Destroying lame 1.d4 players with the Englund gambit

Some say its a one trick pony. My game history disagrees. Vehemently. 

Your game history has you playing noobs with internet blitz ratings in the 1500s. No wonder your results beg to differ. I would love to face you with white over the board in a classic time control like game in 2 hours and DARE you to play 1...e5??, and yes, I do play 1.d4 OTB, and it is not lame. Last week, I had 2 games with White over the board and won them both easily in 22 and 24 moves, beating a 1932 and a 2078 (OTB Ratings).

Lmao 1600 rapid is like 98% percentile mate. You are calling the top 2% players on this website noobs. Sure.

And yes on a good day I will beat anyone's arse even in classical with Englund. Never played OTB but don't see why that matters. I played with almost 90% accuracy in the above game pretty sure that's crushing in any format lol

I'm 2125 rapid. 1600 is a noob in my book.

And for a 2500 you are a super noob no matter what opening you play. Not sure what point that proves apart from flexing? We are talking about effectiveness of openings here not your personal achievements. Yes Englund and most other dubious openings suck at Grandmaster level but below that it is an absolutely potent and underrated weapon.

This is rapid time format. Yes its not the same as 2 hour OTB but still you have 15 minutes each and its not that bad for experienced players. Most of them can perform at very high levels with half an hour of thinking instead of 2 hours. If you want to learn and play more games you have to compromise, no one has 4-5 hours everyday to dedicate to chess.

Its a bit of trash talk, I also called d4 players lame so I am not completely serious here lol. I just don't like people saying Englund is for idiots who play trappy lines and it only works at beginner level. In actuality its for aggressive and tactical players and its not trappy at all, all you are focusing on is hyper quick development at a cost of a pawn, long castle and king side attack before white gets his queenside pieces out. Even if you know the refutation lines by heart it can be hard to win middlegames with an open center because there are tactics at every step, literally.

Btw I also play the Bird gambit against the Philidor and I absolutely love it, its powerful because it gives you so much initiative early on, similar to Smith-Morra and Goring/Danish gambits with the c3 push. Actually my repertoire is gambits only lol, there isn't a single game this year where I have not played a gambit line. And so far its been going amazing, its made me fall in love with chess.

If it is bad at the GM level, it is just as bad at the amateur level. Just because you can trick other noobs doesn't help you one bit. You are establishing bad habits as a whole by playing that garbage, and will have to restart over again from square 1.

And by the way, I am 2027 over the board with 2 wins a d a draw not factored in yet (calculator indicates 2044 when they do get rated), so yes, even though rapid here is still quick chess (slowest there is here other than correspondence chess), my "classical" rating is still well above 1600.

The last time I faced the Englund, I went up 2 pawns and then sacrificed 4 pawns to mate the Black King. That was, I believe, 2019 the last time I faced it OTB.

The Philidor Gambit has a single advantage: It is such a horrible opening that noone takes it seriously. But objectively, even the simple 4.Nc3 which avoids all silly complications gives white a huge advantage.

I admit that there is some hope for Black, like for example in the following correspondence game:

Black is completely busted in the final position, but mr. Willem Peet died, and Black won on time.

You really think gambiting a pawn for development is cultivating bad habits and all my progress is useless? Is it why I gained +600 rating in one month? I disagree and I take your taunts as a challenge. I plan to reach 2000 rapid rating this year playing only aggresive gambits that annoys positional players. Then I will challenge you and knock your ego back down to where it belongs

And here you go generalizing. I never said it is bad to gambit a pawn for development. But there are good gambits and bad ones. The Englund is bad. You aren't even getting a development advantage. 2...Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 is not a lead in development. You attack the e-pawn and I give it to you with 4.e3 and give you back the pawn and all you have is an exposed Queen.

4.e3 is a bad move. You block your bishop. After 4. .. Nxe5 5. Nxe5 Qxe5 it is -0.03 according Stockfish

The englund gambit sacrifices a pawn for nothing

and white didn't even play well in the first game

If the englund gambit is that good then i challenge OP to a game against me

When an opening is genuinely good there is no need for going on about its lulz or pwnage, instead it suffices to just point out the fact and maybe elaborate rationally as to why. But that elaboration is not possible in the Englunds case

England gambit has different lines I play at different ratings D4, E5, Dxe5, F6 is the soller nice little trick that works up till 600 then basic england line till 1500 then maybe some rarer lines I forgot the names of but it's stockfishs 2nd option after playing england instead of basic version