The Center Game and the Danish Gambit: What Happens After 1.e4 e5 2.d4

Most players meet 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, so 2.d4 looks like a different, more direct idea: attack e5 right away and fight for the centre with a pawn. The Center Game takes that idea at face value. After 2...exd4 White has to decide how to recapture the pawn, and that single decision splits the opening into two very different games.

The quiet version is 3.Qxd4, taking the pawn back with the queen. It looks natural and it wins the pawn back at once, but it costs White a tempo, because Black simply plays 3...Nc6 and attacks the queen. After the queen retreats, usually to e3 or a5, Black has developed a piece with tempo and White has done nothing for the extra move. This is the main reason the Center Game has a quiet reputation: it is not dangerous for Black, and a lot of White's early advantage is already gone.

The Danish Gambit is the answer for players who find that unsatisfying. After 2...exd4 White plays 3.c3, offering a second pawn, and after 3...dxc3 a third with 4.Bc4. Black can take everything, and White has given up two pawns for open lines, rapid development and a lead in the attack against f7. The idea is the same as in the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit: material matters less than the speed with which the pieces arrive.

How should Black meet it? The accepted line gives Black a large material lead but demands careful play, because White's pieces really are better placed. The simplest and most reliable way is to take two pawns and then give one back, for example with ...d5 after White's bishop recaptures on b2: it blunts that bishop's long diagonal, challenges the bishop on c4 and leaves Black with a healthy position. Players who accept the whole gambit and then try to hang on to every pawn usually walk into the attack White is aiming for.

Black can also decline. After 3.c3, the reply 3...d5 strikes at the centre at once and, after 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4, leads to a roughly level position without the dangers of the accepted lines. If you do not want to analyse the sharp lines, declining is a legitimate choice rather than a lack of courage.

The family has several other pawn offers that show up in searches. The Von der Lasa Gambit, 3.Bc4, develops the bishop at once and gives up the d-pawn for quick play against f7, while the Halasz-McDonnell Gambit, 3.f4, goes for the centre and the open f-file. They share a pattern: White gives up a pawn on move three for development, and Black's task is the same each time, namely to develop calmly, avoid grabbing material that needs defending, and neutralise the attack before it arrives.

Is any of this worth playing? As White, the Danish Gambit is a fun surprise weapon at club level because the attacking ideas are easy to remember and most opponents have never faced it. As an opening you rely on against prepared opponents it is not sound, and a Black player who knows to return the extra pawn will usually emerge better. Treat it as a way of changing the character of the game, and not as a way of winning on its own.