove a point.

Quote:

Actually, I think you'll find the mortality rate for both groups is exactly the same ...

X
Quote:


MNb
Quote:


You are probably right! However, this does not make the Danish a sound opening. Nor does it solve the problem posted in the title of this thread.

Some people like to eat chips for breakfast, burgers for lunch, and candy all day long while doing nothing but watching TV. They "don't mind". They "like such simple plans". Yet, it’s a scientific fact that such a lifestyle is highly unsound, and that the mortality rate among fat fast-food-eating, TV-watching people is much higher than the average mortality rate in society.

So. If your ambition in life is to become as fat as you can - then by all means eat that fast-food. And if your ambition in chess is to throw a pawn away for very little compensation (if any) when you play with the white pieces - then by all means play that Danish gambit.

JN wrote on 05/28/07 at 13:49:44:


Wrong. 
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Nf3 Nd5 8.Qd2 Qe7 9.Bc4 Nxe3 10.fxe3 c6 11.0-0 d5 12.Bd3 0-0 13.Rae1 Be6 14.e4 (adherents of the Danish like such simple plans) dxe4 Goris-Held, DEU 1998, 15.Bxe4 with compensation thanks to the considerable lead in development and the pair of bishops (after evt 16.Ng5) or the weakness on Black's kingside (if Black prevents it with 15...h6).
See HgMan's appropriate thread in the General Section. Before trusting silicon verdict, it is necessary to enter a few more moves. After 10...c6 my computer gives -0.81. After 15.Bxe4 it has dropped to -0.42. That is a good sign for the gambiteer.

Right. However 10. - c6! followed by d5 -/+

Quote:


Nah... instead of the premature 6. - d5 black should play 6. - Nf6 and transpose to the game Nogrady-Krivolapov, 1996:


1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.cxd4 Qxe4+ 5.Be3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Nf3 Nd5 8.Qd2 Qe7 9.Bc4 Nxe3 10.fxe3 d6 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 0-0 13.e4 Be6 14.Bd3 Bg4 15.e5 Bxf3 16.Rxf3 dxe5 17.dxe5 Qxe5 18.Re1 Qc5+ 19.Kh1 Nc6 20.Rf5 Qd6 21.Rd5 Qh6 22.Qe2 Qf6 23.Rf5 Qd6 24.Bc4 g6 25.Rd5 Qf6 26.Rd7 Qxc3 27.Rxc7 Rad8 28.Rf1 Kh8 29.Bxf7 Qe5 30.Qf2 Rd2 31.Qh4 Qf5 32.Re1 Rxf7 33.Qxh7+ Kxh7 0-1

Quote:


4.Qxd4 Nc6 is a kind of Centre Game, with a lame pawn on c3.

4.cxd4 Qxe4 5.Be3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5 7.Nf3 Bf5 and here I like 8.Qb3 Nc6, Mieses-Rubinstein, Lodz 1905, 9.Bb5 better than 8.Rc1.
So refutation might be too optimistic. As I have made clear a few times before, 3...Qe7 is a respectable move. The only objection is, that 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 Qe7 makes much less sense. So for practical reasons I recommend 3...Ne7 instead.
These two moves (3...Ne7 and 3...Qe7) were important reasons for me to give up the Danish, though I never met them.

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3 d5 6.Nd2 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Qxe4 Qxe4 9.Bxe4

Boy, oh boy!  Now there's some fun for white!

As discussed in the General Chess forum, Davies' recent gambit repertoire book, Gambiteer I, recommends the Danish Gambit.  While looking at his recommendations, I decided to see what Kaufman's repertoire book recommended for the black side.  It was at this point, a move stopped me dead in my tracks:

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 Qe7!

This move really seems to kill all of white's fun in the Danish.  3...d5 isn't terribly exciting, but you don't really have to worry about being worse, and there's still a game to play.  But 3...Qe7!--it just looks terrible for white to me!

Here's what looks like the main hope for white in this line:

4.cxd4 Qxe4 5.Be3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 d5 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.Rc1 c6 9.Be2 Nf6 10.0-0 Qe7

"and White's compensation for the pawn is inadequate."--Kaufman

Davies quotes Voigt-Rausis, Hamburg 2000, which after 8.Rc1, runs 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 Nf6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Bg5 c6 13.Rfe1 Qd6 14.Nh4 Nbd7 15.Nf5 Qc7 16.Qh3 ("gave White good attacking chances"--Davies).  In the game, White soon won back the pawn with Nxg7 and Qh6+, and later won the game.

I am not completely convinced of White's compensation in this line, but Kaufman's 8...c6 seems to be an improvement, since it seems Black effectively wins a tempo compared to Voigt-Rausis, as White plays Be2 to castle kingside.  It looks to me like White will have to spend time to move the bishop from Be2, if he's going to make progress on the kingside.  (What else does white play for here?  A minority attack on the queenside?)

If white plays by analogy with Voigt's plan in Kaufman's line (after 8.Rc1 c6 9.Be2 Nf6 10.0-0 Qe7):

11.Bd3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 0-0 13.Bg5

Then the disruptive 13...h6 is a new possibility available for Black with the inclusion of ...c6 protecting d5.

Maybe there other ideas for white, but I don't see anything that looks fruitful.  

Perhaps I am very pessimistic since I am not a true gambiteer, but I there a few things I find very disconcerting in this line (3...Qe7).  First of all, it avoids all of the main theory on the Danish and it is still very strong.  Second, the ideas in this line are very simple and not difficult to learn as black.  It seems like white's options are severely limited and black is directing the course of play.  Third, this is recommended in a major repertoire book that an 1...e5 player is likely to have, regardless of strength.  Put these together and you have a gold mine for the black player.  To me, it is a bit like "discovering" the move 2...d5! against 1.e4 c5 2.f4, but even worse for the white player.  (OK, this is a different type of position, but black is turning the tables on white.  A lot of players stopped playing the Grand Prix with 2.f4 after people started playing 2...d5 regularly.)

Time to forget about playing the Danish?  (Well, maybe I could make an exception for blitz.)