Evans Gambit

Every other branch of the Italian Game develops a piece on each move. The Evans Gambit does something the quiet Giuoco Pianissimo line never does: on move four, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, White stops developing and pushes 4.b4, offering a second pawn purely to knock the bishop off c5 and win a tempo for a d4 break next move. That is the entire transaction. White is not threatening anything immediate — the point only pays off two or three moves later, once c3 and d4 have turned the center into a wide-open battlefield with Black's king still uncastled and the a2-g8 diagonal wide open toward f7.

The second pawn, and what it actually buys

After 4...Bxb4 5.c3, the bishop has to move again — to a5, c5, d6, or e7 — and White follows with d4, very often reaching a position with pawns on c3, d4, and e4 against Black's single e5 pawn, plus a full tempo lead in development and open lines pointed at the black king. Two pawns is a real price to pay for that, and it is the reason the Evans Gambit has always divided opinion: engines rate the objective compensation as real but not overwhelming, which is exactly why the practical result depends so heavily on how well each side actually knows the resulting positions rather than on the material count on the scoreboard.

If Black declines

Not every Black player accepts. 4...Bb6, keeping the bishop on the long diagonal and sidestepping the complications entirely, is the most common practical decline — and it still leaves White with a free tempo (b4-b5 can gain another one by hitting a knight on c6 or a6) and a comfortable space edge after 5.a4 a6 6.b5, without ever having actually given up the second pawn. Black players who've drilled nothing but 'the main line where I take the pawn and defend' are routinely caught off guard by how normal and safe declining actually is — it simply trades the sharp fight for a smaller, quieter edge for White.

The 19th century weapon Kasparov brought back

The Evans Gambit was the signature weapon of 19th-century attacking players — Anderssen and Morphy both used it to devastating effect — and it fell almost entirely out of top-level use once defensive technique caught up with 19th-century attacking chess. Its most famous modern chapter came in 1995, when Garry Kasparov revived it against Viswanathan Anand during their World Championship match and used it again against Jeroen Piket, specifically because it forced both opponents into unfamiliar, forcing positions neither had prepared deeply. That history matters for a club player choosing whether to add it to a repertoire: the Evans Gambit rewards someone who wants forcing, theory-heavy positions and doesn't mind objectively equal or slightly worse material if the practical attacking chances are real.

Which retreat square Black actually picks matters

After 5.c3, the old main line retreated 5...Ba5, keeping the bishop pointed at c3 and d2 to make d4 harder to sustain — this was the standard 19th-century treatment and remains fully playable. Modern engine-informed practice has shifted some attention toward 5...Be7 instead, tucking the bishop away from any further tempo-gaining tricks and preparing a quicker ...d6 and ...Nf6 setup, at the cost of giving up the pressure on c3. Neither retreat is a mistake, but the middlegame unfolds quite differently depending on which square the bishop goes to, and knowing only one leaves a Black player unprepared for the other.

For the calmer, structurally-oriented version of the same 3.Bc4 idea, see the Italian Game, which the Evans Gambit branches from at move four. Black's other main reply to 3.Bc4, 3...Nf6 and the Two Knights Defense, leads to an entirely different kind of sharp position built around the knight sacrifice on f7 rather than the pawn sacrifice on b4.