technical_knockout wrote:
sturm gambit
looks good
Any aggressive gambits I should try out with white?
Sort:
If you want something that isn't necessarily trappy but is very aggressive, then maybe the Halloween Gambit? Looks crazy but has a strangely high success rate.
King's gambit is OP I recommend the bishop's gambit. You get better development and central control, and most of the time you get the pawn back or have a winning attack
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Chess is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Don't be an elitist.
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
he's not bad, he just makes shorts on dumb traps for views
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
i love how everyone can agree on how trash bobby bojanglles is
Yes
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
So? Let them have their fun. Do you think this is going to be the place that new players go for info? I can understand wanting to prevent people from getting bad info but the ICBM is not gonna build bad habits. I played the main Englund Gambit trap until 900 and I haven't developed any trap obsessions or anything like that. In fact, I play in a way where I avoid setting traps just for the sake of it. If you're playing the ICBM at 400, there's no reason to worry about bad opening habits that are unfixable. The bad habits you should be fixing are hanging pieces. I created this thread hoping I'd see solid and dubious things alike. But all I get is 400s suggesting the ICBM (Which is fine BTW) and other people shooting them down (Which is not BTW). This IS NOT welcoming to new players. Please don't be an elitist.
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
So? Let them have their fun. Do you think this is going to be the place that new players go for info? I can understand wanting to prevent people from getting bad info but the ICBM is not gonna build bad habits. I played the main Englund Gambit trap until 900 and I haven't developed any trap obsessions or anything like that. In fact, I play in a way where I avoid setting traps just for the sake of it. If you're playing the ICBM at 400, there's no reason to worry about bad opening habits that are unfixable. The bad habits you should be fixing are hanging pieces. I created this thread hoping I'd see solid and dubious things alike. But all I get is 400s suggesting the ICBM (Which is fine BTW) and other people shooting them down (Which is not BTW). This IS NOT welcoming to new players. Please don't be an elitist.
fair lol
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
So? Let them have their fun. Do you think this is going to be the place that new players go for info? I can understand wanting to prevent people from getting bad info but the ICBM is not gonna build bad habits. I played the main Englund Gambit trap until 900 and I haven't developed any trap obsessions or anything like that. In fact, I play in a way where I avoid setting traps just for the sake of it. If you're playing the ICBM at 400, there's no reason to worry about bad opening habits that are unfixable. The bad habits you should be fixing are hanging pieces. I created this thread hoping I'd see solid and dubious things alike. But all I get is 400s suggesting the ICBM (Which is fine BTW) and other people shooting them down (Which is not BTW). This IS NOT welcoming to new players. Please don't be an elitist.
fair lol
Dang. Respect+ by the way. I haven't heard an argument end in "fair" in a while. Thank you for being understanding.
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
TheSampson wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
chesss_loser wrote:
tennison gambit aka the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile)
not reliable
all of your tricks are gone
You do realize it's a meme opening... right? I think most people know it's bad. I'm not dumb enough to take any suggestion I see and roll with it. The more ideas posted, the better, no matter how bad. Someone with a lack of experience might be like "OH THAT'S SO GOOD I'LL WIN THEIR QUEEN" but I've been playing long enough to realize that that's simply not the case lmao. Not everything bad needs a "Your opening's bad" message right below it. People have suggested the ICBM in this thread multiple times before and every time I've seen, it's been replied to with "Bla bla bla insert move here refutes it bla bla bla". Don't be an elitist.
Yes. I know it’s a meme opening lol
The poster’s 400 rated, indicating they’re new to chess. I would assume they watched Bobby BoJanglles once and assumed that it’s a good opening, then suggested it here.
So? Let them have their fun. Do you think this is going to be the place that new players go for info? I can understand wanting to prevent people from getting bad info but the ICBM is not gonna build bad habits. I played the main Englund Gambit trap until 900 and I haven't developed any trap obsessions or anything like that. In fact, I play in a way where I avoid setting traps just for the sake of it. If you're playing the ICBM at 400, there's no reason to worry about bad opening habits that are unfixable. The bad habits you should be fixing are hanging pieces. I created this thread hoping I'd see solid and dubious things alike. But all I get is 400s suggesting the ICBM (Which is fine BTW) and other people shooting them down (Which is not BTW). This IS NOT welcoming to new players. Please don't be an elitist.
fair lol
Dang. Respect+ by the way. I haven't heard an argument end in "fair" in a while. Thank you for being understanding.
👍 no problem, I didn’t mean to shoot down any new players
Says you fr
Jun 1, 2023
0
#239
Sea_TurtIe написал:
i love how everyone can agree on how trash bobby bojanglles is
yes
Jun 1, 2023
0
#240
thechessgod5454 написал:
Badchesserrr wrote:
Sea_TurtIe написал:
i love how everyone can agree on how trash bobby bojanglles is
yes
his videos are trash
Bobby bojangles: YoU hAvE tO kNoW tHiS (fOcUs) *Proceeds to play the caro kann defence and for some ungodly reason accept the fantasy variation*
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.
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.
Alright, here we go again. These Stockfish lines are opening prep. You really thought I don't go into a new opening without seeing some Stockfish lines to remember for it? Gonna point out right now, Yes, I finally am convinced it's bad.
Also, yes, I do realize that some points of an opening do apply to another, however, the part to which these lines are different it mostly is irrelevant unless you're going to look for these tiny minor details.
If you think that just because I'm saying that you cannot beat Stockfish either, that it gives you a license plate to drive 60 mph at a school zone, are you really reading the post and understanding it or just looking for things in this argument to win in? You've just jumped over a fence into this just so you can have a part in the winning side.
Now the debating part, I have done. Have you seen what's happening here? Or once again you just want to get a feeling of satisfaction, and that's why you're chasing for a win here no? You're not actually arguing because you want to make a point, you must know this yourself too. If you actually think you're making any use out of winning an argument about "You're 900 Elo, why should you get any say?" then you're like the description of me you have given.
What am I ignoring by saying a good explanation avoid verbal conclusions? Yeah, when I wrote this, I didn't realize what the logical fallacy here was, we're all human and you are too. This sentence isn't ignoring your point, and do explain to me how it does ignore if I forgot something here.
Yeah, this part, the below 1,500 one. I have realized how the opening is bad, after recently checking the evaluation for the Jaenisch, realizing there's a better one I could play. You're still gonna carry this one too right? If you can't read 3 sentences, if Sea_Turtle finally proves the opening is bad, and I'm not responding, it means I've realized its bad. We're playing sidelines for what? Why don't you play the best moves in certain openings, and instead go for variety? It's because its our nature, we like to varietize. Why do players play the English and not the King's Pawn?
How does using Stockfish lines, analyzing how black should play, realizing the main ideas, and having a overall understanding on how to play it, means I still know pretty much nothing about it?
We're playing these openings at the low level because mistakes are going to happen because we're not perfect computers. These Stockfish lines here are to explain what black should play. The sidelines explain why. Recently I've had a game with a -2.2 advantage as white, I was playing white, and it was all blundered away with a single move to +4.3.
Some of the best human moves in this opening DO indeed drop the eval by 0.4, I think that's reasonable enough to make it a unstable opening, but not by so much that you're going to lose around 70-80% of the time at my level.
Yeah, I do agree, when I was writing this, it was a period of time where I was a bit egoistic.
Now why'd I write this? I've mentioned it myself that we're doing this side-argument just to have some satisfaction no? I mean it is just human nature anyways, right? Yeah, that's exactly why. I have not much to do at this moment so that's why I'm here. You're probably not going to see this anyways. Now that insult part, I'm not so sure about that. Now I know you're going to find some way to break through this statement, and I'm probably going to regret posting this.
Now I'm not going to go back and fix the errors in the statement, you can look for the cracks yourself. I'm just going to write here, where am I choosing a different line? Here, let me see this. Where is the point where I have proposed a line, it got disproved, and I chose a different line? No, I've just shown where the line was differentiated, and put it back on course.
You're saying I'm hiding behind insults? And yet you're refusing to properly write what I wrote, instead adding stutters? We are writing in text, not speaking these things. We have time to fix spelling errors. If this were real life, neither you or me would be saying these things either.