Answers.Body: <p>I've taken a look at this gambit before as I play it frequently in blitz games, and I don't have very much faith in it for white. (Usually my games are from a different move order with <code>c4</code> included for white).</p>
  
  <p>The biggest problem with the gambit is that it can be quite simply declined with <code>3... g6</code> and what has white really accomplished?  There's nothing better than transposing into either a Pirc with <code>4. Nc3</code> or a King's Indian Defense with <code>4. c4</code> (incidentally allowing black another chance to accept the gambit in an even better way). </p>
  
  <p>Obviously declining the gambit isn't the critical path, however.  Black's most challenging move is <code>3... Nxe4</code> when white more or less must play <code>4. Bd3</code>.  Any other move is inconsistent although there are a few move order tricks like <code>4. Bb5+</code> which I will return to later.</p>
  
  <p>Now we see the biggest issue with the gambit - white doesn't get a "real" lead in development or force any concessions in the black position.  Black plays <code>4... Nf6</code> (entire line so far <code>1. e4 d6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 Nf6</code>) and now both players can finish development naturally.  Black will play <code>g6</code>, <code>Bg7</code>, <code>O-O</code> and <code>Nc6</code> with a perfectly acceptable Dragon formation.  On the other hand, white cannot mount a standard kingside attack with <code>g4</code> and <code>h4</code> because the knight on f3 will allow the black bishop to come unmolested to g4.  </p>
  
  <p>White doesn't have any targets to attack in the black position and will be completely unable to stop black from castling.  These are the two goals of a gambit - force a concession and attack with the lead in development.  While the pawn sac is probably not bad in and of itself because white keeps a normal edge as in so many Pirc and KID positions along with the open e file for future use, after black castles kingside, the e pawn is quite immune from capture due to moves like <code>Re8</code>, <code>Kf8</code>, and <code>Nc6</code>.</p>
  
  <p>So at last we return to white's tricky attempt <code>4. Bb5+</code>.  If black plays <code>4... c6</code> now white has something since the knight is deprived of the c6 square.  However, black simply plays <code>4... Bd7</code> and there are no problems because the d7 square is not reserved for other pieces in the Dragon formation.  Both sides "waste" a tempo so nothing is gainer or lost.<br>
  In fact, even after <code>4... c6</code>, black can still claim barely equality, although this is a real concession in the position (Nb8 cannot develop naturally).  If I were to play white, I think that <code>4. Bb5+</code> is the best attempt simply because many players will play the natural looking <code>4... c6</code> to drive the bishop back.  </p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  [White "Roscher Gambit"]
  [Black "Analysis"]
  
  1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 (3... g6!? {White has gained nothing over the usual Pirc move order}) 4. Bd3 (4. Bb5+!? c6?! {Black's knight is deprived of the c6 square} (4... Bd7!)) Nf6 {Both players will continue to develop normally and black doesn't have any weaknesses}
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-03-28T12:52:22.910Z
Answers.Text: I don't 4...c6 is a concession at all. In modern, Philidor and Pirc opening, Black often plays this move willingly, and develop the Nb8 to d7. 4...c6 also give later possibilities like Qc7, Qa5, b5, and useful control of d5. With is extra pawn, Black must be much better (after 4...Bd7 as well).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Evargalo
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-09-04T19:56:58.540Z
Answers.Text: even c6 isn't really bad from the engine's pov. Black can play c6/d5, keeping both of his center pawns and the rest of the pawn structure intact apart from the loss of tempo, so White will just be down one pawn for nothing.
Answers.UserDisplayName: prusswan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-09-04T21:15:12.390Z
Answers.Text: @prusswan, yes, the engine will say that that is good, but from a practical perspective, c6-d5 is not a natural formation along with g6 and Bg7.  I know, I know, that's exactly what happens in the Grunfeld, but there are concrete positional attributes in the Grunfeld that make it possible.  In this case, black's light square bishop and queenside knight are relegated to passivity if black plays c6 and d5.  If black can play e5, then c6 and d5 become strong, but e5 is very difficult to enforce with the half open e file.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-07-31T23:13:20.397Z
Answers.Text: I'd forgotten about this old question until a new one just reminded me of it. Thanks for the answer, Andrew, and sorry for the delayed acknowledgement!
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-09-04T14:28:03.440Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-11-27T15:25:07.190Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-11-27T15:25:07.190Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Body: <p><strong>Edit:</strong> My mind played a trick on me after the fact. As Akavall notes in a comment, the Chadaev-Carlsen blitz game that I mention below actually proceeded <code>1. e4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3</code>, a different gambit than the one my question asks about. So please ignore the references to Chadaev-Carlsen in reference to the Roscher Gambit here. (Incidentally, this means that Carlsen didn't buck the trend of highly-rated players avoiding <code>3. ... Nxe4</code> in the Roscher Gambit; see below.)</p>
  <hr />
  <p>The Roscher Gambit goes as follows:</p>
  <pre><code>[FEN &quot;&quot;]
  
  1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3
  </code></pre>
  <p>I just saw Nikolai Chadaev convincingly defeat Magnus Carlsen at the World Blitz Championship using this line (where Carlsen accepted the gambit with <code>3. ... Nxe4</code>). I realized I've basically never seen this gambit, and that I know nothing about it. (I even had to look up a name for it to ask this question.)</p>
  <p>It is very seldom played, and especially so among highly-rated players: my database of 5.2M games contains a mere 99 games reaching the position after <code>3. Nf3</code>, with the average White (respectively, Black) rating in the games being 1953 (1976). But there are 7 games in which 2400+ players tried the gambit as White against equally strong competition (and 2 games with 2500+ players). The most popular response over all games is indeed the obvious <code>3. ... Nxe4</code>, being chosen in 46 of the 99 games. (Second most popular is continuing in Pirc Defense fashion with <code>3. ... g6</code>; these two moves account for almost all the games, 83 of 99.)</p>
  <p>All of that is about what I would expect. But, interestingly, in the games I have in this line with the highest-rated players, Black consistently avoids <code>3. ... Nxe4</code>, preferring the <code>3. ... g6</code> Pirc approach, or instead aiming for the Philidor with <code>3. ... e5</code> (or <code>3. ... Nbd7</code> followed by <code>4. ... e5</code>), Czech Defense with <code>3. ... c6</code>, or even the Nimzowitsch Defense with <code>3. ... Nc6</code>. The highest rated player I find playing <code>3. ... Nxe4</code> has Elo 2245 (until this Carlsen blitz game of course).</p>
  <p>The sample size here is quite small, and maybe the highly-rated players have avoided <code>3. ... Nxe4</code> just because they are worried about stepping in to a well-prepared trap, instead preferring to head for more familiar ground. Nevertheless, the fact that the strongest players consistently avoid accepting the gambit - except for Carlsen, who got stomped, though it's just a blitz game - has made me curious:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>What is the the theoretical status of the Roscher Gambit? Or is it too seldom played to even have a theoretical status?</p>
  <p>And if it's the case that <code>3. ... Nxe4</code> isn't simply good for Black, then why doesn't the Roscher appear more often, or at least have the same popularity among amateurs as something like, say, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit?</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>I had no luck finding any prose account of the gambit by a strong player, and would appreciate any pointers to such.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T14:28:36.533Z
Comments.Text: Interesting. I've never seen this gambit before, either. I'm guessing it has minimal independent significance because, as you noted, Black can simply continue with a normal Pirc or transpose to other openings. One possibility you didn't mention is `3... c5` with probable transposition to a Sicilian, although I guess White has the potential to play something offbeat like `4. dxc5`. This gambit bears some resemblance to something called the Omega Gambit, which can arise by an Alekhine Defense move order via `1. e4 Nf6 2. d4`, or via `1. d4 Nf6 2. e4`.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Greg E.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T15:12:41.907Z
Comments.Text: I looked at ChessTempo (http://chesstempo.com/game-database.html), who claim to have 2 million searchable games.  For games where both players were over 2300, there are no games featuring `3. ... Nxe4`.  For 2200+ players, there were 2, both drawn.  It's pretty clear the accepted gambit is not well liked by masters.  c5 e5 and Nc6 were black's more typical 3rd move responses, with c5 giving black the best result.  c5 is played as often as all other responses combined.  EDIT - chesstempo has 7,000-ish master games featuring `3. Nf3`
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T15:28:44.120Z
Comments.Text: @TonyEnnis, Thanks for that helpful pointer. One note: I think chesstempo actually has only 30 games that reach the position after `1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3`, rather than 7,000-ish. Once you're at that position in chesstempo's game explorer, it indicates 5,484 games for `3. ... c5`, but I think that's with it handling transpositions; i.e. it's indicating that many games in the database which ended up in the position after `3. ... c5` *via all move orders combined*. If you go to the position after `1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6`, the explorer indicates only 30 games reaching the position after `3. Nf3`.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T15:40:14.353Z
Comments.Text: Yah, I noticed that after I posted.  I only really care about master games (2200+).  With this filtering, there are 11 where `3. Nf3` is played.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T18:15:59.447Z
Comments.Text: A similar situation is with '1.Nf3 e5!?` Gambit (I don't know the name of the gambit). I remember looking it up in another database, and there were more games, but I looked it up on `chesstempo` found one rapid game between two 2200+ players and white played `2.e4'. A possible explanation is error in the database, the moves got somehow entered in the wrong order, and that's all there is to it. However, it is probably not the case.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T20:34:52.387Z
Comments.Text: I found an interesting PDF w/ what appear to be auto-generated statistics relating to the gambit here: http://studimonetari.org/edg/latex/roscher.pdf. A Google search brings up a reference to an Eric Schiller book called *Gambit Chess Openings*, but, if it's anything like his other books, it's probably little more than a digest of computer variations.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Greg E.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T20:50:52.457Z
Comments.Text: @GregE., thanks. That looks like it's an opening report output from Scid, which I use for my database needs too. The data looks fairly similar to the output from mine, which I summarized in the question, in terms of the numbers as well as, e.g., the list of "games with highest average ratings" substantially overlapping with the one from my database. I considered posting my data dump, but now there's no need thanks to your link. And thanks for the Schiller reference too, *I guess* ;)
Comments.UserDisplayName: ETD
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T20:54:47.997Z
Comments.Text: Um, @GregE, does the analysis in that PDF actually quote the games of USCF B players?  Do I read that correctly?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T20:59:09.313Z
Comments.Text: @TonyEnnis, that's possible, I don't make any claims for its quality. It's just one of the exceedingly few documents I was able to find referencing this gambit containing anything resembling useful information.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Greg E.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T21:05:18.637Z
Comments.Text: @GregE fair enough.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-09T23:00:34.830Z
Comments.Text: Here's the PGN of a game in this line with Stockfish playing against itself.  At the end, black maintains a .36 point advantage. `1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 4. c4 e6 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. O-O O-O 
  8. Re1 c5 9. dxc5 dxc5 10. Ne5 Nfd7 11. Nxd7 Qxd7 12. Bf4 Nc6 13. Qf3 f5 
  14. Rad1 Nd4 15. Qe3 b6 16. Be5 Ba6 17. Bf1 Bf6 18. Ne2 Bxe5 19. Qxe5 Nc6 
  20. Qxf5 exf5 21. Rxd7 Rfd8 22. Rxd8+ Rxd8 23. Nc3 Kf8 24. Rd1 Rxd1 25. 
  Nxd1 g5`
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-10T02:42:03.740Z
Comments.Text: Here is Chadaev - Carlsen game: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. O-O Bg7 6. c4 O-O 7. Nc3 d5 8. c5
  Bg4 9. Be3 c6 10. h3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 e5 12. dxe5 Nfd7 13. Qg3 Nxe5 14. Be2 Nbd7
  15. f4 Nc4 16. Bxc4 dxc4 17. f5 Re8 18. Bg5 Qa5 19. Rad1 Nxc5 20. fxg6 fxg6 21.
  Qf4 Qb6 22. Kh1 Rf8 23. Qxc4+ Kh8 24. Rxf8+ Bxf8 25. b4 Na6 26. Bf6+ Bg7 27. Rd7
  Bxf6 28. Qf7 1-0  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1671569
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-10T02:45:26.917Z
Comments.Text: I just realized that 1...g6 was played in that game, not 1...d6. Of course the discussion about 1...d6 line is interesting on its own, but I just wanted to point it out.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2012-07-10T06:10:41.000Z
Comments.Text: Epilogue - the game degenerated into a position in which neither side could make progress.
  
  `26. Bd3 h6 27. g3 Nb4 28. Bxf5 Bxc4 29. a3 Nd5 30. Be4 Ke7 31. 
  Bxd5 Bxd5 32. f4 Ke6 33. Kf2 gxf4 34. gxf4 Bc6 35. Ke3 h5 36. Nf2 Kf5 37. 
  Nd3 Be4 38. Ne5 Bd5 39. Nd3 Ba2 40. Ne5 Bd5 41. Nd7 Ke6 42. Ne5 Bg2 43. 
  Nd3 Bb7 44. Ne5 Bg2 45. Nd3 Bb7 46. Ne5 Bg2 47. Nd3 Bc6 48. Ne5` looking like 1/2-1/2
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tony Ennis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-08-12T04:20:19.147Z
Comments.Text: @TonyEnnis: Why `17. Bf1` and not `17. Nb5`?
Comments.UserDisplayName: user21820
Tags: <opening><theory><gambits>
Title: What is the theoretical consensus on the Roscher Gambit?
ThreadText: # What is the theoretical consensus on the Roscher Gambit?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-07-09)
  
  **Edit:** My mind played a trick on me after the fact. As username_3 notes in a comment, the Chadaev-Carlsen blitz game that I mention below actually proceeded `1. e4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3`, a different gambit than the one my question asks about. So please ignore the references to Chadaev-Carlsen in reference to the Roscher Gambit here. (Incidentally, this means that Carlsen didn't buck the trend of highly-rated players avoiding `3. ... Nxe4` in the Roscher Gambit; see below.)
  
  ---
  
  The Roscher Gambit goes as follows:
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  
  1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3
  
  ```
  
  I just saw Nikolai Chadaev convincingly defeat Magnus Carlsen at the World Blitz Championship using this line (where Carlsen accepted the gambit with `3. ... Nxe4`). I realized I've basically never seen this gambit, and that I know nothing about it. (I even had to look up a name for it to ask this question.)
  
  It is very seldom played, and especially so among highly-rated players: my database of 5.2M games contains a mere 99 games reaching the position after `3. Nf3`, with the average White (respectively, Black) rating in the games being 1953 (1976). But there are 7 games in which 2400+ players tried the gambit as White against equally strong competition (and 2 games with 2500+ players). The most popular response over all games is indeed the obvious `3. ... Nxe4`, being chosen in 46 of the 99 games. (Second most popular is continuing in Pirc Defense fashion with `3. ... g6`; these two moves account for almost all the games, 83 of 99.)
  
  All of that is about what I would expect. But, interestingly, in the games I have in this line with the highest-rated players, Black consistently avoids `3. ... Nxe4`, preferring the `3. ... g6` Pirc approach, or instead aiming for the Philidor with `3. ... e5` (or `3. ... Nbd7` followed by `4. ... e5`), Czech Defense with `3. ... c6`, or even the Nimzowitsch Defense with `3. ... Nc6`. The highest rated player I find playing `3. ... Nxe4` has Elo 2245 (until this Carlsen blitz game of course).
  
  The sample size here is quite small, and maybe the highly-rated players have avoided `3. ... Nxe4` just because they are worried about stepping in to a well-prepared trap, instead preferring to head for more familiar ground. Nevertheless, the fact that the strongest players consistently avoid accepting the gambit - except for Carlsen, who got stomped, though it's just a blitz game - has made me curious:
  
  > What is the the theoretical status of the Roscher Gambit? Or is it too seldom played to even have a theoretical status?
  >
  > And if it's the case that `3. ... Nxe4` isn't simply good for Black, then why doesn't the Roscher appear more often, or at least have the same popularity among amateurs as something like, say, the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit?
  
  I had no luck finding any prose account of the gambit by a strong player, and would appreciate any pointers to such.
  
  **Tags:** opening, theory, gambits
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Interesting. I've never seen this gambit before, either. I'm guessing it has minimal independent significance because, as you noted, Black can simply continue with a normal Pirc or transpose to other openings. One possibility you didn't mention is `3... c5` with probable transposition to a Sicilian, although I guess White has the potential to play something offbeat like `4. dxc5`. This gambit bears some resemblance to something called the Omega Gambit, which can arise by an Alekhine Defense move order via `1. e4 Nf6 2. d4`, or via `1. d4 Nf6 2. e4`.  
  > **username_2**: I looked at ChessTempo (http://chesstempo.com/game-database.html), who claim to have 2 million searchable games.  For games where both players were over 2300, there are no games featuring `3. ... Nxe4`.  For 2200+ players, there were 2, both drawn.  It's pretty clear the accepted gambit is not well liked by masters.  c5 e5 and Nc6 were black's more typical 3rd move responses, with c5 giving black the best result.  c5 is played as often as all other responses combined.  EDIT - chesstempo has 7,000-ish master games featuring `3. Nf3`  
  > **username_0**: @username_2, Thanks for that helpful pointer. One note: I think chesstempo actually has only 30 games that reach the position after `1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3`, rather than 7,000-ish. Once you're at that position in chesstempo's game explorer, it indicates 5,484 games for `3. ... c5`, but I think that's with it handling transpositions; i.e. it's indicating that many games in the database which ended up in the position after `3. ... c5` *via all move orders combined*. If you go to the position after `1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6`, the explorer indicates only 30 games reaching the position after `3. Nf3`.  
  > **username_2**: Yah, I noticed that after I posted.  I only really care about master games (2200+).  With this filtering, there are 11 where `3. Nf3` is played.  
  > **username_3**: A similar situation is with '1.Nf3 e5!?` Gambit (I don't know the name of the gambit). I remember looking it up in another database, and there were more games, but I looked it up on `chesstempo` found one rapid game between two 2200+ players and white played `2.e4'. A possible explanation is error in the database, the moves got somehow entered in the wrong order, and that's all there is to it. However, it is probably not the case.  
  > **username_1**: I found an interesting PDF w/ what appear to be auto-generated statistics relating to the gambit here: http://studimonetari.org/edg/latex/roscher.pdf. A Google search brings up a reference to an Eric Schiller book called *Gambit Chess Openings*, but, if it's anything like his other books, it's probably little more than a digest of computer variations.  
  > **username_0**: @GregE., thanks. That looks like it's an opening report output from Scid, which I use for my database needs too. The data looks fairly similar to the output from mine, which I summarized in the question, in terms of the numbers as well as, e.g., the list of "games with highest average ratings" substantially overlapping with the one from my database. I considered posting my data dump, but now there's no need thanks to your link. And thanks for the Schiller reference too, *I guess* ;)  
  > **username_2**: Um, @GregE, does the analysis in that PDF actually quote the games of USCF B players?  Do I read that correctly?  
  > **username_1**: @username_2, that's possible, I don't make any claims for its quality. It's just one of the exceedingly few documents I was able to find referencing this gambit containing anything resembling useful information.  
  > **username_2**: @GregE fair enough.  
  > **username_2**: Here's the PGN of a game in this line with Stockfish playing against itself.  At the end, black maintains a .36 point advantage. `1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 4. c4 e6 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. Nc3 Be7 7. O-O O-O  8. Re1 c5 9. dxc5 dxc5 10. Ne5 Nfd7 11. Nxd7 Qxd7 12. Bf4 Nc6 13. Qf3 f5  14. Rad1 Nd4 15. Qe3 b6 16. Be5 Ba6 17. Bf1 Bf6 18. Ne2 Bxe5 19. Qxe5 Nc6  20. Qxf5 exf5 21. Rxd7 Rfd8 22. Rxd8+ Rxd8 23. Nc3 Kf8 24. Rd1 Rxd1 25.  Nxd1 g5`  
  > **username_3**: Here is Chadaev - Carlsen game: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 4. Bd3 Nf6 5. O-O Bg7 6. c4 O-O 7. Nc3 d5 8. c5 Bg4 9. Be3 c6 10. h3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 e5 12. dxe5 Nfd7 13. Qg3 Nxe5 14. Be2 Nbd7 15. f4 Nc4 16. Bxc4 dxc4 17. f5 Re8 18. Bg5 Qa5 19. Rad1 Nxc5 20. fxg6 fxg6 21. Qf4 Qb6 22. Kh1 Rf8 23. Qxc4+ Kh8 24. Rxf8+ Bxf8 25. b4 Na6 26. Bf6+ Bg7 27. Rd7 Bxf6 28. Qf7 1-0  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1671569  
  > **username_3**: I just realized that 1...g6 was played in that game, not 1...d6. Of course the discussion about 1...d6 line is interesting on its own, but I just wanted to point it out.  
  > **username_2**: Epilogue - the game degenerated into a position in which neither side could make progress.  `26. Bd3 h6 27. g3 Nb4 28. Bxf5 Bxc4 29. a3 Nd5 30. Be4 Ke7 31.  Bxd5 Bxd5 32. f4 Ke6 33. Kf2 gxf4 34. gxf4 Bc6 35. Ke3 h5 36. Nf2 Kf5 37.  Nd3 Be4 38. Ne5 Bd5 39. Nd3 Ba2 40. Ne5 Bd5 41. Nd7 Ke6 42. Ne5 Bg2 43.  Nd3 Bb7 44. Ne5 Bg2 45. Nd3 Bb7 46. Ne5 Bg2 47. Nd3 Bc6 48. Ne5` looking like 1/2-1/2  
  > **username_4**: @username_2: Why `17. Bf1` and not `17. Nb5`?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2012-09-04. Score: 8 | Accepted answer
  
  I've taken a look at this gambit before as I play it frequently in blitz games, and I don't have very much faith in it for white. (Usually my games are from a different move order with `c4` included for white).
  
  The biggest problem with the gambit is that it can be quite simply declined with `3... g6` and what has white really accomplished? There's nothing better than transposing into either a Pirc with `4. Nc3` or a King's Indian Defense with `4. c4` (incidentally allowing black another chance to accept the gambit in an even better way).
  
  Obviously declining the gambit isn't the critical path, however. Black's most challenging move is `3... Nxe4` when white more or less must play `4. Bd3`. Any other move is inconsistent although there are a few move order tricks like `4. Bb5+` which I will return to later.
  
  Now we see the biggest issue with the gambit - white doesn't get a "real" lead in development or force any concessions in the black position. Black plays `4... Nf6` (entire line so far `1. e4 d6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 Nf6`) and now both players can finish development naturally. Black will play `g6`, `Bg7`, `O-O` and `Nc6` with a perfectly acceptable Dragon formation. On the other hand, white cannot mount a standard kingside attack with `g4` and `h4` because the knight on f3 will allow the black bishop to come unmolested to g4.
  
  White doesn't have any targets to attack in the black position and will be completely unable to stop black from castling. These are the two goals of a gambit - force a concession and attack with the lead in development. While the pawn sac is probably not bad in and of itself because white keeps a normal edge as in so many Pirc and KID positions along with the open e file for future use, after black castles kingside, the e pawn is quite immune from capture due to moves like `Re8`, `Kf8`, and `Nc6`.
  
  So at last we return to white's tricky attempt `4. Bb5+`. If black plays `4... c6` now white has something since the knight is deprived of the c6 square. However, black simply plays `4... Bd7` and there are no problems because the d7 square is not reserved for other pieces in the Dragon formation. Both sides "waste" a tempo so nothing is gainer or lost.  
  In fact, even after `4... c6`, black can still claim barely equality, although this is a real concession in the position (Nb8 cannot develop naturally). If I were to play white, I think that `4. Bb5+` is the best attempt simply because many players will play the natural looking `4... c6` to drive the bishop back.
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  [White "Roscher Gambit"]
  [Black "Analysis"]
  
  1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nxe4 (3... g6!? {White has gained nothing over the usual Pirc move order}) 4. Bd3 (4. Bb5+!? c6?! {Black's knight is deprived of the c6 square} (4... Bd7!)) Nf6 {Both players will continue to develop normally and black doesn't have any weaknesses}
  
  ```
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_7**: even c6 isn't really bad from the engine's pov. Black can play c6/d5, keeping both of his center pawns and the rest of the pawn structure intact apart from the loss of tempo, so White will just be down one pawn for nothing.  
  > **username_5**: @username_7, yes, the engine will say that that is good, but from a practical perspective, c6-d5 is not a natural formation along with g6 and Bg7.  I know, I know, that's exactly what happens in the Grunfeld, but there are concrete positional attributes in the Grunfeld that make it possible.  In this case, black's light square bishop and queenside knight are relegated to passivity if black plays c6 and d5.  If black can play e5, then c6 and d5 become strong, but e5 is very difficult to enforce with the half open e file.  
  > **username_0**: I'd forgotten about this old question until a new one just reminded me of it. Thanks for the answer, username_5, and sorry for the delayed acknowledgement!  
  > **username_6**: I don't 4...c6 is a concession at all. In modern, Philidor and Pirc opening, Black often plays this move willingly, and develop the Nb8 to d7. 4...c6 also give later possibilities like Qc7, Qa5, b5, and useful control of d5. With is extra pawn, Black must be much better (after 4...Bd7 as well).  
  
  ---
  
  