I played the Moller attack/Greco Gambit for some time, but I switched to the Evans gambit, as a lot of the people I play will end up in the compromised defence (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba4 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O exc3, a risky variation for black to play. I personally think the Evans is better then the Moller Attack/Greco Gambit, yet they are both playable.

About the Two Knights, I sometimes play the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler variation from the Black side, but as white I avoid the Ng5 variation entirely and play the Max Lange attack. I'm looking for an alternative, but I have more important things to worry about (tactics, endgames, Sicilian Dragon, etc.)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.Qb3 Qe7 may be playable for black when black is getting harassed but should be able to cover f7 sufficiently. I will have to look at it and try to remember which line I had planned if black went with that line but I suspect that if you can cover f7 you should have good chances to survive as black. I looked at the various lines of the Evans gambit pretty extensively in 1992 after misplaying the opening due to misremembering the key moves from looking at it a decade earlier than that (though as I said my opponent probably misplayed giving me an easy game) and was of the opinion that I was prepared but I have probably lost a few of those brain cells that stored that information in the interim.

Of course my opponent did get an attack but one that I did survive.

I assume you mean 7....dxc3. That looks very risky.

At this point I would be more concerned with finding a way to get my king to safety if possible or pitching a pawn back at black somehow and not to try to grab another pawn that brings that b1 knight quickly into the game.

I tried the Evans Gambit in two skittles games today at the local club. I think I need to do some research before I try it again. It was interesting, anyway.

It occurs to me that I keep experimenting with openings and never really feel comfortable with any of them. I'm becoming somewhat comfortable playing the white side of the Smith-Morra Gambit, but I still haven't found a favorite opening for those rare occasions when my opponents answer my 1. e4 with e5. I guess that's why I stick to the Giuoco Piano/Two Knights.

But I was feeling adventurous today, and this thread inspired me, so when my opponent played into the Giuoco, I figured I'd try the Evans for the first time. Not a complete disaster, but it's obviously an opening that requires some prep work to play properly. I'll probably stick to the non-gambit lines in tournament play.

--Fromper

The interesting thing about the compromised defense (7. ... dxc3) is that, after dwindling into obscurity during the 80s and 90s, it's actually making a comeback.

Computers still overvalue pawns in the opening, and they defend tenaciously ... so the question of whether or not the compromised defense is sound is being raised again.

In practical play it strikes me as a horrible choice (unless you're playing me!) but the truth is, if a moderate-strength player (eg, one who should know better - 1900s on FICS, say) plays it against me I strongly suspect a computer assist. Because computers love it - and they're the only things tactically alert enough to survive the resulting positions.

Fromper, post those games. One of the great things about the Evans is that it's so primal: big center, open lines, development advantage. If your attacking skills are sub-par, you may struggle ... but that just means you need to work on those attacking skills!

I love all of the replies in this thread, and Fromper, I would be interested to see the games myself and your thoughts on the positions that arose in the games.

I have tried the gambit in a few of my last FICS games and fared pretty well with them so I think I am going to find a book on it and get more into the theory.

Unfortunately, it was just skittles, so I wasn't writing down the moves. I suspect the problem is partially my attacking skills not being up to the task. That's why I keep trying various gambits - to learn how to attack. I've definitely improved some since a year ago, but clearly not enough.

--Fromper

Ah, but improvement is improvement and always a cause for celebration

I love Evans Gambit! I can wholeheartedly recommend it to every player who wants to improve his/her attacking and tactical play. Gambit games are always big fun for me. I have three books: Harding&Cafferty, Palkovi (in German, also about Italian), Pinski (also about Italian), and the first one is definitely the best, discussing deeply all main variations. Harding wrote good articles about the gambit in his column in chesscafe.com, they can be a good starting point
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz89.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz90.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz119.pdf

Thanks for the links to those articles. As I mentioned, I'm curious to try this gambit, so I'll have to look through those.

Unfortunately, the Giuoco Piano just doesn't come up much in my games, since hardly anyone between 1400 and 1800 USCF answers 1. e4 with e5. So for now, I'll probably stick to easier stuff that doesn't require as much study, so I can spend my opening study time on learning to fight the Sicilian, which comes up in probably 2/3 of my games as white.

--Fromper