Talk:Italian Game, Rousseau Gambit

The entire section "Gambit Accepted: 4.exf5" needs rewriting

The chess analysis in this article and citations are extremely poor. The analysis contains elementary blunders. The bracketed line in this section is a forced loss for White; contrary to the article, nothing is unclear! I will rewrite it when time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albin-Counter (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Albin-Counter: The section is factually correct and well-written (much better than the 4.d4! section at least). Stockfish evaluates the line as 0.0 so it is certainly not a "forced loss for White". Some references would be nice, though. Dexxor (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - my mention of a forced loss refers to another variation. More haste, less speed in Talk!

But this section of the article in its current state asserts that "White still has a good game after ... 4.exf5".

This is wrong.

White has at very best an equal position here; if anything, Black has a very slight edge. This does not comprise a "good game".

I shall return, and it will be mainly to the 4. d4 line.

There are citable games out there, too, which can be added.

The 2002 analyses referenced is best for humour and historical value. Albin-Counter (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]