Any aggressive gambits I should try out with white?

Another gambit is the Bataov gambit, where white sacrifices the queen, and it's still equal.

White sacrifices their queen to expose black's king, and get rid of black's only active pieces, the knight and bishop. White is aiming to restrict black's play. The best line for both sides is this line.

The evaluation is -0.6, this gambit is playable in tournaments. However, it takes quite a bit of preparation as this gambit is very very sharp.

Bruh no one cares about 2.f4 and nf3 vs Sicilian

Right... check the Master's database I'm totally sure nobody ever plays it 100% absolutely.

Looks like nonsense to me

Wow, playing f4 is so nonsensical and doesn't follow any principles in any way, 100%. It's totally breaking every principle in the book and doesn't have any source of play. Grandmasters totally don't play it.

Jobava vs A Korborv 2013, H Danielsen vs K Schmidt, 2013, S N Longson vs L Varnam, 2013, all the grandmasters that played the Grand Prix attack are actually just complete idiots cause it "Looks like nonsense to me".

If we're going to follow that, we should all remove these openings from our repertoire.

We should never do these because they "Look like nonsense.".

F4 isn’t the move I have big problems with, but nf3 is afterwards. Like bruh looks like nonsense

Yes we should remove birds from our repertoire because it’s nonsense. But in no way f3 Grunfeld is nonsense. Just like the saemisch nimzo, its logical in the sense that it supports e4.1…f5 vs e4 is actual nonsense and no sane person except hikaru in blitz has it in their repertoire. Kings gambit makes some sense, it’s not nonsense. Vienna gambit makes sense. The Schliemann makes sense and the Rousseau makes no sense fr fr

It looks like your idea of nonsense is if anybody moves their f-pawn. Which is nonsense

Nonsense is you rejecting every f pawn move idea. Chess is not only characterized by precision or structural integrity, but y flexibility too.

Nf3 is to stop Qh4+ lmao

"Vienna gambit makes sense. The Schliemann makes sense and the Rousseau makes no sense fr fr" So if white moves the Bishop one square further, the opening is genius, but if it goes to c4, it's outlandish and unsound at any level? I play the Vienna and Rousseau and on occasion the Jaenisch/Schliemann. They all play fine and none of them are nonsense.

im not talkig about vienna gambit, im talking about this e4, c5, f4, d5, nf3 nonsense this other guy was talking about

i never said the schliemann makes sense, but it does lmao. Its because the white bishop on c4 is much more dangerous with the newly opened diagonal. Rosseau makes little sense fr.

"This is a great line that everyone should try!"

"bro misclicked 💀"

oh wait it's the exact same situation you described 🤔

Wait srry I'm a bit confused by this. Could I get some context

The Schliemann

The Rosseau

The difference is one bishop move. “Just because the bishop went to c4 means that the opening is unsound at every level?”

The Morphy (good)

Misclick (bad)

I don’t really know how to explain it any further

Sorry. I'm mostly confused about what the Misclick means. Do you mean that you can't play the same lines against different moves? If so, yeah that's true but the Jaenisch and Rousseau are different openings.

Exactly. They are different. One is better than the other

I mean if you mean according to the engine, it's like +1 for white in Rousseau and +0.5 in the Jaenisch. a 0.5 difference is not exactly exploitable at most levels. No need to act like people don't drop plennnty of games against both openings. People act like d4 is a refutation but I still win games in those lines because no one knows how to deal with it.

I was joking