Hello chess friends!

I have a question about opening repertoire, it may be a bit long but please stay with me.

So, I'm a queens gambit player, loving it, these types of games suit me really well.

Before I started being serious about chess I played 1.e4 (italian, spanish) but I don't swim so well in that type of games, maybe I'm not agressive enough?

I'm well aware that begginers should play open games and learn about attack, initiative... Also I'm aware that I should spend my time studying tactics and endgames, not building opening repertoire.

Seems to me that closed games are more about space and material, and open games are about tempos, about initiative, and I wonder is my chess development missing out by playing only in "positional style" (that sounds funny, I know)?


So here is my question:

Does it make sense to learn to play, say, evans gambit, and play it sometimes, just to become comfortable in that type of games.

I would not do it to improve my rating but to improve my understanding of the chess, initative, attack. And of course I would still keep on playing queens gambit as my main opening.

I hope I wasn't too convoluted.

Thanks in advance

An open game doesn't necessarily mean that it's a tactical game and vice versa, but nevertheless, I agree with post #2. 

Can't hurt

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.

So, I was thinking about studying the Evans gambit. Do you think that would be ok for my situation?

Evans Gambit, Max Lange or Urusov would all be good openings to try from e4.

I wouldn't study an opening if I were you. You have to study the parts of the middlegame, which is the most decisive part for people rated under 2000. Sure, you might not always handle the opening properly, but that doesn't automatically mean a loss. Instead, once you learn about the middlegame, e.g. Breakthoughs, Color Complexes, and how to find a proper plan, your opening will start to fall into place without much effort. And although many people will steer your games into open positions, if you learn to outplay your opponents, the opening part of the game won't really matter because you will develop a sense of intuition. Just study tactics and positions that arise from openings that tend to be open... That's mainly how I learned most of my Grunfeld Repertoire... without even trying!

In an open game, you must seize the initiative and keep it.

Silentknight,

thanks for advice and for posting that nice game. That is exactly type of game that I would like to be able to play, maybe not so quality moves, but in that style!

Indirect,

 thanks for input. At first glance I didn't agreed with you, thinking that it's hard to play wild attacking game (like one above) from queen's gambit, but then I thought of Alekhine, who was highly tactical and agressive player, and still he played queen's gambit... I should defintely study his games.

Your thoughts about breaktroughs, color complexes and such  are defitely right, but I think that I know some about that stuff, and that may be what is getting me in trouble. Let me give you an example: Say, I see a weak pawn and try to attack it, or steer the game in the bad bishop vs good knight territory. Meanwhile my opponent throw everything, and the kitchen sink, towards my king. Of course he has an advantage, because my plan is focused on strategic superiority, and his plan is to go for the jugular.

Sure it all comes down to who is better player overall, but...

Maybe instead of changing the opening, I should try to change my mindset and be more agressive and less subtle.

Maybe I should philosphy less, and play chess more.

a coach of a strong and well known GM once forced him to sac at least a pawn in the opening so he could get better at attacking chess.

to reach your peak you must be able to carry certain attacks at the expense of material.

as a side note when I was at your level I thought my attacks were painfully slow.With time you will get a better feel for tempo.

You can study one opening in detail, or you can try out plenty of different ones. I like the idea expressed in the last post: Sac a pawn in the opening so you're forced to play for a win and to end the game before the endgame. Almost every single one of my games starts with an opening that is considered "unsound". They are great fun and force you to learn and build up an attack.

Here's one of the wins I am most proud of. Unsound opening, sacked plenty of material, but in the end it payed of and I beat an opponent rated about 300 points higher than me.

@ Jgambit - thanks for the great advice, it really makes great sense

@ Ultraman81 - wow, very nice game, wish I could play like that. And KG may be unsound at the Fischer's level, but down here, among mortals, I think it's perfectly sound. Thanks.

I'm really excited about gambits now, already contemplating to learn a gambit for each mayor opening, as white and black, and to see what happens.

You can check my blogs if you need some more crazy gambit inspiration. Non of it is fully sound thoug - otherwise I would lose interest :-)

Ultraman, your blog is really great. this is exactly the thing I'm looking for. Some great and very instructive games. I especially like the game vs rodolfoguzman (Gibbins-Wiedehagen gambit).

So how did you  acquire that wild style of playing? Was it insctintively or were you coached into it?

If it's not too intrusive, what is your personality like in real life? Are you adventurous, willing to take initiative?

Does the real life pesonality correlate to chess personality?

Thanks for the kind words, Kresimir.

The thought behind your question is interesting. Let's look at it from another perspective. Is it dangerous or risky to climb a mountain? Well it certainly is, if you start climbing without preparing properly. But if you do your research, take your precautions, practice and start with a plan and a plan B, it's just a beautiful challenge. But yet you'll find people that consider you irresponsible.

Back to the chessboard: If you simply open a game and start giving pawns or minor pieces away, yes, that's dangerous and unless your opponent walks into a sneeky trap (check this Albin Countergambit for example), you'll lose most of your games. But if you do your research, start the game with a plan, the pawns you give away for free can become very costly to your opponents. Most of them will have a better knowledge about the best 27th move in the Ruy Lopez, than about move 3 in the Latvian Gambit. So yes there always is some risk involved, but don't underestimate the risk your opponent takes when he considers your opening as unsound, accepts your gambit, and ignorantly walks into the minefield you prepared.

Want a masters example? Here Soren Jensen (1909) took the "risk" to play a refuted opening in the Reykjavik open against a 500 points higher rated IM Frode Urkedal (2473). Dangerous? I only know the view must have been great once he reached the top of that mountain. 

That IM missed that simple Qd5 tactic?? Wow, was this a rapid game?

Slow game as far as I know. And it got chosen as "game of the day" on the first day of the tournament.

I guess the fact the IM missed Qd5 might have to do with stress being taken out of his comfort zone?

I suppose..if Kramnik could miss a mate in one, anything can happen.

Just a little update:

After I glanced at some gambit lines, I played dozen games (bullet 2-1) just to get a little taste of the "walk on the wild side".

It is amazing how easy is to confuse opponents just by puting the pressure, gambit a pawn, even a piece. Sure, I got crushed more then few times( I managed to lose as white against the Fred defence), but it was FUN, and I gained some experince.

I'm definitely gonna keep exploring gambits.

Thanks to everybody who contributed, some great advices here!