64 ( +1 | -1 )
Is it officially baptised or is it still unnamed? I discovered it myself during a blitz session, and I got pretty good results, but this was with considerable help from the opponents. Has anyone else here played it with serious intentions? Currently there are two games in the GK database, both White wins, but I think this is unfair, as in both games the Black player blundered a piece rather quickly, so there wasn't any real struggle. Do you think it's sound or even crazier than the Budapest gambit?
16 ( +1 | -1 )
I'm a bit "slow in the top" but how does it goes? Did white play 1.c4 or 1.d4? and what did black answer?
29 ( +1 | -1 )
It looks sort of like a Benko/Budapest cross. Perhaps reached through 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 (the Budapest) 3. d5 b5?
It doesn't appear at all in the chessgames.com database, so it may not have a name. That same database says that declining the Budapest is really bad for White, but the normal move after 3.d5 is ... Bc5.
57 ( +1 | -1 )
I forgot the obvious, the move order. It is indeed a declined Budapest gambit followed into another gambit. Here is the move order: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 b5. At the time I was playing blitz, I was rather oblivious to normal moves like kewms's suggestion 3..Bc5, but rather wanted to keep on gambiting.
If it doesn't have a name does any one have any suggestions what we should call it? I propose the name Racketeer's gambit, as it looks like something played under the influence of strong beverages.
100 ( +1 | -1 )
I managed to find 4 games with that line
Fuchs,H - Fohler,C [A51]
Baden-ch MB Endingen (4), 1987
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Bc4 9.Bg5 Qe7 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.e4 Bxf1 12.Kxf1 Rxa3 13.Ne2 Rxa1 14.Qxa1 c6 15.Qa7 0-0 16.Ng3 cxd5 17.exd5 f5 18.Nxf5 Qg5 19.g4 Kh8 20.Qc5 Rg8 21.Qe3 Qf6 22.Qh6 Rg6 23.Qf8+ Rg8 24.Qd6 Qg6 25.Qxe5+ f6 26.Qd4 h5 27.h3 Re8 28.Kg2 Re5 29.Ne3 d6 30.Qb6 Qe4+ 31.Kg1 Re8 32.Qxd6 Kg7 33.Qg3 Kh8 34.Qh4 1-0
Berciano,E - Martin Estupinan,J [A51]
Gran Canaria op Gran Canaria, 1989
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 b5 4.Bg5 bxc4 5.Nc3 h6 6.Bh4 Bb4 7.e3 0-0 8.Bxc4 Ba6 9.Qe2 Bxc4 10.Qxc4 a5 11.Nge2 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.a3 Be7 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Rd1 Rb8 16.Rd2 e4 17.Qxe4 Re8 18.Qd5 Re5 19.Qc4 Rh5 20.Ng3 Ne5 21.Qd5 Rh4 22.Nce4 Nc6 23.Nxf6+ Qxf6 24.0-0 Rxb2 25.Rxb2 Qxb2 26.Qxd7 Qf6 27.Rd1 Ne5 28.Qc8+ Kh7 29.f4 Ng6 30.Qc5 Rg4 31.Qxa5 Nh4 32.Qb4 Qc6 33.Qb1+ Rg6 34.Rd2 Qc5 35.Qd3 f5 36.Kf2 Rb6 37.Rc2 Qa5 38.Qd2 Qa8 39.e4 Qxa3 40.Nxf5 Nxf5 41.exf5 Rd6 42.Qe3 Rd3 43.Qe4 Qa7+ 44.Ke2 Rd4 45.Qe6 Rd8 46.f6 Qd4 47.Qf5+ Kh8 48.fxg7+ Qxg7 49.Qe5 Qxe5+ 50.fxe5 Rd5 1/2-1/2
Fajman,P (2285) - Doring,R (2200) [A51]
CZE-chTV 0001 CZE (2), 2001
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 b5 4.e3 Bb7 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 a6 7.a3 Bd6 8.b4 bxc4 9.Bxc4 e4 10.Nge2 0-0 11.Ng3 Re8 12.Qc2 Bxg3 13.hxg3 d6 14.Rd1 Nbd7 15.Bc1 Nb6 16.Ba2 Bc8 17.Bb2 Bf5 18.Ne2 Ng4 19.Nd4 Bg6 20.Nc6 Qg5 21.Rd2 Nd7 22.Bb3 h5 23.Qc4 f6 24.a4 Bf7 25.a5 Nf8 26.Bc2 Ng6 27.Kd1 Qxe3 28.Rf1 Qxf2 29.Bd4 Qxg3 30.Kc1 Ne3 31.Bxe3 Qxe3 32.Kd1 Qa3 33.Bxe4 Ne5 34.Nxe5 Rxe5 35.Rf5 Qa1+ 36.Kc2 Rxe4 37.Qxe4 Re8 38.Qd4 Bg6 39.Qxa1 1-0
Peschardt,S (2181) - Abrahamsson,D (1983) [A51]
Politiken Cup Copenhagen DEN (9), 23.07.2005
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 Bb7 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bg5 d6 7.e4 Nbd7 8.Bd3 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.Nge2 g5 11.0-0 h5 12.Rc1 h4 13.a3 h3 14.axb4 hxg2 15.Kxg2 g4 16.Ng3 0-0-0 17.Rh1 Qh4 18.b6 Nxb6 19.Be2 f5 20.Nxf5 Qh3+ 21.Kg1 Kb8 22.Bf1 Qh5 23.Bg2 Rdf8 24.Ng3 Qh4 25.Rc2 Rf4 26.Nge2 Qxf2# 0-1
33 ( +1 | -1 )
Well that is rather funny. It looks pretty fun for BL there. But I thought surely this will be something New, and games pop up. How about if we continue with WT declines with b3 and BL plays g5!? ! ? Then I Think we have something new.
Trouble is I would Like to play Stendhars Gambit here, but not so much to play mine ... }8-)
3 ( +1 | -1 )
Reminds me of the Adorjan Gambit: 1. d4 Nf6, 2. c4 g6, 3. d5 b5.