Albin Counter Gambit doesnt work at all

     The Albin, like many other gambits, is basically unsound. Solid development and a well-timed return of the pawn usually results in a favorable position. The reason for counter-gambits is to take white out of his plan and get a bit of initiative. This strategy is really only effective for a higher-rated player to avoid having to force the action later vs someone who is basically playing defensively in a quiet position.

True, although the "problem line" isn't that problematic. Admittedly it's much more pleasant for white, but not really bad for black.

 

Here Black has tried 13...Nf5, 13...f6 and 13...c6, and while none of them promises full equality, the position is quite playable. The real disadvantage is that such a position offers very thin winning chances to Black.

I think the OP's issue is that the Albin doesn't work well until the player has enough skill in the double-edged midgames to wield it. It's really not a good beginner opening. Losing the d4 pawn is a constant worry, along with managing your own attack, and trying not to get mated yourself. It's a lot to think about. I was never very happy with the positions I got in the Albin, when I was a still a young player with a bright future ahead (hah...sigh). I think if I picked it up now and put serious effort into it I could probably knock some teeth with it. Maybe that's an arrogant presumption though.

I wouldn't necessarily cave and abandon the opening completely if I were the OP. It's playable... barely. I think you definitely want a 2nd option against d4 though.

 

I love the Albin. It is sharp, and you might get beaten, but it is my favourite v d4 and you get exciting games. GM Pert plays it, so does Morozevich, so it cant be that bad. I play it in over the board 90 minute club chess and it wins for me (I’m rated 130 ECF in real lifeso about 1650 elo, I think.) on here I’m about 1500 rapid and it wins - even if it doesn’t you get winning chances.

If you play for fun, pick openings that suit your style, then do a little work on them. I’d rather lose having had chances with the Albin, or the Alekhine, Morra Gambit and so on, than grind out a dull positional opening where a tiny slip in the endgame can lose anyway. I’m quite good on tactics, less good position ally and in the endgame. It may not be totally sound, but it is respectable and certainly played by top level players, both in the past and today. When I’m better than Lasker or Morozevich I may change my mind, but that is likely to be never😀

by "serious", pfren means classical time controls. And I don't know anybody decently high rated that plays the stafford unironically in over the board chess.

Since it was mentioned, I just have to say that I loathe the Stafford. It’s played by nominally decent players looking for easy wins. People who like the Stafford are the same kind who enjoy pranking others and feel a sense of accomplishment when they beat the gullible with their trappy shenanigans. Do I hate it because I lose to it? No. I’ve got something like a 10 or 15 game win streak against it since committing Naroditsky’s video to memory. I hate it because it’s cheap. You memorize half a dozen tricks and your rating goes up 200 points.

As I always say, beating someone with a trap doesn’t prove how smart you are; rather, it proves how inexperienced your opponent is. Monkeys can memorize a trap.

As someone already said - play the Budapest Gambit - it's a Gambit/Opening.

I tried to play the Benko Gambit, but I always fail..

---

 

 

 

Based on:

Minute 8:45

I used to play g3, just like the database is suggesting, but a3 is Way better - just as the GM is saying.

Sometimes, main lines aren't so hot:

 

https://www.chess.com/games/view/16092032

It was a beautiful fantasy though.. (-to just Crush 1.d4 with Black)

 

     Sometimes main lines are the main line because they give GMs positions where wins can be squeezed out in the long run, even against a GM opponent. Of course, you have to have GM technique to do it.

 

Evans gambit is not unsound

staunton gambit is not unsound

from's gambit is not unsound

blackdiemer i haven't really played but i have a little trouble playing against it so i'd add it to my list not unsound gambits?

 

 

 

That's the gambit that Borgov tried against Beth Harmon

Jokes aside though i have played a bit of the albin and people fall for the maintrap somewhat frequently up until some 1500 ish.... but it does seem like you're playing for tricks... the purpose of the gambit is not get your opponent to fall for the lasker trap and allow you to promote to a knight (even though that is quite cool)... the purpose of the gambits is to perhaps take your opponent off prep and take you into a territory that you're more familiar than your opponent whilst fastening your development... if they fall for traps along the way that's just a plus...

If you're looking for gambits against d4 check out the budapest... i think it's a little better than albin and there's a cool smothered mate trap as well

 

blackmar diemer is an unsound gambit if your opponent has a habit of calculating your moves

CRUSH The Queen's Gambit in 6 Moves: THE ALBIN - GothamChess

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU9ai7VYylk

tygxc: the king's gambit is unsound

Nepo: Am I a joke to you?

Beats Alireza with the King's Gambit in 20 moves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyK38QA4p-A&ab_channel=chess24.5

 

Do people actually do that in online blitz?

 

For blitz is valid.. and KG is fun.... GM Alexandr Fier employs it quite often in blitz and even sometimes in classical.... he's fond of "sub-optimal-ish" openings such as benoni and alekhine. Worth checking if you like those openings.. he plays very chaotic dynamic  chess

You know, I play the Nimzovich system against the French. In it, you are basically gambiting the d4 pawn and in return you are locking down the e5 square, preventing the pawns from advancing. I've had a TON of luck with it. The computer doesn't like it because it just doesn't understand it, and the truth is that in lower rated games it does poorly. My guess is that the reason it does poorly in lower rated games is because it's just a straight-up blunder with no coherent plan.

That said, in higher rated and master games, it does really well for white. It has slightly more wins and slightly more losses with fewer draws than, for example, the Tarrasch. It's a gambit, no doubt, but there's no way that it's unsound.

Most comments posted here are fell of stinky stuff any opening works at the lower levels.

The problem is you just can't do it.

What on earth does "you just can't do it" even mean? At your level of play the Alekhine does better than what Magnus usually plays. At your level the King's Gambit does just as well as what Magnus plays. At your level, the Stafford Gambit does better than **anything** Magnus plays, but would score exactly 0% in GM games. Saying that it's no good because it would suck for Magnus misses an important point: you're not Magnus.

By the way, Nepo beat Firouzja last month with a "stinky" opening. Git rekt Alireza, ya noob.

Ook, ook, ook.