Sharp gambit vs. the scandinavian defense?

If I'm facing Korch I'm not feeling in good shape.

If I'm facing korch I'm feeling in good shape because he deigned to play me.

True, it means he has actually turned around to face the board rather than mopping you up from memory whilst standing at the window contemplating snowflakes and dragging on his pipe.

Only because if he turns his back I'll swipe a rook.

A nice counter sac in the blackmar:

Originally posted by moteutsch
A nice counter sac in the blackmar:

[pgn]1. e4 d5 2. d4 dxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. f3 e3!?[/pgn]

How is that bad for white? It looks like black spends a tempo pushing a pawn such that he stops even contesting the center and the pawn sac happens with white developing a bishop... ??

Originally posted by paultopia
How is that bad for white? It looks like black spends a tempo pushing a pawn such that he stops even contesting the center and the pawn sac happens with white developing a bishop... ??

First off, by not taking or being taken on (or from) f3 black doesn't open the F file and takes away the natural development square of white knight. Also, white is hardly 'developing' the Bishop as it is a mediocre square at best for the Bishop.

After 5. Bxe3 c6 for example black has a good caro-kann position. White has to waste a lot of moves to get his pieces to their optimal positions.

Originally posted by schakuhr
The problem with the blackmar is that black can simply move into a caro-kann with 2. ..c6 or french defense with 2. ..e6. Though I suppose you can still play for the gambit in the first case after 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. f3. But the caro-kann approach is probably the most comfortable versus the blackmar gambit - rock-solid as usual.

As a BDGer myself who often has to fact wimps (just kidding) who play the Caro-Kann, I would like to point out that after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4, 4 f3 is a mistake because of 4...e5, according to Soltis. Better is 4 Bc4 Nf6 5 f3, because now 5...e5 isn't so good because 6 dxe5 hits the knight on f6.

White can play a reversed Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit against the Scandinavian. (The "normal" Blackburne-Hartlaub is 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 d6 3 exd6 Bxd6.)

White can try this: 1 e4 d5 2 d3 dxe4 3 Nc3 exd3 4 Bxd3. Black has won some pretty games with the B-H Gambit. so playing it a tempo up could score a quick point every once in a while.

na

Not really 1-0 but fine for white. White can play f4, with a sort of stonewall. Also, queenside castling with a pawn storm isn't out of the question. I do recall a simul or something where a strong player (possible Kramnik) played the e3 move. He wanted to avoid a prepared variation and keep it simple. 🙂

Originally posted by moteutsch
First off, by not taking or being taken on (or from) f3 black doesn't open the F file and takes away the natural development square of white knight. Also, white is hardly 'developing' the Bishop as it is a mediocre square at best for the Bishop.

Pawn on f3 may be useful because of:

1) protection of g4 square (against possible Ng4) So white bishop on e3 will be comfortable
2) White will be able to play g4 in future attacking kingside.

I really dont think that black need to give back pawn because White has better development already and they have clear plan - Bxe3, Qd2 and 0-0-0 and then attack king side.

Just by the way, I never meant that anyone should use this in a CC or long games, but it might be nice in blitz.

Also, Korch, I still don't think the the B on e3 is place very well. It would definitely be better on f4 (at least in my opinion 😉)