Sea_TurtIe wrote:
refuted agian, +2 at the end of the top line
why on earth are we taking on d4
Any aggressive gambits I should try out with white?
Sort:
TheSampson wrote:
DrIntrovert wrote:
A really fun one to play is the ICBM, heres a video on it
ah yes the icbm
where you sacrifice a pawn to win the queen
and if your opponent doesn’t fall for it you’re in a terrible position
Why do people insist on playing garbage just for the dopamine rush of “oh wow he fell for it 🤣”? Play an actual opening, play actual chess. GothamChess hates the Ruy Lopez but he literally recommends the Englund Gambit. Almost no opening traps are sound compared to legitimate openings. Compare the Ruy Lopez:
-an incredibly rich position- to this.
Black has everlasting pressure on the pinned knight- and if white doesn’t do something about it, he’s gonna lose the piece back after Bxc3 Bxc3 and Qxc3- and if he does do something, he’s still gonna lose the light-squared bishop with dxc4. White’s little “advantage” with his “powerful bishops” is now taken away. Not only is white’s only advantage dying, but black has the initiative (which white sacrificed three pawns for, equal to an entire piece) and white’s material sacrifice is useless.
Now, go back to the first position. White is great. He has a powerful center, a safe king, and active pieces after the queenside knight transfers to b3. If the position opens up, white will have powerful bishops and the open c-file to enjoy. He has no weaknesses- perhaps only the inactive queenside rook. Meanwhile, the Danish Gambit, shown in the second example, is scattered with weaknesses. From the material loss to the vulnerable king and knight, white is worse. And that’s why I wouldn’t play most gambits nor would I recommend them to anyone.
BobbyBojanglles fans can’t get past 500 for a reason.
Just let people have their fun. Who cares what the play? It's bad but if it doesn't bother you, shut up. Also GothamChess laughs at literally anyone who plays the Englund nowadays. He made a video a few years ago but that's because it content and it got views while showing people funny openings.
May 23, 2023
0
#164
chainlincfence написал:
TheSampson wrote:
DrIntrovert wrote:
A really fun one to play is the ICBM, heres a video on it
ah yes the icbm
where you sacrifice a pawn to win the queen
and if your opponent doesn’t fall for it you’re in a terrible position
Why do people insist on playing garbage just for the dopamine rush of “oh wow he fell for it 🤣”? Play an actual opening, play actual chess. GothamChess hates the Ruy Lopez but he literally recommends the Englund Gambit. Almost no opening traps are sound compared to legitimate openings. Compare the Ruy Lopez:
-an incredibly rich position- to this.
Black has everlasting pressure on the pinned knight- and if white doesn’t do something about it, he’s gonna lose the piece back after Bxc3 Bxc3 and Qxc3- and if he does do something, he’s still gonna lose the light-squared bishop with dxc4. White’s little “advantage” with his “powerful bishops” is now taken away. Not only is white’s only advantage dying, but black has the initiative (which white sacrificed three pawns for, equal to an entire piece) and white’s material sacrifice is useless.
Now, go back to the first position. White is great. He has a powerful center, a safe king, and active pieces after the queenside knight transfers to b3. If the position opens up, white will have powerful bishops and the open c-file to enjoy. He has no weaknesses- perhaps only the inactive queenside rook. Meanwhile, the Danish Gambit, shown in the second example, is scattered with weaknesses. From the material loss to the vulnerable king and knight, white is worse. And that’s why I wouldn’t play most gambits nor would I recommend them to anyone.
BobbyBojanglles fans can’t get past 500 for a reason.
Just let people have their fun. Who cares what the play? It's bad but if it doesn't bother you, shut up. Also GothamChess laughs at literally anyone who plays the Englund nowadays. He made a video a few years ago but that's because it content and it got views while showing people funny openings.
You deny straight up great evidence. Why?
Badchesserrr wrote:
chainlincfence написал:
TheSampson wrote:
DrIntrovert wrote:
A really fun one to play is the ICBM, heres a video on it
ah yes the icbm
where you sacrifice a pawn to win the queen
and if your opponent doesn’t fall for it you’re in a terrible position
Why do people insist on playing garbage just for the dopamine rush of “oh wow he fell for it 🤣”? Play an actual opening, play actual chess. GothamChess hates the Ruy Lopez but he literally recommends the Englund Gambit. Almost no opening traps are sound compared to legitimate openings. Compare the Ruy Lopez:
-an incredibly rich position- to this.
Black has everlasting pressure on the pinned knight- and if white doesn’t do something about it, he’s gonna lose the piece back after Bxc3 Bxc3 and Qxc3- and if he does do something, he’s still gonna lose the light-squared bishop with dxc4. White’s little “advantage” with his “powerful bishops” is now taken away. Not only is white’s only advantage dying, but black has the initiative (which white sacrificed three pawns for, equal to an entire piece) and white’s material sacrifice is useless.
Now, go back to the first position. White is great. He has a powerful center, a safe king, and active pieces after the queenside knight transfers to b3. If the position opens up, white will have powerful bishops and the open c-file to enjoy. He has no weaknesses- perhaps only the inactive queenside rook. Meanwhile, the Danish Gambit, shown in the second example, is scattered with weaknesses. From the material loss to the vulnerable king and knight, white is worse. And that’s why I wouldn’t play most gambits nor would I recommend them to anyone.
BobbyBojanglles fans can’t get past 500 for a reason.
Just let people have their fun. Who cares what the play? It's bad but if it doesn't bother you, shut up. Also GothamChess laughs at literally anyone who plays the Englund nowadays. He made a video a few years ago but that's because it content and it got views while showing people funny openings.
You deny straight up great evidence. Why?
I'm confused. What is going on? This is why I hate the forums. It's a bunch of sweaty tryhards arguing about what's refuted when most of them are at the level that they'd lose to those openings anyway. What evidence is there here? I don't see anything I'm disagreeing with aside from a dumb statement.
The King's Gambit is what I would call the Mother of All Gambits, because often times down the line you can gambit away something else for even more development.
One such example is the *insane* double muzio gambit, in which white gives up a bishop and a knight for insane positional pressure.
chainlincfence wrote:
Badchesserrr wrote:
chainlincfence написал:
TheSampson wrote:
DrIntrovert wrote:
A really fun one to play is the ICBM, heres a video on it
ah yes the icbm
where you sacrifice a pawn to win the queen
and if your opponent doesn’t fall for it you’re in a terrible position
Why do people insist on playing garbage just for the dopamine rush of “oh wow he fell for it 🤣”? Play an actual opening, play actual chess. GothamChess hates the Ruy Lopez but he literally recommends the Englund Gambit. Almost no opening traps are sound compared to legitimate openings. Compare the Ruy Lopez:
-an incredibly rich position- to this.
Black has everlasting pressure on the pinned knight- and if white doesn’t do something about it, he’s gonna lose the piece back after Bxc3 Bxc3 and Qxc3- and if he does do something, he’s still gonna lose the light-squared bishop with dxc4. White’s little “advantage” with his “powerful bishops” is now taken away. Not only is white’s only advantage dying, but black has the initiative (which white sacrificed three pawns for, equal to an entire piece) and white’s material sacrifice is useless.
Now, go back to the first position. White is great. He has a powerful center, a safe king, and active pieces after the queenside knight transfers to b3. If the position opens up, white will have powerful bishops and the open c-file to enjoy. He has no weaknesses- perhaps only the inactive queenside rook. Meanwhile, the Danish Gambit, shown in the second example, is scattered with weaknesses. From the material loss to the vulnerable king and knight, white is worse. And that’s why I wouldn’t play most gambits nor would I recommend them to anyone.
BobbyBojanglles fans can’t get past 500 for a reason.
Just let people have their fun. Who cares what the play? It's bad but if it doesn't bother you, shut up. Also GothamChess laughs at literally anyone who plays the Englund nowadays. He made a video a few years ago but that's because it content and it got views while showing people funny openings.
You deny straight up great evidence. Why?
I'm confused. What is going on? This is why I hate the forums. It's a bunch of sweaty tryhards arguing about what's refuted when most of them are at the level that they'd lose to those openings anyway. What evidence is there here? I don't see anything I'm disagreeing with aside from a dumb statement.
What have i started? it was just meant to be a funny opening to play sometimes, i dont even play it myself, its just for if you want a laugh out of your games, especially if the opponent knows what your doing. Its not meant to be good, its meant to be funny, why are people arguing over this?
DrIntrovert wrote:
chainlincfence wrote:
Badchesserrr wrote:
chainlincfence написал:
TheSampson wrote:
DrIntrovert wrote:
A really fun one to play is the ICBM, heres a video on it
ah yes the icbm
where you sacrifice a pawn to win the queen
and if your opponent doesn’t fall for it you’re in a terrible position
Why do people insist on playing garbage just for the dopamine rush of “oh wow he fell for it 🤣”? Play an actual opening, play actual chess. GothamChess hates the Ruy Lopez but he literally recommends the Englund Gambit. Almost no opening traps are sound compared to legitimate openings. Compare the Ruy Lopez:
-an incredibly rich position- to this.
Black has everlasting pressure on the pinned knight- and if white doesn’t do something about it, he’s gonna lose the piece back after Bxc3 Bxc3 and Qxc3- and if he does do something, he’s still gonna lose the light-squared bishop with dxc4. White’s little “advantage” with his “powerful bishops” is now taken away. Not only is white’s only advantage dying, but black has the initiative (which white sacrificed three pawns for, equal to an entire piece) and white’s material sacrifice is useless.
Now, go back to the first position. White is great. He has a powerful center, a safe king, and active pieces after the queenside knight transfers to b3. If the position opens up, white will have powerful bishops and the open c-file to enjoy. He has no weaknesses- perhaps only the inactive queenside rook. Meanwhile, the Danish Gambit, shown in the second example, is scattered with weaknesses. From the material loss to the vulnerable king and knight, white is worse. And that’s why I wouldn’t play most gambits nor would I recommend them to anyone.
BobbyBojanglles fans can’t get past 500 for a reason.
Just let people have their fun. Who cares what the play? It's bad but if it doesn't bother you, shut up. Also GothamChess laughs at literally anyone who plays the Englund nowadays. He made a video a few years ago but that's because it content and it got views while showing people funny openings.
You deny straight up great evidence. Why?
I'm confused. What is going on? This is why I hate the forums. It's a bunch of sweaty tryhards arguing about what's refuted when most of them are at the level that they'd lose to those openings anyway. What evidence is there here? I don't see anything I'm disagreeing with aside from a dumb statement.
What have i started? it was just meant to be a funny opening to play sometimes, i dont even play it myself, its just for if you want a laugh out of your games, especially if the opponent knows what your doing. Its not meant to be good, its meant to be funny, why are people arguing over this?
Good question. I probably shouldn't be continuing this but there are some people who like to argue about how it's "So bad all the traps are so obvious" before they go play a 15 | 10 game and blunder all their pieces and have 16 minutes on the clock after 30 moves.
May 23, 2023
0
#169
chainlincfence wrote:
TheSampson wrote:
DrIntrovert wrote:
A really fun one to play is the ICBM, heres a video on it
ah yes the icbm
where you sacrifice a pawn to win the queen
and if your opponent doesn’t fall for it you’re in a terrible position
Why do people insist on playing garbage just for the dopamine rush of “oh wow he fell for it 🤣”? Play an actual opening, play actual chess. GothamChess hates the Ruy Lopez but he literally recommends the Englund Gambit. Almost no opening traps are sound compared to legitimate openings. Compare the Ruy Lopez:
-an incredibly rich position- to this.
Black has everlasting pressure on the pinned knight- and if white doesn’t do something about it, he’s gonna lose the piece back after Bxc3 Bxc3 and Qxc3- and if he does do something, he’s still gonna lose the light-squared bishop with dxc4. White’s little “advantage” with his “powerful bishops” is now taken away. Not only is white’s only advantage dying, but black has the initiative (which white sacrificed three pawns for, equal to an entire piece) and white’s material sacrifice is useless.
Now, go back to the first position. White is great. He has a powerful center, a safe king, and active pieces after the queenside knight transfers to b3. If the position opens up, white will have powerful bishops and the open c-file to enjoy. He has no weaknesses- perhaps only the inactive queenside rook. Meanwhile, the Danish Gambit, shown in the second example, is scattered with weaknesses. From the material loss to the vulnerable king and knight, white is worse. And that’s why I wouldn’t play most gambits nor would I recommend them to anyone.
BobbyBojanglles fans can’t get past 500 for a reason.
Just let people have their fun. Who cares what the play? It's bad but if it doesn't bother you, shut up. Also GothamChess laughs at literally anyone who plays the Englund nowadays. He made a video a few years ago but that's because it content and it got views while showing people funny openings.
i showed both taking on e4 and taking on d4
the dude wanted both so i refuted both
May 23, 2023
0
#170
SamuelAjedrez95 написал:
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.
I think he is just set to be a gm. Training every single variation and using 69 moves deep engines. Well anish giri does it. And soo does magnus.
May 23, 2023
0
#171
Or maybe he just got a chessable course and feels like on top of the world.
May 23, 2023
0
#172
Chaosci написал:
Kings Gambit Accepted: Fischer Defense
That isnt a gambit tbh, that is a defense for black.
May 23, 2023
0
#173
the fischer defense is a refutation to the kings gambit if white does not know what hes doing
May 23, 2023
0
#175
Watch Simon Williams' video series on the King's Gambit. It refutes Fischer's refutation.
I've been DESTROYING black's CaroKanns with the humble Mieses gambit after trying and failing with the similar maroczy/fantasy variation. Its quick Nf3, semi-open f file and ability to play Bc4 attacking f7 without annoying queenside pawn chaining and/or a closed center just clicked with me right away when I was playing it BY ACCIDENT as the french alapin diemer gambit. caros just aren't prepared to defend f7 in the opening and aren't used to open f files i'm guessing
It gets me how people can't see how beautiful this setup is for an attacker who wants mobility and pressure. White already has a 2 active pieces advantage fir quick tactical strikes and even miniature mates. It is my most winning opening, and I've barely studied it.
I'm currently 71% wins and 18% losses in 17 games from this position, and even 59:37 from 3.Be3 and all the sidelines still ain't shabby! try and get stats like that from "GM approved main lines" at amateur ratings!
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
refuted agian, +2 at the end of the top line
If you like it, you like it, if you don't like it, you don't like it. After Qxd5 and Qxc2, it becomes a bit hard to keep the +1.1 advantage. If you're enough of a maniac to keep analyzing for 40 moves just to crush this, please get therapy.
chainlincfence wrote:
Sea_TurtIe wrote:
refuted agian, +2 at the end of the top line
why on earth are we taking on d4
Cause it's a better line.
U could try also the Ryder gambit, is similar to Blackmar-Diemer gambit but with Qf3 instead of Kf3