Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #21

    BigGStikman

    I agree with melvinbluestone ... it's not a discussion if the opening is sound. I don't care if it's sound or not, melvinbluestone doesn't care and Dark_Falcon doesn't care.

    The questions Dark_Falcon asked:

    The advantage of this Gambit:

    - you get a slight advantage in development

    - you get open diagonals for both bishops

    - you get open files for your rooks

    - you force a "closed"-game player into an open game

    - you have some nice opening traps

    Is this enough compensation for the pawn?

    Whats your opinion?

    Someone, who has experiences with these opening?

    Personally I don't care if there is enough compensation for the pawn. It's a playing-style I like and therefor I will play it. I don't have experience with this opening, but that is just a matter of time.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #23

    Dark_Falcon

    melvinbluestone wrote:

    To be fair, Dark_Falcon does state right in his first post that the opening is not fully sound. The Englund Gambit has always been considered suspect by many players. Breyer once jokingly remarked "After 1.e4, white's game is in it's last throes." With the Englund, a lot of people feel the same way about black's 1...e5. I play it myself once in a while, because on my level, which is roughly the equivalent on the evolutionary scale of a flatworm, it's a lot of fun.

    Its a lot of fun...yes..and thats the most important point! Who cares if sound or not...and when are good, its even better :-)

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #24

    Dark_Falcon

    BigGStikman wrote:

    I agree with melvinbluestone ... it's not a discussion if the opening is sound. I don't care if it's sound or not, melvinbluestone doesn't care and Dark_Falcon doesn't care.

    The questions Dark_Falcon asked:

    The advantage of this Gambit:

    - you get a slight advantage in development

    - you get open diagonals for both bishops

    - you get open files for your rooks

    - you force a "closed"-game player into an open game

    - you have some nice opening traps

    Is this enough compensation for the pawn?

    Whats your opinion?

    Someone, who has experiences with these opening?

    Personally I don't care if there is enough compensation for the pawn. It's a playing-style I like and therefor I will play it. I don't have experience with this opening, but that is just a matter of time.

    Thats so true...

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #25

    Boletus_CZ

    I guess I should have read this forum before a thematic tournament with this opening started (you can find plenty of games there). My opinion after 17 finished games (6W/3D/0L as white; 3W/2D/3L as black; 5 more to finish) is that this gambit doesn`t offer enough compensation for the pawn.

  • 24 months ago · Quote · #27

    melvinbluestone

    pfren wrote:

    This is a standard attitude:

    Whenever we play a crap opening which drops material for nothing against a patzer, and we win bevause he blundered something really fat, then we attribute our win to our amazing opening.

    Whenever we play it against a strong player (the usual practice is inflating his ELO by 100 points at least) and lose, we claim that we had the guy on the ropes, but we played a "very slight inaccuracy" which he was lucky enough to exploit. Sometimes this "slight inaccuracy" is translated to a couple of pieces, which we suckrificed to give a couple of checks.

    As usual, "wet blanket" IM pfren casts a pall over the entire Blackburne-Hartlaub issue. I just don't understand what this guy has against "crap openings"?


Back to Top

Post your reply: