I've seen this against the Sicilian, as well. I've never played it, though.
--Fromper
Halasz gambit
Sort:
I don't understand, Fromper, the above position can not be reached via the sicilian. I can't even imagine the Sicilian transposing to this.
I believe Fromper is referring to something similar in the Sicilian: 1. e4 c5 2. f4. This is inferior but I used to experiment with it and I have a chess partner who plays it regularly. It appeals to players who want to practice naked aggression, but leaves the kingside too loose. My friend finds that it regularly fails against moderate defensive skill (mine), although he beats up on the weak with it. The Halasz should fare better, since it is related to the King's Gambit, and Black does not have a bishop-blocking e6 at his disposal as he does in the Sicilian formation.
I'm talking about 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. f4. It's the same thing, but with a pawn on e7 instead of c7. I've even seen it refered to by the same name.
--Fromper
Nov 13, 2007
0
#6
Fromper wrote:
I'm talking about 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. f4. It's the same thing, but with a pawn on e7 instead of c7. I've even seen it refered to by the same name.
--Fromper
what you are talking about is completely different, 1.e4 c5 2.f4 is called the Grand prix attack which is sometimes played 2.Nc3 and 3.Bc4 or 3.Bb5 as well
DeepNf3, Fromper isn't talking about the Grand Prix. Notice the inclusion of the moves 2. d4 cxd4 before white plays f4. This gambit against the Sicilian does in fact bear the same name as the gambit 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. f4.
It's a shame they have the same name because the two positions reached are really quite different. White displays similar kingside aggression, but the actual attacking plan carried out would seem to be affected greatly by the presence of a pawn on c7 or e7.
Nov 13, 2007
0
#8
Loomis wrote:
DeepNf3, Fromper isn't talking about the Grand Prix. Notice the inclusion of the moves 2. d4 cxd4 before white plays f4. This gambit against the Sicilian does in fact bear the same name as the gambit 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. f4.
It's a shame they have the same name because the two positions reached are really quite different. White displays similar kingside aggression, but the actual attacking plan carried out would seem to be affected greatly by the presence of a pawn on c7 or e7.
yes I missed the whole thing 
Nov 18, 2007
0
#9
i play this gambit frequently. its one of my main responses to e5. its a verry good opening if one learns to tame it. through my extensive play with it, i started to view it as a older brother to the kings gambit. halasz simply added the idea of contrling the center to the kings gambit,making it more stable and defencive. also this is a trap opening,it rips apart "natural" moves like no ther. this is the only opening i have seen so far where castleing earley on kingside for black is a flat out mistake.i have played many games against players 1500 + that end in under 20 moves because of that suprisingly common mistake.
Nov 18, 2007
0
#10
foreverzero wrote: i play this gambit frequently. its one of my main responses to e5. its a verry good opening if one learns to tame it. through my extensive play with it, i started to view it as a older brother to the kings gambit. halasz simply added the idea of contrling the center to the kings gambit,making it more stable and defencive. also this is a trap opening,it rips apart "natural" moves like no ther. this is the only opening i have seen so far where castleing earley on kingside for black is a flat out mistake.i have played many games against players 1500 + that end in under 20 moves because of that suprisingly common mistake.
could you post one of your games related to this gambit for our benefit? 
I wouldn't consider this gambit to be related to the king's gambit, this gambit would be more within the Scotch gambit or Danish gambit 1..e5 family since it is the d pawn the one which is gambited here or within the Smith Morra family against 1..c5
Halasz gambit