surprised my opponent with 1.d4 f5 2.Bg5 on the recommendation of an old chess buddy named Gabe Rosenberg. Sac’d the exchange, won in 21 moves. One of my best tournament wins ever. Only time I believe I ever faced …f5, guess the word got out … In skittles games, I had trouble against it (which is why I resorted to 2.Bg5
I didn’t think a USCF-rated game was proposed.
The USCF does not regulate the non-USCF-rated games in parks (such as the NY one in Searching for Bobby Fischer) or non-USCF-rated club or internet games.
Moreover, GAMBLING wasn’t proposed. I didn’t ask how much you were willing to wager, I asked how much you were willing to pay. I have a standard fee for chess lessons, and given your inclination to insist on playing 1 e4 f5 as Black, and the very weak opposition you have faced, along with your insistence that this opening is ok for Black, it is clear that if I offer to play you that this will be a chess lesson. I have no desire to play a substantially weaker player who insists on playing an inferior opening “for the fun of it” - and hence my time here will be instructional for you to discover that this truly is a very bad opening.
So, I am wondering how much you are willing to pay in order to learn that, since you were unwilling to accept any of the free advice you received in the thread.
Well, I’ve been posting about this opening and analyzingg this opening over at chess.com under the same thread title. I’ll be posting some revised opening theory and some diagrams in a few days.
Kind of reminds me of a white gambit. Forget the name of it. Basically white pushes d4 and black takes with his e5 pawn (becoming a d4 pawn). White then immediately pushes pawn to c3, hoping black takes that offered pawn, which would be the gambit accepted.
Although it’s possible to take the c3 pawn, it’s not advisable. What white is doing is clearing the diagonals for a vicious attack on the diagonals using both bishops, the queen, and usually the king knight.
I wish I could remember the name of the line. It occasionally comes up in a game in Chess Life, I think it’s always been declined for the games I’ve noticed it being played in. I don’t think I’ve seen any grandmasters playing the line, at least recently. Hard to say with evolving chess theory if it’s an unsound gambit, or just out of favor with high level players. When I say unsound, I mean a GM would play the best line against it, most likely by declining it.
In any event, I remember the first time I came across the line. I naturally took the gambit and got crushed. Other times I’ve come across it, I declined it and either won or drew the games. I only played a handful of games along that line, so don’t read too much into me winning/drawing by declining it.
But I find declining it does give much more favorable conditions for black, since white is unable to launch his much anticipated attack, and is immediately in a slightly unfavorable position offensively. (Seems that opponents are compelled to play offensively in that line, even if the the gambit is declined. No idea why.)
In one game, white never did take my pawn back. After about 6 or 7 moves, I took the offered pawn, which my defenses were shored up against any attack on the diagonal.
Although I won the game, it was a blitz game, so I didn’t write the moves down. In any event, it really wasn’t all that memorable, except he waited too long on taking my pawn back. And the fact it was an opening I don’t come across too often.