I have no idea, other than it is BOOKUP 2000. Honest.

I consulted Christoph Scheerer's book and while his analysis has been improved on, he admitted that White's piece and temporary initiative are probably not worth five pawns, so it's not as if the assessment of the line has really changed.

If White wishes to rehabilitate this "five pawns for a piece" line then 9.Qe2 (instead of 9.Rh2) 9...Qxd4 10.Qxc2 Qxg4 11.Be3 is interesting, e.g. 11...Nbd7 12.Nge2 preparing 13.0-0-0.  I'm not going to claim that White definitely has enough here, but at least queens stay on the board and White retains active piece play.  As far as I can see all lines following 9.Rh2 are better for Black, even though computers initially like White.

Scheerer mentioned 9.g5!? which may be OK for White anyway, e.g. 9...Nd5 10.Rh2 Nxc3 11.bxc3 followed by 12.Bc4, while 9...Qxd4 10.gxf6 Qxf6 11.Qxf6 gxf6 12.Nf3 is an improvement for White over the lines we've analysed earlier as Black 'only' has four pawns for the piece, and has a weakened kingside pawn structure.

MNb wrote on 03/30/12 at 22:14:27:


12...Nxf6 is an illegal move. If you mean 12...Nxh5, then it makes sense. At this point BOOKUP 2000 gives 14 Nf3 Nbd7 15 Bd4 e6 16 Nb5 Nd5 17 Nc3 N5f6 18 Nb5 Nd5 19 Nc3 f6 20 Nxd5  ed5 21 Rd3  =

Gambit wrote on 03/11/12 at 22:51:13:


Correction: 11...Qxf3 12 Nxf3 Nxh5  13 000 Nd7 14 Ne5! then see BOOKUP 2000 computer analyses in my later post.

I use the computer to double-check my analyses.

Are you analyzing with the assistance of a computer, LDZ? Wow, now that's something.
For the record, 14.Ng1-e5! is an illegal move. Maybe that's why you gave it an exclam? Or, given the yawn, maybe you were just sleepy?

There are so many improvements for black that it barely seems worth mentioning... 4...Bf5?! is inferior, 6...ef is probably questionable, etc.

I'll just mention that instead of 13...Nd7, 13...Nf6! is a massive improvement. Then 14.Nb5 Na6! (development!) leaves black with the preferable position. He can play things like ...Rd8 (returning the a-pawn - Lev often forgets that his opponent can return material rather than clinging greedily) and ...Nd5 (Ooh, white has sacced so many pawns that he has nothing to break open a clever blockade on a file, if executed properly) - at best white is grovelling for a draw, but I'd take black's five pawns for a piece any day.

Yawn... another one refuted. Now where did I put that beer? 

It's the theory that counts on this board, Lev, not anyone's record in club play. What's your view of White's objective chances?

I had not looked at the position I just noticed that Qxh5 was impossible. After Gilchrist is a legend's post I assumed that 7. Qxf3 was meant. I still think that long variations should always be posted as pgn's to avoid such problems. Especially if it's at the start of a new thread.

14.Nb5 may be a bit better for White but not by much. cxb5,Nf6 returning the piece on d7 (perhaps after a6) and then f6 to get the king out looks playable (after g5,h5 the black pawns do not look too slow to me). I did not bother to look for the other thread where this might have been discussed (a link would have been nice).

To me the "Five pawn gambit" question is pretty pointless, gambit usually means sacrifice as somebody who uses that moniker should know. I suggest the catchy name: "two-pawn-gambit after exchanging three pawns for a bishop" 

(Why you add "hara-kiri" I don't get either but let's not go into that)