15748 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Opinions differ, but I play the Englund gambit too, and I like it.
As said, I don't care if the opening is sound or unsound. I want to enjoy myself behind the chessboard. And a gambit provides me with this. Other openings too, but I like to play gambits.
I like where you're coming from, BigG. Some seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a game and why we play games.
I used to play the Smith Morra so much that Ken Smith called me "my hero"
@Vincent_Valentine: I don't want to be a grandmaster, I don't want to be a chesschampion and I will never be a top player. None of that. I just want to have fun. If I lose a game, I don't care. And if I lose too much, I think of another opening or gambit to play and hope for a win.
Fischer once said he believed the smith mora was good enough for a draw, but not more . He played it against Korchnoi once, and they drew .
Smith Morra gambit (to finish my last post that was cut off by the page refreshing). And @SquareDealer, is it fun to be easily bested because of your opening play? This is what happens at top levels where players have the ability to refute certain opening lines. This is why many top players don't play gambits in long games.
I was saying to BigG that I like his attitude. A 1900--2000 he's no slouch. You might beat him, but he'll enjoy the game. And at 2100--2200 unless you've written some well received books or something, you're not making a living at this. Might as well cool out and have some fun. However you define it.
Oh, and so as not to leave your question unacknowledged, no, it is not necessarily fun to be easily bested because of my opening play. But truth, when I am bested it is often because of my opening play. If not, then it's because of my middle game play. I hardly ever make it to the end game. (Which was the master that quipped about having no need for end game skills because "God in his infinite wisdom, has placed before the end game, the middle game." I digress.) Point being, that if I'm going to go around playing "unsound" gambits against top players (like I'm ever going to see a top player across the board) then I must be going after fun, cause you sure don't expect a win under such conditions.
GM Khachiyan plays the Schliemann Gambit in high level games.
Many theorists argue whether white has enough compensation for his lost knight to take an advantage in the Muzio Gambit of the King's Gambit
@Vincent_Valentine: Good for you. Let me say that I see no instance of aggressiveness in my comment, but if you do see such an instance, if there is one, then I do apologise to you. My view is that BigGman made a comment, I supported his comment, your comment took issue with his comment and my support of it, and I responded to that. I certainly was not trying to imply not being able to make a living at chess was in any way a bad thing. I sure as shootin am not going to be able to make a living at chess. And yes, I stand corrected, if one plays his cards right, he can do anything he wants.
Super-GM Radjabov too, and he has never lost a game.
He just plays it when he doesn't mind a draw, as the Scliemann/Jaenisch has quite a few variations which are more than drawish: draw by force.
I've played some games with Benko gambit, but it's not an opening you play without knowing the basic ideas of that gambit. When you mastered the concept of the Benko, I believe it plays itself.
And what about:
All gambits I play ... and all gambits you don't find at top-chess-levels. You decide if they are sound or unsound, but they give me joy at chess!
The Englund is just bad. 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 f6 4.e4! fxe5 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.Ng5 +/-
Nice to know, thank you for the info IM pfren. I have only recently started to study the lines of the Schliemann, it will be nice to view some of GM Radjabov's games.
To be honest, you shouldn't play any opening without mastering the basic ideas of it. In some cases a simple bad trade or poor pawn push can give your opponent an overwhelming advantage.
@shepi13: I do not fully agree with you. Mastering the basic ideas is essential to know how to play correctly, but where is the fun if you and your opponent know all the best moves till move 30 (and then accept a draw).
Chess is like an adventure on a board. You have to discover things for yourself. Like Indiana Jones you first find the golden statue, and then have to run for your life.
When I fall into a trap, I learned something (hopefully). The next time I won't fall for it.
The Danish gambit is a lot of fun- for Black.
I have already made a post about it. Using the 2.d4 ed4 3.c3 dc3 4.Bc4 move order, it is simply unplayable- the least Black can expect is a clear advantage.
I wasn't talking about learning tons of theory, but rather basic positional ideas. While Bb4+ is perfectly acceptable (the idea is to draw white's bishop to d2, where it blocks the knights best square), Qa5 forcing a trade of black's great bishop and best piece is a terrible move (almost all of the black pawns are on light square. When you combine this with playing a risky variation in b5, black becomes lost. It isn't necesary to know all of this theory, but if my opponent (rated 100+ points higher than me) had understood simple positional ideas (good bishop vs bad bishop) he wouldn't have reached a lost position out of the opening.
The reason Bb4+ and Bxd2 is playable in Bogo indian is because black follows up with d6 and plays for e5, putting the pawns on dark squares. In the catalan it is worse as the pawn is on d5 (or c4), so d6 isn't possible, and with some sort of slav position with pawns on c6 and e6 (light squares) the idea becomes losing.
After 6. Qa5 the computer already gave me almost a pawn advantage. By move 15 I had a 2 pawn advantage, and eventually reached a pawn up ending with 2 pieces for a rook which I went on to win.
I play the danish gambit that arises from the scotch gambit.It looks pretty good for white.
Is the Traxler/Wikkes Barre a gambit?
trade your rook for 2 knights almost end game ?
by Fiveofswords a few minutes ago
Chess Tactics ; Book Suggestions for Novices?
by SmyslovFan a few minutes ago
The Spock Fallacy
by batgirl 2 minutes ago
2014 Chess Olympiad (Tromsø)
by MrDamonSmith 5 minutes ago
The Italian: Analysis
by Fiveofswords 9 minutes ago
Forced Stalemate Problems
by Shakaali 11 minutes ago
Forgetting piece is threatened!
by I_Am_Second 11 minutes ago
My tournaments *always custom trophies*
by WildTigress 12 minutes ago
The immortal game II
by ielosubmarine 17 minutes ago
7/28/2014 - Mate in 4
by regicidal2 19 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!