Does anyone succeed with the Damiano Defence?

"This is not the sort of opening that anyone would want named after themselves." The Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess.

This line is quite difficult to remember, and I'm not sure my dilettante brain is up to it. But I've done reasonably well by pursuing normal development, while vaguely intending to attack the exposed black K. At my lowly level Black often plays 4..g6 to break the check, then my Q has the joy of checking again & eating the rook. Then that really should be game over.

that line should not be remembered since it's just as easy to find it intuitively over the board. The only real option for black is 3...Qe7 but this moves just gives white more time for developement and black is clearly worse with no compensation.

That mate is not forced:

When you say "that mate is not forced" note that you are disagreeing with FIDE Master Graham Burgess, not me . Are you sure?

Maybe for you...

All I know is, you gave as your main line a sequence where Black allows a forced checkmate starting with Qf5+.  I thought that was a little dishonest and offered a line where Black does not allow this mate but instead plays the superior 9...Bd6.  I'm not advocating this line for Black, but it is a little more complicated than the author(s) you have read are making it seem.

Looking again at Burgess' book he does consider several other lines, including Bd6. So put the blame on me for simplifying things... Is catastrophic loss of material better than a quick checkmate? At least the latter is over quickly! Then again, good point about the open lines. Do any top players play this defence with success against other top players?

No, not at all.

Damiano condemned the opening, said it was bad,  sad it became named for him.

Then why do I see it played quite often? Is it just beginners experimenting with a variation on d3?

This defence is not a guaranteed loss:

Here's a game with this opening: Fischer playing white in a simul and he did not win
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1255180

 

Yeah,only n00bs play it.

Serotonine, after 6.Nf4 Black is two pawns down without any compensation. Not a guaranteed loss, but almost.

White attacked the e5 pawn so Black defends it, the best way to defend a pawn is with another pawn, but ...d6 shuts in Black's bishop.  Therefore ...f6 must be best.  The pawn on f6 limits BOTH of the Nf3's forward squares (e5,g5).  It's positionally well motivated.  The problem is that there are other factors in chess: the move ignores development and weakens Black's Kingside, two things Black can't afford to do in the Open Game.

If you were to take the Qd1 and Qd8 off the board and start a game of chess, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 would be playable.

Edited that for you, I dunno why I screwed up the variations.

McGregor drew as Black with Damiano's Defense against Fischer in 1964...

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1255180

...so in master hands it's possible to draw with it, though it wouldn't be anyone's weapon of choice.

@serotonine, sqod: thanks for posting that Fischer game - I remember that game because his opponent was a strong player pretending to be a patzer. The early opening with d5 is the best line for black, and Fischer missed the best line in the late opening (13. Re1+ Nge7 14. Be6, keeping black's king in the center) that would have won for him. I've been meaning to revisit this game for a while.

Someone who reads Spanish should consult Ruy Lopez's text. He's the one who introduced the term, Damiano's Gambit. Calling it Damiano's Defense came later through bad translation or poor memory.

I suspect that Lopez was referring to 3.Nxe5 as the gambit, not 2...f6.

Hence, properly understood, it should honor Pedro Damiano.

See my http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/06/damianos-gambit.html

Thanks for the information: I never heard that Fischer missed a win there, though it would make sense. Now I want to go over that game, too.