The Scotch Gambit is a great gambit with many tricks and traps! The opening starts of with the Scotch but instead of taking back with the knight you play bc4 many people with play bc5 (with black the next move) after this play ng5 with the possibility of a fork. (Black cant really avoid the fork) it is important to sack the knight and bishop on the fork no order specifically. when king finally takes back QH5!! check then take the bishop with the fork! You should have a good position after this. There are many videos on this if you are interested.
Any aggressive gambits I should try out with white?
Sort:
May 23, 2023
0
#183
goddam gotta refute another even more dubious line
whites completely winning
May 23, 2023
0
#184
black wasted his time fooling around in the opening and white will emerge more active and up 2 pawns
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
goddam gotta refute another even more dubious line
whites completely winning
Bro fr you once again didn't see the post. Why Bc5 instead of Bb4, If you're going to refute the line, then refute THAT specific line.
And NO, this is not a boosted line (I forgot to put Qxd5 and Qxc2 btw).
May 23, 2023
0
#187
the result is that you give white a pawn for 0 initative or counterplay and white ends up much better and easily will be able to trade everything off and convert
May 23, 2023
0
#188
also blacks pawn structure ends up terrible most of the time with 0 compensation at all, just easily winnable by white
AhmedAryan wrote:
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
goddam gotta refute another even more dubious line
whites completely winning
Bro fr you once again didn't see the post. Why Bc5 instead of Bb4, If you're going to refute the line, then refute THAT specific line.
And NO, this is not a boosted line (I forgot to put Qxd5 and Qxc2 btw).
Not that I (or anybody else here except you, really) care, but what are you on about? The Rousseau is BAD. Give it up. Stop shoving Stockfish 11 depth 20 lines out to move 15 down our throats and then completely ignoring everyone telling you you’re wrong, all of whom are both higher rated but also have a much broader understanding of chess. You are 900 and haven’t played for even 6 months yet. Come back when you’re ready to put up your own fight instead of hiding behind Stockfish.
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
the result is that you give white a pawn for 0 initative or counterplay and white ends up much better and easily will be able to trade everything off and convert
Did you misread the engine?
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
the result is that you give white a pawn for 0 initative or counterplay and white ends up much better and easily will be able to trade everything off and convert also blacks pawn structure ends up terrible most of the time with 0 compensation at all, just easily winnable by white
Ahmed_Aryan saying “did you misread the engine” about this very correct and succinct explanation of the position is the funniest crap I’ve seen all day.
May 23, 2023
0
#192
AhmedAryan wrote:
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
the result is that you give white a pawn for 0 initative or counterplay and white ends up much better and easily will be able to trade everything off and convert
Did you misread the engine?
had it on depth 45
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
AhmedAryan wrote:
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
goddam gotta refute another even more dubious line
whites completely winning
Bro fr you once again didn't see the post. Why Bc5 instead of Bb4, If you're going to refute the line, then refute THAT specific line.
And NO, this is not a boosted line (I forgot to put Qxd5 and Qxc2 btw).
Not that I (or anybody else here except you, really) care, but what are you on about? The Rousseau is BAD. Give it up. Stop shoving Stockfish 11 depth 20 lines out to move 15 down our throats and then completely ignoring everyone telling you you’re wrong, all of whom are both higher rated but also have a much broader understanding of chess. You are 900 and haven’t played for even 6 months yet. Come back when you’re ready to put up your own fight instead of hiding behind Stockfish.
Hell, so you're just going to say I'm wrong for using Stockfish, when the other person is as well? If two people are having a fight, is one person supposed to have a literal sniper rifle and the other just alone with their fists? My brain at this point is just going , and I think you need therapy if you think a analysis of a position can apply to another. If I play the King's gambit, I cannot apply the same theory to a Baltic defense, can I? Can I apply the theory of the Sicillian defense to a king and pawn endgame? can I? And replying to someone counts as ignoring? Seriously? Are you being drunk right now? Are you saying you can do better than Stockfish? You want me to put up my own fight no? You want me to fight against Stockfish? Tell me to fight Stockfish when... I don't know... litteraly anyone beats stockfish without assistance, and since he's using depth 45, ON DEPTH 45. Watch the sly smile they'll get when you say you beat it, and cannot provide any evidence you have. A good explanation of a position avoids verbal conclusions when possible. Yall are saying this is funnier than for example something on reddit like this?
" My brother and I would use to fight for weeks about which fruit would win if they were all sentient and could fight "
198 more replies.
Cause that's a pretty good sense of humor, please turn yourself into the asylum. And you're telling me if I play a game with the Rosseau gambit right now, they're going to play this specific line? I've played against 1500's at my chess club tournaments, and they play d3. Explain, if even 1500's cannot find d4, why should my opponents? And if you cannot make a point against this, downvote it, put a laughing emoji like SamuelAjedrez95, or even hell to report it because the internet is like that, then go screw yourself. If you do, then what are you doing, if your friend drives off a cliff, do you too? If you DO manage to make a point, I don't know if I've mentioned, but people who think the Rosseau gambit is garbage are not going to go out of their way to memorize 20 moves of tons of variations do you think? If you're going to write shaky, dodgy statements like these, why are you on chess.com? People like you should be on twitter or something.
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
AhmedAryan wrote:
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
the result is that you give white a pawn for 0 initative or counterplay and white ends up much better and easily will be able to trade everything off and convert
Did you misread the engine?
had it on depth 45
It was a genuine question.
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
no
ok
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
also blacks pawn structure ends up terrible most of the time with 0 compensation at all, just easily winnable by white
The compensation is the open files.
May 23, 2023
0
#198
the open files white can contest before black is able to do any damage
AhmedAryan wrote:
Ethan_Brollier wrote:
AhmedAryan wrote:
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
goddam gotta refute another even more dubious line
whites completely winning
Bro fr you once again didn't see the post. Why Bc5 instead of Bb4, If you're going to refute the line, then refute THAT specific line.
And NO, this is not a boosted line (I forgot to put Qxd5 and Qxc2 btw).
Not that I (or anybody else here except you, really) care, but what are you on about? The Rousseau is BAD. Give it up. Stop shoving Stockfish 11 depth 20 lines out to move 15 down our throats and then completely ignoring everyone telling you you’re wrong, all of whom are both higher rated but also have a much broader understanding of chess. You are 900 and haven’t played for even 6 months yet. Come back when you’re ready to put up your own fight instead of hiding behind Stockfish.
Hell, so you're just going to say I'm wrong for using Stockfish, when the other person is as well? If two people are having a fight, is one person supposed to have a literal sniper rifle and the other just alone with their fists? My brain at this point is just going , and I think you need therapy if you think a analysis of a position can apply to another. If I play the King's gambit, I cannot apply the same theory to a Baltic defense, can I? Can I apply the theory of the Sicillian defense to a king and pawn endgame? can I? And replying to someone counts as ignoring? Seriously? Are you being drunk right now? Are you saying you can do better than Stockfish? You want me to put up my own fight no? You want me to fight against Stockfish? Tell me to fight Stockfish when... I don't know... litteraly anyone beats stockfish without assistance, and since he's using depth 45, ON DEPTH 45. Watch the sly smile they'll get when you say you beat it, and cannot provide any evidence you have. A good explanation of a position avoids verbal conclusions when possible. Yall are saying this is funnier than for example something on reddit like this?
" My brother and I would use to fight for weeks about which fruit would win if they were all sentient and could fight "
198 more replies.
Cause that's a pretty good sense of humor, please turn yourself into the asylum. And you're telling me if I play a game with the Rosseau gambit right now, they're going to play this specific line? I've played against 1500's at my chess club tournaments, and they play d3. Explain, if even 1500's cannot find d4, why should my opponents? And if you cannot make a point against this, downvote it, put a laughing emoji like SamuelAjedrez95, or even hell to report it because the internet is like that, then go screw yourself. If you do, then what are you doing, if your friend drives off a cliff, do you too? If you DO manage to make a point, I don't know if I've mentioned, but people who think the Rosseau gambit is garbage are not going to go out of their way to memorize 20 moves of tons of variations do you think? If you're going to write shaky, dodgy statements like these, why are you on chess.com? People like you should be on twitter or something.
No, I’m not saying you’re wrong for using Stockfish, I’m saying you don’t understand chess, and so you would be absolutely, utterly, and completely LOST without it. It’s not just a crutch for you, it’s a wheelchair with an oxygen tank attached.
Of course an analysis of a position can apply to another! Funnily enough, you immediately equate analysis to theory, two or things which are completely separate. If you play the King’s Gambit as White and the Baltic as Black, then you can apply your understanding of the relative value of space, material, and time to both. However, using extremes is a logical fallacy many fools get caught in, so let’s use some different examples. The Pirc and the KID. The Slav and the Caro-Kann and the London. The Exchange French, Caro-Kann, Slav, and QGD. The Closed and Dragon Sicilians. Alekhines and the Nf6 Alapin, Scandinavian and the Barmen Alapin. Many openings share similar pawn structures, ideas, strengths and weaknesses, or all of the above. For example, every good gambit sacrifices material for space and time, and so if you know the ins and outs of one gambit it should be easier to pick up and play another.
Here you go again, hiding behind Stockfish: “but-but-but YOU can’t beat Stockfish either, so I’m right”. Y’know, at first I thought you might just be bad at chess because you’re new to chess, but I’m starting to think there’s a distinct possibility you’re bad at chess because you’re just, plain, garden-variety stupid. You hide behind Stockfish, logical fallacies, insults, and your own ego rather than actually debating anyone’s points.
”A good explanation of a position avoids verbal conclusions, if possible.” This statement alone displays your blatant ignorance. I refuse to say more on the matter because simply reading that sentence gave me a headache.
Replying to someone counts as ignoring… right. Considering the fact that a few people on this specific forum post (completely disregarding all previous posts) have analyzed your cherry-picked Stockfish lines and been able to explain why the eval bar is the way that it is and you have only replied to offer a different cherry-picked Stockfish line or to say “But-but just because Stockfish says it’s +1 doesn’t mean it’ll stay +1, my opponents down below 1000 wouldn’t play that” and never to actually, y’know, think critically about the position and analyze it yourself to offer what Black has other than a nearly-lost position BECAUSE of the opening, I’d say yes, you ARE completely ignoring everyone.
I recall seeing something funny you said about “If someone has a sniper rifle, why would I not fight back with a sniper rifle?” Or something to that effect. If someone has a sniper rifle and they know how to use it, you shouldn’t fight back with a sniper rifle you don’t know how to use.
”I’ve played against 1500s in the Rousseau, and they play d3. If even 1500s can’t find d4, why should my opponents?” Disregarding the massive contradiction in those sentences, back just under a year and a half ago when I was U1000, I played d4 against the Rousseau. That’s within your ratings bracket, no? Interesting.
The reason people who know the Rousseau is garbage won’t memorize 20 moves of theory for it is because they’re good enough to be able to find good moves OTB. Perhaps not your “S-Stockfish says this is the best” moves, but definitely some of the best human moves.
”If you’re going to write shaky, dodgy statements like these, why are you on chess.com?” I could ask you the same exact question, but I refuse to stoop so far down as to reach your level. I’ll instead say this again:
Come back when you’re willing to put up your own fight instead of hiding behind Stockfish, insults, and logical fallacies.
There is no point in trying to reason with him. His thing is that he posts these absolute trash, useless lines and then defends them to the death, getting mad at anyone who criticises them.
Ah yes, so apparently I'm supposed to care if the opponent has a +0.6 advantage and it's extremely hard to keep. No, this is not the Rosseau gambit I'm talking about.