What I am claiming, and what I am not

This is not a "novelty," right?
The 1 e4 e5 2 d4 Nf6 series is so natural that it must obviously have been played many, many times before. But it's almost unknown. Indeed, a database search turns up 87 master-level games* (as of Dec. 2005) employing this defense. And of these, white immediately transposes to a "standard" line (with 3 Nf3 or 3 Bc4) in 19.

Some of these are ridiculous games as well. A correspondence game from the Netherlands (Warren-Selman 1936) ran as follows: 1. d4 Nf6 2. e4 e5 (reaching the Peterson via the Omega Gambit!) 3. dxe5 Nxe4 4. a3 d6 5. exd6 Bxd6 6. g3 Nxf2 0-1. Apparently white felt that losing his queen after 7. Kxf2 was too much to stomach. Too bad he could have averted defeat with the simple 7. Qe2+!

So why should you claim it, or name it?
Because, surprisingly, it has no name and no champion. It has been played at least twice by the Slovenian master Zlatko Jeraj, more than anyone else, but I have not been able to find any information that he has analyzed or claimed the system (and indeed, he drew in both games, and one transposed after 3 Nf3 into a mainline Petrov). The available resources suggest it remains unnamed (unlike pretty much every other four-ply position in chess)--it has no entry in Bill Wall's extremely comprehensive list of opening names. There are, however, 23 entries in his list, covering pretty much every white response to 3 exd4 as well as the Beyer (2...d5) and Philidor (2...d6) gambits.

Are you saying this is a winning line for black?
I'm not making any claim like "Win with 2...Nf6!" What I am saying is that this is a solid, unrefuted line in which black can reach a playable and equal middlegame. Moreover, it's a line Center Game players will simply not be expecting. From personal experience, I can tell you that this will stop the bulk of Center Game players in their tracks, and anything that puts your opponent out of book at move 2 can't be bad.

What if you find out someone has already claimed this line?
Then I will withdraw my claim--but I will not stop playing it. If anyone has information on a prior claim, please contact me. I'd like nothing more than to look over someone else's analysis.

Are you a master chessplayer?
Hardly! In all honesty I'm a complete patzer. I currently sport a correspondence rating of 1799--it's a number I'm proud of, but it does not in any way qualify me as an expert.

So why should we listen to you?
All I'm doing is presenting an idea and some very basic analysis. If you think it's ridiculous, or if you find an obvious refutation, by all means let me know. But I think you'll find that it's an idea not so easily dismissed.

---

*As I begin to work through these games (12/05), I'm finding many duplicate games, and even more that probably don't belong at all (such as immediate 3 Nf3 transpositions to the Petrov). When my examinations are complete, I'll post a PGN of the relevant games.