Amen.  And since, in the Great Philidor Gambit Debate, the Affirmative refuses to offer evidence, I declare the Negative the winner -- notwithstanding that I have been upholding it.

In fact, so long as I am the monitor of this part of the board, anything posted on the subject of this gambit without being a serious attempt to prove Black's chances will be summarily deleted. 

Well, since someone took that to be a total supprssion of any conversation about this gambit, let me make it clear that anything serious that anyone has to say about this gambit will be accepted.  "See West's website" is going to be suppressed, however.

Chessexplained wrote on 03/23/12 at 07:01:34:

The underlined part is true. The later part pure speculation trying to put a meaning into something out of the category "shit happens".

Back to topic. My summary:
After 4. Bc4
a) fxe4 5. Nxe5
b) b5 5. Bb3
c) Nc6 5. Nc3
each move with white advantage.

Does an average player need more? (If yes - what's it?)

That a white player is able to blunder maybe enough reason for some to play this with black. So what?

Yes, I suggest you go to Jim West's website. He defeated GM Maurice Ashley with the Philidor Counter-Gambit in 2002.

Go to Jim West on Chess. Type in Maurice Ashley. The game should come up.

Is there a game we can look at where a GM lost against this opening?

I am still yet to see a convincing response to Markovich's suggestion of (4.Bc4 Nc6) 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Ng5.  I looked more closely at it earlier in the thread and my impression that it gave exactly the sort of positions that White is hoping for when essaying the Scotch Gambit (normally reached after 2...Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4) and without having to sacrifice a pawn.

On the other hand, now I know that if I am playing Lev in a game then an approach involving 1.e4, 2.Nf3 and 3.d4 suggests itself as a way to get good tactical chances right out of the opening.

Poor Lev is being so badly beaten up here, closing this thread would be a mercy to him. Post fresh analysis here if you have it Lev, since I will summarily delete mere opinion and noncritical examples from your play.

Gambit wrote on 03/21/12 at 05:16:49:



Gambit, I don't know why I should capture on 'b5' ( 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4 b5?! ) when I think this is the worst answer to 4..b5?!. Even 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 can give White adventage:

a) 6.Qe2!?
b) 6.exf5 Bxf5 ( 6..e4 7.Qe2 Qe7 8.Ng5 etc. Baudoin-Dominici, 1993 ) 7.Qe2 etc. several games
c) 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Qe2 Bd6 8.0-0 Ba6? ( Mangion-Zilbermints, 2011) 9.exf5 b4 10.Qe4

In 2006 Michael Goeller asked to the community what is the best Black move against 4.Bc4. In the  games where Jim West himself played Black against the line, he chose 4..Nc6 which suggests that he does not fully trust the standards 4…exd4 or 4..fxe4 ( 4..b5 was not known yet ): I've tons of West games, and Always play 4..Nc6, so then we should consider this move as relatively best one.

If Markovich believes 5.Nc3 etc. is simplest we must continue the analysis at this point. Of course, this seems more relevant than Black resources on 5.dxe5 and 5.Ng5

What I don't understand is why a dangerous tactician and an experienced BDG-player like LDZ would defend black's side after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 f5 4.Bc4, when White gets a lead in development and lots of activity for free.
If Black plays like that against the BDG then LDZ is the fastest to show a hyper-aggressive and clever refutation.
No matter how much I like to tease LDZ, this time I am completely serious, exactly because I respect LDZ as a daring attacking player very much. After 4.Bc4 it's White who does the attacking and LDZ tries to defend? Shoot me.