Hi, I found a relatively unknown gambit called the Ross gambit. It's seems to be very interesting to me. Does anyone knows this gambit or maybe even games or lines with it? Let me know what you think about it.
Ross gambit
Sort:
You sacrifice a center pawn just so White has to move his knight twice, which only causes a minor lead in development about equivalent to having the first move... ? What's supposed to be good about it?
doesn't look bad but not sure it's any good either. would have to look at how it plays out from here
Well, I'm having trouble seeing how black exploits that badly placed knight early in the start, what are you going to play to chase him away, f6? weakening your kingside, or d6, which is just really passive, giving him a chance to move the knight back while you hardly get to activate your position at all. You basicly give away a pawn to be able to play d6 with a tempo?
In my opinion, it is absolutely awful. It's like all of the possible ways gambit lovers want to give away a pawn, they try! Like 1 c4 b5 and 1 f4 g5. White will have to retreat his knight once (perhaps after 2...d6) then the knight drops back to f3 and white is not behind in development, is up a pawn, and since it's a center pawn white has a strategic advanatge in that by advancing his center pawns (which should work because white has a 2-1 central majority) he will have more control of the center also.
ilikeflags wrote:
doesn't look bad but not sure it's any good either.
lol wut.
I don't see any redeeming factors in sacrificing a center pawn for literally nothing. Black can't use the misplaced knight for more than the gain of a tempo, but seeing as White already has a piece developed, that tempo just allows black to catch up. In the logical continuations that I can gather such as, 1. Nf3 e5?! 2. Nxe5 d6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. d4, you're basically left with the Petroff, with black a pawn down and no compensation. Whoever Ross is, his (her) opening sucks.
IMO, too easy to neutralize, you only get two tempo.
Secondly, black is not going to be able to get the bishop out. After 2... Nf6 3. d4 blacks in a light zugzwang, where he has to move his bishop to a passive position, move the knight to get traded, play d6 and block the bishop, or make a simply useless move.
I don't even think I would have problems OTB, so I can't imagine myself playing it. White has to keep on his toes a bit, as black does have an inequality (better development), but again I just don't think it's worth it.
It loses a center pawn for nothing. Is it possible that 1...e5 is the worst move in the position?
Scarblac: yep. There actually isn't a worse move after 1.Nf3.
Funny effect of how game explorer works now: after 1.Nf3, 1...e5 has been played 10 times. Then, 2.e4 has been played 277,000 times...
Well maybe ...g5 which weakens the kingside instead and doesn't develop aside from the possibility of ...Bg7, but in any case they're both awful. And scarblac, the game explorer consideres transpositions. the position after e4 e5 Nf3 is more common than this gambit of course. So from the position, 2 e4 would transpose into 1 e4 e5 which is more common.
Elubas: he knows :)
ui think this gambit used in lighning blitz only to gained time.
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas: he knows :)
I bet he did! The happy end to the story is that all it resulted in was a piece of information about databases others might find handy :)
I actually played this by accident a minute ago (wasn't paying attention, thought he moved the other knight) and responded with Nc6, prompting Nxc3 and b7xc3. Gives some development opportunities for your bishop, rook, and queen in exchange for a pawn and a certain amount of defensive position. If they don't take the knight, you gain more tempo as you can then develop another piece when they move the knight away. It's not something I've thought about in-depth so there may be an additional disadvantage I'm missing, but no one seems to have brought the possibility up so I thought I would
Only weaklings make pawn sacrifices, a brave authentic player should sacrifice his/her queen! That would be a true gambit! 
Just because there's a name for every opening on move 1 doesn't mean they're all good.
It might be not bad to try 1. ... e5, especially in blitz games. The question is what is Black's idea to continue after 2.Nxe5
Actually I did not find anything good by accepting Ross gambit. But I know what happens by declining this gambit! Just 25 mnts back I won a match where my opponent decline Ross gambit.
[Site "Chess.com iPhone"]
[Date "09/26/2018 12:30PM"]
[White "blixter08 (1512)"]
[Black "Bari777 (1495)"]
1.Nf3 e5 2.d4 e4 3.Nfd2 {Bari777 wins by Checkmate}