Just to carry this out a bit further. White intends to play some combination of d4, Be2, Ng5 (maybe) and play against the weak white squares. if black would try to cross this up with 5…e5!? 6.d4 (6.Nxe5? Re7 is not what white had in mind) 6…e4 7.Ng5 Re7?! 8.Be2 and the weak white squares come back to haunt black. Or 7…Rg7 8.Be2 d5 9.h4 and white is again doing very well - as far as I am concerned, that position is just a matter of time before white collects the full point.
Black might try 6…exd4 7.Bd3 Re7+ 8.Kf1 d5 9.Bg6+ Kd7 10.Nxd4 and black’s white squares are a mess and white can play some combination of Bg5 or Bf4, Bf5 or Nf5 - again, black’s weak king and wierd development makes this a technically won position for white (probably even if he wasn’t two pawns up).
I can appreciate this analysis to a certain degree. When I play blitz with some of my students, I let them remove any 2 of my pawns before move 1. My kids have figured out that removing two of my three kingside pawns is the best. The ensuing positions get quite tricky, and the games actually end up being interesting.
HOWEVER, what the students learn after a few tries is that they get a comfortable game simply by developing, taking control of the center and getting their king safe. Yes, Fine’s 10 opening rules come in handy. Sometimes a tactic might even win spectacularly, but if they try too hard to win right away, they risk allowing counterplay. Best is just to be content with two extra pawns and play the game from there.
Michael Aigner
P.S. Garry Kasparov narrowly beat a strong amateur named Terence Chapman in a 2001 match with four different predetermined starting positions, each with two pawn odds. The final score was 2.5-1.5. Indeed the 13th World Champion lost as black without a+b pawns.
Would this be the Terrence Chapman in question?
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=413399
If so, I’d say a very strong amateur.
Alex Relyea
A candidate master according to FIDE.
I have heard of Indiana University, but not University of Indiana.
Here I am, trying to break a student from studying and playing the Fred/Phred, and I have to deal with enablers or better yet drug dealers like you guys. What’s next? Are you going to suggest using this opening for medicinal purposes? Will a whole culture develop around it with bands like “The Grateful g4” extolling its virtues? Pretty soon we will have the DEA and the ATF announcing a crackdown on these openings. 
If you want your student to get a beatdown, I am happy to volunteer if (s)he wishes to ‘assume the position’ after 1.e4 f5 2.exf5 g6 3.fxg6 Nf6 4.gxh7 Rxh7 5.Nf3. It might be so much fun that I won’t even charge her/him for a lesson.
- e4 f5
- exf5 g6
- fxg6 Nf6
- gxh7 Rxh7
Would you be black or white?
If you want people to participate with you on this thread, you need to actually follow it. Go through the recent posts - I have analyzed multiple lines for white and black after 5.Nf3 that I believe lead to a clear/cose to winning edge for white. Take a look at those posts before you jump back into this discussion, please.
White. He has a clear advantage. Black’s position might be playable in bullet chess as it may present some technical issues, but 5 Nf3, 5 d4 or even 5 Nc3 all offer Whte an edge. After (in some order)Nf3 and d4 White should eventually be able to play Ne5 with an easy game.
Kevin, I think you make a good point here. “If and Hope” should not have to enter into the equation for solid chess
play.
Rob Jones
I believe that if white gets greedy and takes the black’s kings side pawns then white just “opened up a can of worms” so to speak. i will show that after all of black’s kingside pawns are gone the game is pretty much even
Then show it - give us some analysis. You know, there are some gambits - like the Benko Gambit, where opening up a side of the board makes sense and probably gives cose to full compensation. I doubt, however, that opening up the whole black kingside (keeping in mind that white has access to all those weak white squares) is such a great proposition.
So far, the only analysis is coming from those who prefer white. I suspect that is because all that black has is cheap shots that work in games with lower rated players.
Bring it on!
We can use the same knowledge of basic chess principles to analyze this as we used to analyze the Bishop sacrifice you suggested in another thread in the past day or so.
We know from theory that a move is worth about 1/3 of a Pawn (maybe as little as 1/4 of a Pawn).
You suggest 1. e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. gxh7 Rxh7.
White has the first move, but Black gets to respond, so that’s worth about .25 of a Pawn.
So, you’ve sacrificed 2 Pawns for two developed pieces. In terms of Time/Material, Black is -2 +.66 = -1.34. Add back White’s first move and you’re at -1.69
Black does also control some extra Space with his developed pieces - that’s probably worth around .2 - .3. So I’d agree with Randy, White is on the verge of a winning advantage.
The game might continue like this (after 1. e4 f5 2. exf5 g6 3. fxg6 Nf6 4. gxh7 Rxh7) 5. d4 d5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Nc3 Bf5 8. Bb5 Qd6 9. Ne5 Nd7 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Bd3 Bxd3 12. Qxd3 Rf7 13. O-O O-O-O 14. Be3 with a clear advantage for White. If Black tries to attack the White King, White’s attack with Qa6+ and either Na4-c5 or b4-b5 is at least as strong as Black’s attack, and of course, White has a material advantage.
Again, we can conclude this using concepts all in place by 1900.
My son used to believe in the Tooth Fairy. That level of belief didn’t make it true.
For that matter, my son was at least willing to test his belief. When a (back) tooth fell out he didn’t tell anybody and hid it under his pillow that night to see if the tooth fairy still came.
Here is a possible scenario. I myself call it the Bavarian Gambit:
- e4 f5
- exf5 g6
- fxg6 Nf6
- gxh7 Rxh7
- d4 d5
- Nf3 Nc6 (better might be e5 instead of Nc6…)
White hasn’t developed yet and black has an open attack on white’s king side.
See viewtopic.php?p=244772#p244772
White easily develops. Your attack on the King side doesn’t matter because White’s attack is at least as good and he is up material to assist in either attack or defense.
This may not even be White’s best. 7 Qd3, 7 Nf3 both are worth considering also. White is up sufficient material to just develop, toss back a pawn and win the endgame.
4.d4!: I’d rather have 1 pawn + mating attack than 2 pawns.
But why (fun aside) play such antipositional slop? If one likes the feel of this position (and I can understand the attraction), why not play the Latvian Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5!? This is at least better positionally motivated.
And if one defers one move further, one can make sure the Bf1 can’t make it to the attacking diagonal a2-g8 in one move: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5! is played at the highest levels.
There is a fun “refutation” of 2.Qh5 that looks a bit similar: 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 f5!? and Black has excellent play.
Does anyone else have any input on this opening?