In the following game, Bill Wall's opponent plays one of the I-don't-know-how-many refutations of the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+). Then, it is as if he looked up in surprise, wondering What? Are you still here?
Wall,B - Marani,G
Chess.com, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ke6 7.Qf5+ Kd6 8.f4 Qh4+
This check is the start of a rather nasty refutation of the Jerome, involving a Queen sacrifice and all sorts of tactics. Luckily for the Gemeinde, it is largely unknown outside of this blog.
The earliest example I have seen was in a humorously annotated game of "telephone chess" in the American Chess Magazine of June, 1899.
It should be noted that ...Qf6, without the check on White's King, was suggested by Alonzo Wheeler Jerome in his first article on the gambit, "New Chess Opening" in the April 1874 issue of the Dubuque Chess Journal.
9.g3 Qf6
Continuing in the funny vein, the first example I have seen of this Queen retreat was in a game played by a computer against Jack Young (of "Bozo's Chess Emporium" fame), mentioned in his "Meet Jerome" article in Randspringer #6, 1990 - 1991. It "defused the attack."
10.Qh5 g6
I can imagine Black looking up and saying, to White and his Queen, "Are you still here? Begone!"
11.Qe2
The Queen retreats, properly admonished.
It turns out that Black must lose a piece, anyhow. He decides to do so by tip-toeing his King away.
11...Ke7 12.fxe5 Qxe5 13.c3 Qe6 14.d4 Bb6
White has only a pawn for his sacrificed piece, but he has some compensation in Black's unsafe King and lagging development, as well as in White's pawn center.
If Black is feeling annoyed, that would be compensation, too.
15.Bg5+ Ke8 16.0-0 h6 17.Qf2
Here is another indication that things are not going as Black has planned. The Bishop does not have to retreat, as White is threatening 18.Qf8 mate.
17...Ne7 18.Bxh6 d5
The Bishop can not be captured for the same reason.
19.Nd2 dxe4
Of course, 19...Rxh6 loses the Rook to 20.Qf8+ Kd7 21.Qxh6.
It turns out that Black's only chance to hold onto his edge in the game was 19...Qg8, not the easiest move to find.
20.Nxe4!
It is great to be able to play this kind of move.
20.Qxe4?? 21.Qf7+ Kd7 22.Rae1 Qd5 23.Rxe7+ Kc6 24.Rf6+ Kb5 25.Qxd5+ Ka6 26.Qc4+ Ka5 27.Qb4+ Ka6 28.Qa4 checkmate
If you want to take the fun out of someone playing the Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+) against you, you can always count on... The Zombie Walk. That's not the official name of any of the Jerome variations, it's just a way of making the game a boring win. For White.
perrypawnpusher - Mences
blitz, FICS, 1011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ g6
In our earlier two games, my opponent had played 6...Ng6: perrypawnpusher - Mences, blitz, FICS, 2009 (1-0, 38) and perrypawnpusher - Mences, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 19).
Now we have the exciting possibilities of 7.Qxe5 d6, the Blackburne Defense, and 7.Qxe5 Qe7, the Whistler Defense. Which will it be??
7.Qxe5 Bxf2+8.Kxf2 Qf6+ 9.Qxf6+ Nxf6
Braaaiiinnnnssss...
As I pointed out as recently as last month (see "Short and Unbecoming")
Hmm...
At the cost of exchanging a won game for one in which he is a pawn down, Black has reached a Queenless middlegame that is not what every Jerome Gambiteer wishes for.
I have previously described such a game with the perky title "Nothing Happened".
So, here we go as I zombie-walk through almost another 40 moves.
I guess, if I use my imagination, I can pretend that I am Capablanca or Rubinstein exercising my "technique".
10.Nc3 d6 11.d4 Rf8 12.Rf1 Kg7 13.Kg1 Bd7
14.Bg5 Ng4 15.h3 Nf6 16.Bxf6+
Silly, but it moves things along.
16...Rxf6 17.Rxf6 Kxf6 18.Rf1+ Kg7 19.Nd5 Rc8 20.c4 c6 21.Nc3 Re8
22.b3 g5 23.Kh2 h5 24.g3 h4 25.g4 b5 26.Re1 bxc4 27.bxc4 Rf8 28.Kg2 Rb8 29.Rb1 Re8
For excitement, you can decide after 29...Rxb1 30.Nxb1 c5 if White should play 31.dxc5 or 31.e5.
30.Rb7 Re7 31.Rxa7 Kf6 32.Ra8 Kg7 33.a4 Be6 34.d5 cxd5 35. cxd5 Bf7
36.Rc8 Rb7 37.Nb5 Rb6 38.Rc6 Rxc6
After this, one of the zombies, er, pawns, has to promote.
39.dxc6 d5 40.c7 Be6 41.Nd6 dxe4 42.c8=Q Bxc8 43.Nxc8 Kf6 44.a5 Ke5 45.a6 e3 46. a7 e2 47. Kf2 e1=Q+ 48. Kxe1 Black resigned
Bullet Chess
One Minute to Mate
Hikaru Nakamura and Bruce Harper
Foreword by Yasser Seirawan
Russell Enterprises, Inc. (2009)
softcover, 247pages
figurine algebraic notation
When you have 60 seconds to either win your game or lose on time, you have to be fast. You have to think fast, you have to move fast, you have to recover fast.
Albert Einstein (who, as far as I know, never played bullet chess) argued that as objects go faster and faster, approaching the speed of light, things change. So, too, in bullet. For example, players
must accept that time (on the clock) is every bit as important (and sometimes more important) than the position on the board. As we shall see, it can be worthwhile to trade even a significant amount of material for an advantage of a few seconds on the clock.
Have no fear, though, the GM and the FM have covered all the squares in this, the first complete book on bullet chess.
Foreword
Introduction
Chapter 1: What is Bullet Chess?
Chapter 2: Why Bullet Is Fun
Chapter 3: Time
Chapter 4: Pre-moving and Other Creatures
Chapter 5: Pre-moving Blunders
Chapter 6: Choosing Your Openings
Chapter 7: Winning in the Opening
Chapter 8: Bullet Openings
Chapter 9: The Initiative
Chapter 10: Strategic Focus
Chapter 11: Tactics
Chapter 12: Simplification
Chapter 13: Bullet Endings
Chapter 14: Common Mistakes
Chapter 15: Mental Errors
Chapter 16: Psych Outs
Chapter 17: Falling Apart
Chapter 18: Knowing When to Stop
Chapter 19: Lessons from Bullet
Chapter 20: Bullet Principles
Bullet chess came of age with the rise of internet playing sites. While it has always been possible to play super-quick games with an actual board and set of pieces, there is always the untidy chaos of hands and pieces flying all over the place... The computer interface connecting you to the Internet Chess Club or the Free Internet Chess Server or wherever takes care of all that.
Why play bullet? Because it's fun, the authors argue. And you can play a whole lot in a short amount of time. And it can be addictive (see Chapter 18).
Grandmaster Nakamura is a whiz at bullet, and his games (many included in Bullet Chess) are exceptional examples of this chess variant. Some places, like ICC, he owns bullet.
FIDE Master Bruce Harper's comfortable and thoughtful writing style (which was showcased so well in his remarkable three volume set covering the games of GM Duncan Suttles, Chess on the Edge) is apparent throughout Bullet Chess.
If you must play bullet, the chapters on using the software's/site's "pre-move" function is essential, as is everything that Nakamura and Harper have to say about bullet openings (they are often not your father's chess openings).
Russell Enterprises, Inc., has done a good job assembling the book, with a pleasant layout and effective use of space, diagrams and text. I found few typos/dypos. A whole lot of bullet fits into almost 250 pages.
I admit that my thinking is a bit too slow to enjoy (or even survive) bullet chess, but there is an aspect that I still find utterly fascinating, and which drove me to pick up Bullet Chess in the first place
It is important to realize that bullet chess is not really about "truth," to the extent that some chess players use the term to refer to the objectively best moves, but rather whatever works. Bullet chess won't often help you in your search for "chess truth," although it will certainly help you learn how to play chess more quickly! But bullet chess will teach you a lot about chess psychology, as there is always a reason that any particular move is played it may not be a good reason, and it may not have much to do with the actual position, but there is always a reason. In this book, we explore the reasons why players do what they do when they are short of time, especially when it comes to making mistakes.
Among many things, Bullet Chess is a fascinating study of errors in thinking, which has been a theme running through my clinical practice for over 3 decades, and which is a core concept in understanding outlaw openings such as the Jerome Gambit.
My opponent's play was bold enough to give me trouble, and even if he did not solve all of the mysteries of the Jerome Gambit, he played a game which left me feeling constantly as if I were one step behind.
perrypawnpusher - magza
blitz, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+
4...Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5 6.Qh5+ Ng6
7.Qd5+ Ke8 8.Qxc5 d6 9.Qe3 Be6
This move provokes f2-f4 by White, but it is only the beginning of Black's sharp play.
10.0-0
Or 10.f4 as in mrjoker - Melbourne, blitz, ICC, 2008 (1-0, 38), mrjoker - tomnoah, ICC, 2009 (0-1, 42), perrypawnpusher - GabrielChime, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 33); perrypawnpusher - udofink, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 29), and perrypawnpusher - Kingsmeal, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 25).
10...Kd7
My opponent practically screams "Come and get me!"
Alternatives include 10...Qf6, as in perrypawnpusher - OverwiseMan, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 24); 10...Nf6, as in perrypawnpusher - dirceu, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 16) and perrypawnpusher - nmuffjgp, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 22); and 10...h6 as in MrJoker - pds1, ICC, 2011 (1-0, 28).
(All of the games referred to can be found in The Database.)
11.f4 N6e7 12.f5 Bf7 13.d4 Bc4 14.Rd1 Nf6
Black's pieces keep close watch on White's "Jerome pawns."
"Just a couple more moves," I told myself, "and I'll have an even game."
15.b3
Either 15.e5 or 15.Na3 might have been a tiny bit better.
15...Ba6 16.Nc3
A curious move.
I know that I did not play 16.e5 because I was worried about 16...Nxf5, but that was just poor "analysis", as 17.Qf3 wins back the sacrificed piece with advantage to White. Black does better to answer 16.e5 with 16...Ng4, and after 17.Qg5 he holds his own (or better) in the tactics on the Kingside.
Consistent was 16.c4 followed by 17.Nc3.
16...Re8
This move was my "opportunity", the one that usually comes knocking in the Jerome Gambit. Black's best was 16...Qf8 working against the line given concerning 15.e5. In fact, White's next move should be 17.e5.
17.Qg5 Rg8 18.e5 Nfd5
19.Bb2
Developing the Bishop, protecting the Knight, uniting the Rooks: and it all still feels too slow.
After the game, Houdini suggested 19.Nxd5 Nxd5 20.Qg4 (coming soon: c2-c4) with an edge for White.
19...h6 20.Qd2 Nxc3 21.Bxc3 Nxf5
Bleh. A score-and-one moves, and White has little to say about his position, while Black's pieces are beginning to glow again.
22.d5 Qe7
Possible, and better, was 22...dxe5
23.e6+ Kc8 24.Bb2 b6 25.c4 Kb7
Black has castled-by-hand on the Queenside, and his light-squared Bishop looks a little bit odd. White has his dark-squared Bishop on a strong diagonal, and a protected, passed pawn at e6.
Houdini gives Black only a slight edge, but the question is: Where will White get his play? Black's pieces are well-placed to defend against the one plan that suggests itself, infiltrating along the f-file to f7: 26.Rf1 Raf8 27.Rf2 g6 28.Raf1 h5.
26.b4
Opting to stir things up on the Queenside.
26...Bxc4 27.Rdc1
Making the same kind of mistake referred to in the notes to White's 16th move, concerning 16.e5. Here the right move was 27.Qf4, although after 27...Bxd5 28.Rxd5 g6 Black has returned his extra piece for some pawns, and is a pawn ahead.
White's e-pawn would be weak, not strong, and that would give Black the advantage in the long run.
White's game now just flows from bad to worse.
27...b5 28.a4 a6 29.a5 g6 30.Rxc4 bxc4 31.Rc1 Qg5 32.Qxg5 hxg5 33.Rxc4 Ne3
White's sacrifice of the exchange only means that he is now a Rook behind.
34.Re4 Nxd5 35.Rg4 Rae8 36.Rxg5 Nxb4 37.Rg4 Nd3 38.Bc3 Rxe6 39.Rd4 Nc5 40.Rb4+ Kc6 White resigned
In preparing yesterday's post (see "New, Old, New, Old..."), I discovered that I had neglected to share one of my earlier games against gmann. Here it is now, "better late than never", with a quirky opening line and a tale that might be titled "Pawns Acting Badly".
perrypawnpusher - gmann
blitz, FICS, 2010
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6 4.O-O Bc5 5.Bxf7+
The Semi-Italian Jerome Gambit.
5...Kxf7 6.Nxe5+ Kf6
This is a strange move, one that I have not seen before, and if the idea was to confuse me from the start, it worked well enough.
This time.
7.Nxc6
Treating the position as if Black had played ...Ke6 against a regular Jerome Gambit, as in my game against johnde.
There is more in the position for White, if he is willing to attack wildly and sacrifice when necessary, e.g.: 7.Qh5 g5 8.Qf7+ Kxe5 9.b4 Bd4 10.c3 Nf6 11.cxd4+ Nxd4 12.f4+ gxf4 13.Na3 Rf8 14.Qg7 dxe4 15.Nb5 Kd5 16.Bxd4 a6 17.Rxf4 axb5 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.Rxf6 when White has recovered his material and still has a strong attack. This line deserves more attention in future posts.
7...dxc6 8.d3 g5
9.Nc3 Kg7 10.Be3 Bb4 11.f4 g4 12.d4
Stronger was 12.f5
12...Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qe8
White should now play 14.Qd3 and be very happy with his "Jerome pawns".
14.e5 Bf5 15.c4 Qe6 16.d5 cxd5 17.cxd5 Qg6 18.c4 Ne7 19.e6 Kh7 20.Qe1 Rhe8 21.Rd1 Bd3
Up to this point Black has done a good job of countering White's center pawns with his pieces. Now, instead of the text, returning the extra piece would allow complete destruction: 21...b5 22.Bc5 bxc4 23.Qb4 Nxd5 24.Rxd5 Qxe6
22.f5 Bxf5 23.Qh4 h5
This is too loosening.
24.Qg5
Missing the strong 24.Bg5. Suddenly, by exchanging Queens, I unbalance the position in Black's favor.
24...Qxg5 25.Bxg5 Kg6 26.Bxe7 Rxe7
Black is simply better, again, and White needs to keep busy and look for handouts...
27.Rf4 Kg5 28.Rdf1 Bd3 29.Rf7 Rae8 30.Rxe7 Bxf1
Here we go. Shortness of time may have been a factor.
31.Rxe8 Bxc4
32.e7 Kf6 33.Rc8 Kxe7 34.Rxc7+ Kd6 35.Rxc4
The "Jerome pawns" are gone, but it no longer matters.
35...Kxd5 36.Rc7 b5 37.Rxa7 b4 38.Rb7 Kc4 39.Kf2 Black resigned
The following game has a funny mix of things that were "new" to me and things that were "old" friends. After yesterday's challenging loss, it was nice to return to winning ways.
perrypawnpusher - gmann
blitz, FICS, 2011
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 h6
The Semi-Italian Opening.
4.Nc3
I've always played 4.0-0 here, as in an earlier game against my opponent, perrypawnpusher - gmann, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 39), but recent posts on this blog got me thinking about trying something new. Nothing came of it this time, however.
4...Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5
The game has transposed to the not-so-new Semi-Italian Four Knights Game, something that I have played over 45 times.
6.Bxf7+
6...Kxf7 7.Nxe5+ Nxe5 8.d4 Bxd4
An interesting idea was 8...Ng6, which I saw in perrypawnpusher - richardachatz, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 20) and later in perrypawnpusher - gmann, blitz, FICS, 2010 (1-0, 21).
9.Qxd4
9...Nc6 10.Qd3
An old decision. The computers prefer 10.Qc4+, but I have had mixed results with the move: perrypawnpusher - mjmonday, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1,26), perrypawnpusher - DeDaapse, blitz, FICS, 2010 (0-1, 19), and perrypawnpusher - transilvania, blitz, FICS, 2011 (1-0, 12).
10...d6 11.f4 g6
This was new to me. It was hard to look at the pawn pair at g6 and h6 and think that at least one of them should have stayed on its original square. This is not a major error, nothing to upset the fact the Black is better; but one way that Black loses in the Jerome Gambit is by the accumulation of small disadvantages.
12.Bd2 Nb4
Ah, yes, an old friend again... I am almost over feeling guilty when my opponents play this kind of move (When in doubt, harass the Queen!).
13.Qc4+ Be6
After the game Houdini showed a preference for 13...d5 14.Qxb4 dxe4 followed by 15.Nb5 a6 16.Qc4+ Be6 17.Qxc7+ Qxc7 18.Nxc7 Rac8 19.Nxe6 Kxe6 when White was a bit better.
14.Qxb4 Rb8 15.e5 Nd5 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Qd4
This centralizing move is okay, but after the game Houdini recommended the more aggressive 17.f5. Now Black should retreat his Bishop.
17...c6 18.c4 Bxc4 19.Qxc4+ d5 20.Qd3 Kg7
Reaching the sanctuary he prepared on move 11, but it is too late.
21.Bc3 Kh7 22.f5 Qg5 23.fxg6+ Qxg6 24.Qxg6+
An old habit: simplify to an ending (missing 24.Rf7+ Kg8 25.Qxg6 checkmate).
24...Kxg6 25.Rf6+ Kg7 26.Raf1
26...Rhf8 27.Rxf8 Rxf8 28.e6+ Kg8 29.e7 Re8 30.Re1 Kf7 31.Bb4 b6 32.Bd6 b5
33.Rf1+ Ke6 34.Rf8 Rxe7 35.Bxe7 Kxe7 36.Ra8 Black resigned
So, I was following a discussion on the ChessPub Forum at ChessPub.com, always an interesting place to visit, when someone posted an innocent question
Seth_Xoma
Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.
Openings that you would never play
This could have been a poll but the number of possible openings would have been too many.
Anyway, which openings are so distasteful that you would never ever want to play them? For whatever reason?
I'm pretty opened-minded about adopting different openings but I don't think I would ever play the Pirc or the Botvinnik Semi-Slav for example.
For a while, the discussion was serious and thoughtful, with examples like the following
punter
YaBB Newbies
Budapest - 101 ways for white to get better ending
Any kind of scotch gambit/max lange attack etc. where black is better if he knows what he is doing
Pirc - 101 setups for white, all dangerous and black don't have clear way to equalize in neither
King's gambit - black is better
Basically no opening which leads to inferior position if opponent know the theory and no which leads to unpleasant ending out of the opening (even if it's drawable).
LostTactic
Junior Member
The Benoni systems, they're sound as far as I'm aware, but I still don't like the look of the positions they get.
Phildor defence, again don't like the look of the position for black.
The posts poured in. Occasionally you would see someone expressing open-mindedness, followed by someone who showed a limit to that open-mindeness – and sometimes those two "someones" would be the same "someone."
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
I have a friend who's a master. He's made it a point of playing every legal first move in a rated tournament game. Ok, he chooses which openings to play against specific opponents, but I like his courage.
In blitz, I've played all sorts of openings. In tournament and correspondence chess, I don't know. I'm curious to see what Stefan Buecker would say. I doubt I'd ever play the Latvian, even in blitz. Nevermind.... I have played it in training games. Hmmmm.....
Other than that, I need to think about it some more.
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
I wouldn't play the Transvestite Opening. There are some openings that are an affront to the game, and that's one of them. I also wouldn't play 1.Nf3 2.Ng1.
The latter post prompted some pleasant exchanges, all in the name of good fun (if not necessarily good chess)
Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member
Dear Smyslov_Fan, would you be so kind to fill this gap in my chess knowledge - what is that??
Funky
YaBB Newbies
It's an opening in which king and queen trade spots on the first few moves, i.e. 1.e3 2.Ke2 3.Qe1 4. Kd1. It's playable for both sides, although White can claim a slight edge if you play it as black.
Michael Ayton
God Member
It skirts all dangers, and trousers the full point.
Zwischenzugzwang
Junior Member
Maybe 1.d3, 2.Qd2, 3.Kd1 and 4.Qe1 is more solid, as the king is not so exposed after move 2 !?
Seth_Xoma
Senior Member
FIDE Master, 2302 FIDE
and 2328 USCF.
Chess is all about finding the best move orders.
Some posters gave the discussion question some serious thought, and came back with some serious answers, like
Ty
YaBB Newbies
Here are some off of the top of my head:
As white:
-Grob
-Orangutang
-1.b3
-Annoying 1.d4 systems such as the london, colle, trompowsky, blackmar-diemar, veresov and others where white does not move the c-pawn.
-king's gambit
-caro-kann fantasy variation
-french exchange
-danish gambit, scotch gambit, max lange attack or any of those gambit lines where black is at least equal
-any anti-sicilian apart from maybe the Bb5 sicilians
-exchange slav
-vienna opening
-french advance
As black:
-QGD orthodox
-englund gambit
-petroff
-latvian gambit
-elephant gambit
-scandinavian
-1...b5
-1...b6
-philidor defence
-sicilian four knights
-sicilian pin variation
-mainline french with 3...dxe4
-Lowenthal sicilian
-Czech benoni
-Gurgenidze system of the Caro-Kann
There are probably more that I would not play, but I cannot think of them right now.
Uhohspaghettio
Full Member
Anything where you are relying on your opponent not to play accurately, eg. Elephant Gambit
* Any very sharp flank opening where you are hoping your opponent doesn't know it as well as you do.
* Anything where you do something that your opponent can easily avoid, for example Owen's Defence, Anderson's Opening.
* London System, Colle.
As will happen sometimes, the posts often approached the philisophical, if not the existential, as in
TN
God Member
The list of openings that you would never play is a reflection of the limitations of your playing style and chess culture.
That said, I would never intentionally play bad moves in a tournament game.
BPaulsen
God Member
2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.
Which is exactly why I wrote earlier I wouldn't play anything that sucks.
If it doesn't suck, I'll play it.
Fromper
Senior Member
GrandPatzer
So what does it say about me that I've actually played half the openings mentioned in this thread?
As to the original question, I have no answer. There are some things I can't imagine myself ever trying, like the Bongcloud Opening, but I could imagine myself maybe trying even the silly stuff once in a casual game just to see what happens. I just can't imagine ever ruling out any possible opening and saying that I'll never play it.
I read along, enjoying myself, skipping quickly over the inevitable squabbles that can threaten to derail, if not destroy, a good discussion, until I ran into the following. You knew it eventually had to come to
SWJediknight
God Member
There aren't many openings out there that I can say I would definitely never play, as although I have a reputation for offbeat gambits (e.g. Göring, Scotch, Albin's, Portuguese/Jadoul, and Blackmar-Diemer) I occasionally wheel out something more mainstream for a change. For example, I recently surprised one member of my local chess club with the continuation 1.d4 d5 2.c4!.
There are certain openings that I seriously doubt I would ever play though:
Fred Defence (1.e4 f5)
Damiano Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6)
Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)
Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)
Grob (1.g4)
Omega Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.e4)
Oh, well, a long time ago I reconciled myself to the fact that not everybody was going to love/like/appreciate/tolerate/avoid denigrating the Jerome Gambit...
The discussion continued in the thread, mostly on topic, with some wrangling over the definition(s) of "gambit", for example.
A highlight for me was a series of posts by Stefan Bücker, editor and publisher of the awesome chess magazine, Kaissiber, who has reportedly been ill of late.
The last post left me smiling.
Mark Stephenson
YaBB Newbies
For me, the answer depends entirely on the circumstances. In correspondence, I would never play any dicey opening that depends on my opponent not knowing the best replies, since he or she will have access to every book, blog, forum, and database available. In blitz, I will try almost anything. And in classical, I may choose an opening that I ordinarily wouldn't play, if I know that it will really annoy my opponent. For example, as White, I will only play a KID exchange variation against a fire-breathing opponent who hates that.
