Englund Gambit | Strategy: Attack!
#englundgambit #romanticchess
There is a tactical idea in chess that if you're able to keep making credible threats, even if you're down on material or in an otherwise disadvantageous position, you create opportunities where you might win. Conceptually, what you are trying to do is not only to induce errors in your opponent's play, but for these errors to be potentially impactful on the direction of the game.
This concept is demonstrated in this game where I had the Black pieces and played the Englund Gambit against my opponent's Queen's Pawn Opening (1. d4 e5). White declined the gambit with (2. e3). The best response for Black is to simply take the pawn (2... exd4), but I couldn't remember this in the game and opted to play (2... d5) instead.
The opening then headed into territory that I usually try to avoid - it transposed into a Queen's Gambit Declined, first in one of the Albin Countergambit lines, and then into the Chigorin, Exchange Variation. I was a bit disoriented in the opening as I'm not familiar with the QGD lines.
On move 8, my opponent played the very solid (8. c4). They were developing a powerful diagonal of pawns and I had the distinct sense that not only did they have a good position, but that I was playing into what they were familiar with as a (1. d4) player. So, I decided to play in a hyperaggressive style for the rest of the game!
The interesting thing is that Stockfish very much disapproves of my approach with the evaluation generally from [+3] to [+6] for the next 20 moves! On move 11, an unbalanced infiltration by my knight forces a "concession" (though Stockfish didn't think so) from White in that they were forced to move a pawn on the base of their chain and move their king. This meant that the king was going to be relatively stuck on the kingside, and the pawns on that side a little uncoordinated. However, this manoeuvre did mean that that knight was going to be lost.
I castled queenside, with the idea that I would focus an attack on my opponent's king. Interestingly, despite White's superiority in material and evaluation, I continued to have the initiative with White forced to defend. Part of the rapid attack is that White's kingside pieces (bishop, knight, rook) were yet to develop and so their influence weren't felt. Stockfish doesn't believe in these unbalanced attacks, so many of their top recommended moves were to trade down pieces. However, it's important to realise that doing so would nerf the attack. Stockfish's perspective is that I was already losing according to perfect play and thus, its objective is actually to delay the loss as long as possible. However, I was still playing to win!
As White's king is increasingly cramped and under pressure from my attack, I manage to win further concessions. Firstly, I regain material equality on move 23. On move 27, I manage to manoeuvre my rooks and queen into a triple battery. Stockfish is completely unafraid, giving a [+4] to [+5] advantage to White. However, my opponent is human and made a move that does make sense but was a blunder [-1.2].
According to Stockfish, on move 28, Black could potentially trade down to a rook and pawn endgame, that should technically be winning for Black due to an extra pawn. I didn't see that line, and I'm not sure I would have played it anyway. Instead, with my pieces positioned for potential pins and forks, the less optimal but aggressive moves I played induced some further errors, which allowed me to trade down to an endgame where I had a queen, against my opponent's rook and bishop. After the emotional damage from their loss of material, and then three consecutive checks from my queen, White opted to resign rather than to play on. GG!
Game on chess.com: https://www.chess.com/game/live/71286182585
