1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.c3 f5 – the so-called Kevitz Gambit!
Has NEVER been played over-the-board (Big Database included);
Has only been played 19 times (!) on Lichess (53% win rate for Black);
Only +0.8 bad for Black, according to Stockfish!
.
.
.
It deserves to become sooo much more popular, this gambit!
<Comment deleted by user>
"Unknown, yet powerful"? Try again.
@TheKingClash I) I said "Big Database" i.e. it includes OTB games from non-Masters.
II) The Cordel Gambit (Ruy López: Classical Variation) has been played – between Masters – more than 200 times, and it's probably as bad as the Kevitz Gambit (in terms of the engine's verdict); Also, there are *various* lines in the Schliemann which are +1.0 and worse that have been played *many, many* times.
@MrPushwood Please, elaborate.
Honestly, although I can definitely see the appeal to this gambit, essentially being a method of getting an accelerated King's indian for black against a King pawn player and some irrational play for both sides. Structurally it looks like a lot to babysit for black. The fact that the exf5 is not able to be immediately recaptured highlights the issues with the light square weaknesses created in this line and there being very little pressure placed on White's kingside in the immediate future and no restriction for white's piece development.
That being said Engines have done a lot to make many lines playable and with computer preparation you can almost certainly work this opening out to be at the worst, playable, so don't let people convince you it is losing, even if strategically incorrect.
Chess would be incredibly boring if everyone played the same variations, as we can see with people and the London System currently.
@Neverness said in #1:
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.c3 f5 – the so-called Kevitz Gambit!
>
> Has NEVER been played over-the-board (Big Database included);
Why does it have a name, if it has never been played OTB?
i see alot of @ kingscrusher-youtube games where he plays this line but not f5 but bg7, since he is the guy who likes gambit, am sure he would love to experiment with this line
@sheckley666 said in #6:
> Why does it have a name, if it has never been played OTB?
maybe a certain Kevitz used to play the line around 1912 or something
It's unlikely after all this time that any opening var truly "powerful" would still be off somewhere in the shadows...
@MrPushwoodIn the right hands, I think it can be a 'tricky' variation – especially for Blitz.
