I like it. I played a bunch of quick games with the following line, and I think black may be slightly better......
An interesting line, but 6.Bg5 is not so good, better is 6.Qc1 as you stated in your comment. I prefer 4...Nc6 instead of 4...Nd7, f.e.
4.e4 is a bad Philidor (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4?! 4.de5).
4.e4 is also fine as an answer to 3...Nc6, but apparently 4.Bg5 is quite close to the definition of a free pawn.
Bad Philidor???...cant take you for serious...the Blackburne-Gambit out of the Philidor is absolutely sound and thats theoretically proofed (f.e. according to Harding)
- quick piece development
- pressure against the e4-pawn
-vis-a-vis Rd8 vs. Qd1
I dont know what you expect more from a gambit...winning forced in 10 moves?
It's quite apparent that your definition of seriousness is severely lacking, then.
maybe...it would be boring, if your opinion would be the benchmark for gambits...please stay at your standard openings, where your support is really useful, but stop posting unserious comments about unorthodox openings.
How about 4. h3 in response to Bg4. (and if Bh5, then g4 or Bxf3, exf3) Surely somone must have played 4.h3?
To spare you from Google searches: On your #5 position, try finding even a half-decent move for Black after 8.Nd4. Best is likely retreating to e6, but after 9.0-0 intending Nd5 or Ncb5, only a fool would like to have Black.
An unorthodox opening is vastly different from an unsound one. Apparently you cannot tell the difference.
8.Nd4 seems to be a good choice for White...but maybe i can take on e2 instead of retreat...?
How about 4. h3 in response to Bg4. (and if Bh5, then g4 or Bxf3, exf3) Surely somone must have played 4.h3?
as long as Black has not castled short, i would retreat to h5, no fear about 5.g4...
@Dark_Falcon: "I prefer 4...Nc6 instead of 4...Nd7, f.e." The idea of 4...Nd7 was to blockade the possible coming exd6 - d7+, drawing black's bishop back and also denying the tempo gaining capture of Bxd6. But you're right, the knight is probably better placed on c6.
OK, got it...sounds reasonable...
White is fine and seems to be just a pawn up. Ok his dark squared bishop is meh right now but thats about all Black has and it won't be permanent.
Do you see anything else for Black? He still has to develop his kingside. d5 in order to free the B will have to be played. I don't forsee some quick kill coming up. Of course, theres still chess to be played but white is fine. White also has h4 with the threat of Bh3.
Just looking at the first 3 moves of this gambit--it cannot be sound.
My guess is with best play for both sides--it loses--and I will admit to not having analyzed it at all. There is simply not enough compensation for the Pawn.
General chess principal is you need one more tempo for the Pawn and you do not have this tempo. And that should make all the difference in the world.
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 :-)
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...
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.
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"?
Maybe he doesn't like crap
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"?
Maybe he doesn't like crap
Or maybe its because every new chess player thinks they are Mikhail Tal, and they are the most agreessive/tactical player on the planet. I shouldnt complain, it was these types of players that taught me to appreciate my opponents poor opening choices, and to thank them for the rating points.
I'm not saying you shouldn't play gambits, but there are certain gambits that you shouldn't play if you want to win, like the Halloween gambit or the Danish. Actually the Danish is quite drawish if you go into the Schlechter main line, thats why if i ever face it with black i play Bb4+ or Nf6 after taking on b2.
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"?
Maybe he doesn't like crap
Or maybe its because every new chess player thinks they are Mikhail Tal, and they are the most agreessive/tactical player on the planet. I shouldnt complain, it was these types of players that taught me to appreciate my opponents poor opening choices, and to thank them for the rating points.
Which rating points do you mean? a few of your gigantic 1300´s?
To be honest...on your level of chess you can play almost every opening, including 1.f3 or 1.h4...it wouldnt affect the outcoming of the game.
Which game on your level is decided by having a pawn more or less?
its decided by major or minor blunders...
Maybe you have beaten some low rated gambit players, because they only knew little or nothing about the opening they have played.
Playing crappy openings is a good choice on club level, cause the majority of players are on an unknown territory and most often they dont know what to do, when they face a gambit for the very first time in their life.
Especially against booked-up standard openings its a great weapon, cause all of their preparation is for the garbage can, when they dont know what to do after move 2 or 3.
In the past i was playing these mainstrea stuff and my ratings didnt moved very much up or down...since ive been constantly playing crappy openings all of my ratings went up...OTB, blitz and even in correspondence.
So what?
Most people at my club are rated 1500+ with the an average rating of around 1800 probably for the regulars, so If I want to win I'm not confident about playing something that will put me in a worse position, when I want an advantage. Hoping my opponent makes mistakes is hope chess...
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"?
Maybe he doesn't like crap
Or maybe its because every new chess player thinks they are Mikhail Tal, and they are the most agreessive/tactical player on the planet. I shouldnt complain, it was these types of players that taught me to appreciate my opponents poor opening choices, and to thank them for the rating points.
Which rating points do you mean? a few of your gigantic 1300´s?
To be honest...on your level of chess you can play almost every opening, including 1.f3 or 1.h4...it wouldnt affect the outcoming of the game.
Which game on your level is decided by having a pawn more or less?
its decided by major or minor blunders...
Maybe you have beaten some low rated gambit players, because they only knew little or nothing about the opening they have played.
Playing crappy openings is a good choice on club level, cause the majority of players are on an unknown territory and most often they dont know what to do, when they face a gambit for the very first time in their life.
Especially against booked-up standard openings its a great weapon, cause all of their preparation is for the garbage can, when they dont know what to do after move 2 or 3.
In the past i was playing these mainstrea stuff and my ratings didnt moved very much up or down...since ive been constantly playing crappy openings all of my ratings went up...OTB, blitz and even in correspondence.
So what?
Hahahahaha...Thank You Mr. Condescending. "on your level of chess"
What level am i may i ask?
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"?
Maybe he doesn't like crap
Or maybe its because every new chess player thinks they are Mikhail Tal, and they are the most agreessive/tactical player on the planet. I shouldnt complain, it was these types of players that taught me to appreciate my opponents poor opening choices, and to thank them for the rating points.
Which rating points do you mean? a few of your gigantic 1300´s?
To be honest...on your level of chess you can play almost every opening, including 1.f3 or 1.h4...it wouldnt affect the outcoming of the game.
Which game on your level is decided by having a pawn more or less?
its decided by major or minor blunders...
Maybe you have beaten some low rated gambit players, because they only knew little or nothing about the opening they have played.
Playing crappy openings is a good choice on club level, cause the majority of players are on an unknown territory and most often they dont know what to do, when they face a gambit for the very first time in their life.
Especially against booked-up standard openings its a great weapon, cause all of their preparation is for the garbage can, when they dont know what to do after move 2 or 3.
In the past i was playing these mainstrea stuff and my ratings didnt moved very much up or down...since ive been constantly playing crappy openings all of my ratings went up...OTB, blitz and even in correspondence.
So what?
Hahahahaha...Thank You Mr. Condescending. "on your level of chess"
What level am i may i ask?
Compare your ratings and my ratings...then you will have the answer...
And you are playing high fashioned standard openings, while i play oldschool bullshit openings.
Maybe i think iam the reincarnated Mikhail Tal, but then you are thinking you are the new Magnus Carlsen...
My favorite variation of the Englund-Gambit:
Sure...its not fully sound...
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?