gauss: That is what I meant. Post now edited! Thanks for pointing that out.

RdC: Thanks for posting the game there! Very interesting. Possibly the only game ever played in the line!? Who knows. 

As I point out, I believe an improvement on black's side there is 6...Qd4 and 7...Bb6 with some comp. I completely agree with the statement about parallels with the Latvian, the difference being white's weaker kingside. Does that make this line better I ask myself?

Thanks to Tony for the info also

cramie10 wrote on 07/05/15 at 01:49:45:


As you say, the line doesn't appear in any published databases. Whilst checking this, I found a game of my own from 1992 in which I faced this. It was played in a League, but in a match between the first team and second team. That probably explains why I played the Kings' Gambit. Noticing that 6. .. Qxd4 could be met by 7. Nd3, I took the pawn. My opponent wasn't bothered and continued to develop. My move 7 Qf3 is dubious, an engine suggesting 7. exf5 instead. I'm probably seeing parallels to the Latvian with the Knight manoeuvre to c4. As well as castles, the active 9. .. Nc6 is also possible. The attempt to trade queens with Qe5 was a mistake as Bf2+ is possible. 11 Kd1 is forced as 11 Kxf2 allows Ng4+. Black has an edge, but the game was eventually drawn. 

I've been fiddling around with the Falkbeer Counter Gambit lately (from the black side), preparing for an upcoming tournament. As I found a variation for white that I wasn't happy playing against, I decided to look for an alternative counter to the KG and selected the line:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d5.

Which appears to have an okay reputation around these parts. (If anyone has a refutation - please say so!)

However, I think I noticed Markovich (It might have been someone else) pointing out that a white player who fears this line can alternatively go for 3. Nc3 after 2...Bc5. That lead me to the following:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 f5?!?! (TN according to my database)

The computer has a bit of a headache on this one, but I really can't see a straightforward way to a tangible white advantage. For example:

5. fxe5 dxe5 6. Nxe5 Qd4! 7. Nd3 Bb6 

And now white can either play to grab a second pawn;

8. exf5 Ne7! 9. Qh5+ g6 10. fxg6 hxg6 11. Qg5 

or not, and simply play

8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qe2 Ne7 10. e5

or something like that.

That's just the one variation. There appear to be many alternatives for White. My main question I guess is whether this appears in any literature, or whether anyone has any analysis of their own on this. All analysis in this post is my own, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

P.s. If nobody's come up with this before, I'm officially naming it the Staniforth counter gambit