Destroying lame 1.d4 players with the Englund gambit

I got tricked by the mainline Englund once or twice when I was around 1200 rapid, then I studied the refutations and never find it to be intimidating or agressive ever again.

Best case you will get a slightly worse middle game where your king loses castling right. However, I agree that it's not a totally garbage opening, especially for amatuers there's still plenty to play for.

Play what you enjoy and try not to insult other player's opening choice.

Cool

This^^

Personally I love it when someone tries the Englund against me. Their generosity of a pawn for zero actual compensation is much appreciated. It is simply dubious and will be punished by stronger players that will simply accept the free pawn and make solid moves. It's a shame so many chess streamers push these gimmicky openings only for lower rated players to ultimately end up misled and frustrated.

I already did that. You missed it. I will paste my comment again just for you.
¨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.¨

I'd play you $50 a game if you tried that against me. You'd be walking home without your shirt after the match And it doesn't matter what move order you choose.

1 d4 e5? 2 exd5 d6 get stuffed by the correct 3 Nf3! Nc6 4 Bg5, and uh oh--you are having problems castling long without making consessions, since ...Be7 costs you a trade immediately and white takes the juicer on d6 and plays Nc3-d5 and you are losing the game.

And 4...f6 5 exf6 Nxf6 6 e3 Bg4 (typical brainless play, this is how everyone plays) 7 Be2 Be7/Qd7 8 Nc3 Be7/Qd7 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 h3 Bh5 11 b4(!)--a key move, white sacrifices the pawn back. Nxb4 12 Rb1 c5 13 Rb2(!) Kb8 14 Qd2 b6 15 a3 followed by Rfb1 and Bf4, and it's black who's getting attacked, not white.

The "old" gambit of 2 Nc6 3 Nf3 (3 Bf4?! is less accurate due to 3...g5) Qe7 4 Bf4! Qb4+ is just losing by force for black if white knows the correct response after Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3, which is Nd5!

a) it's not merely "the cost of a pawn", it's your central pawn and you are playing black, not white.

b) your development isn't straightforward, since whites pawn is embedded in your position and he can hang onto it for some time, forcing you to make compromises to reclaim it, which wastes time... sometimes this even leads to exchanges and you have exactly zero dynamic advantage... You don't get super-rapid development, actually. What you get is just an open game.

c) rapid development is a dynamic form of compensation, not a static (i.e. long term) form. You're playing black, so at best this leaves you equal in activity. By the time white castles and development is complete "development advantage" is mostly dissipated, or transformed into a different type of advantage - usually a positional one. That isn't available to you here, since you either gave up your central pawn, or your f pawn inwhich case your king is vulnerable. As black it is very hard to prevent white from completing development - really it just relies on white screwing up. Once white does complete development... you just have nothing, really. Every possible advantage you could claim to have in this line is provided to black in spades in other lines, like the Tarrasch.
Don't get me wrong, you can win games by memorizing just about any line, especially at a lower level - that's the nature of chess. But when we say an opening is good what we mean is it's not easily refuted by someone who makes minor effort... we mean it's better than the alternatives, and we're generally assuming the player is willing to put the time / thought into learning their lines. "Hey I beat someone with this!" is not really an argument that your line is good. Especially at 1600 level.

d) Whites response doesn't require deep memorization. The moves are natural and fairly obvious.

if you want a dynamic or open game as black there are far better options, like the Tarrasch, Benko, or the English defense. Even the Albin or the Budapest are better options than the Englund.

e) what worse is the Englund is not even a surprising opening, as most Englund players seem to think it is. Because in bullet white sees it 5%-7% of games, and this is a move-1 deviation... i.e. the surprise factor you think that you have, which an opening like this relies heavily on.... you do not have.

f) Based on how you talk about 1. d4 I can infer you are not a 1. d4 player. Hence you have no insight into what it's like to face this line, compared with the alternatives. But there are multiple high level 1. d4 players here who are telling you their thoughts on this line. As a 1. d4 player myself I can tell you what the easiest 1st move to face is... it's the Englund gambit.

The Englund Gambit's weak

The right order after 1.d4 e5 2. dxe5 d6 3. Nf3 is 3. .. Bg4, NOT 3. .. Nc6 . Then 4.e4 Nd7 is the Blackburne gambit while 4.Bf4 Nc6 is the Hartlaub gambit.

Bro you are a NM, you will beat me even with a full queen down lol. I am not a serious chess player, I like to play for fun and make my opponents uncomfortable. At my elo range of 16-1700 it works well, proof is that I have been steadily gaining rating(+600 in the last 2 months) playing only 1.e5 as a response to 1.d4, more specifically the Hartlaub-Charlick line no matter what they do.
Regarding the actual move order sansuk is correct above. You immediately play Bg4 and threaten the knight on f3. If white does nothing we will take it and keep the pawn in the center, while also forcing him to double his pawns on the f file. If he doesn't start with Nf3 and instead plays Bf4 after my d6, then I can play Qf6?! with double attack on the bishop on f4 and the b2 pawn, forcing white to lose tempi and hence keeping the center intact.

Mainline Englund is trash, I agree. I swear only by Hartlaub-Charlick line. You can watch the videos on it by the Chess Giant on Youtube(Solomon Ruddell, NM) to get the main idea of what I am saying. I am 1655 elo in rapid currently and gaining fast, and I only play 1.e5 as response to 1.d4 and absolutely nothing else.
Also I am not the one who started the insults, people keep posting how Englund players are stupid and they should quit chess. Its a reply to them that instead of complaining and getting annoyed, just smile and enjoy the win if you are that confident lol. I am confident in my abilities and my prep too hehe.

This is the latest game I played today. No idea wtf is going on here because my opponent immediately rejected dxe5 and played d5 instead, throwing me out of my theory on move 2 lmao. And yet Chess.com analysis said my opening accuracy was 94% and total game accuracy at 88% which is a relief, but also a good example of how natural developing moves are good enough apparently.

4.e4 may be of transpositional value (because of the 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4? 4.dxe5 move order).

Else, either 4.Nc3 or 4.Bg5 are better moves- white has certain compensation for the pawn he is winning...

You don’t understand the philosophy of romantic chess. You're incapable of putting yourself in the mind of a romantic player, and that’s why you underestimate the Englund Gambit and then you lose the game.

It’s the same thing with the Halloween Attack or the Latvian Gambit.

You underestimate the philosophy behind the opening, you ignore the psychology of the situation, and that inevitably leads you to defeat.

I don’t feel happy or confident when someone plays strange openings against me like 1.e4 g5 or 1.e4 f6, because I know there’s a psychological and strategic reason behind them.

When someone plays the Latvian Gambit against me, I don’t try to refute it either, because I know Black has 4 or 5 different options, and it’s likely that the day I face it I won’t remember the theory.
So against the Latvian I learned a line that doesn’t refute it, but is very practical for White:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nfd2!?

You should never underestimate any opening, no matter how bad it seems. No one really knows how to refute the Englund over the board especially not in a blitz game.

And besides, the key is its surprise factor.
If you know someone’s going to play the Englund, then you can prepare for it and maybe do fine. But within the Englund, they can play 5 or 6 different setups, and unless you're Magnus Carlsen, you don’t have all six responses memorized in your head.

Why should white take on e5? He is still somewhat better after something like 5.Nc3 etc.

The real issue though is 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.Bf4. I don't bother about the engine calling it around +1.8 but white achieves a huge advantage playing the most natural developing moves, while Black lacks any counterplay worth talking about.

The one and only good thing about the Englund is that it is not Black's worst answer against 1.d4: 1...g5 is certainly even worse.

You have a bad tendency towards publicly waxing and waning with "romantic" and grandiose descriptions about yourself.

And you apparently have no memory, since we've discussed the Latvian before and I espoused it wholeheartedly then - both in conversation with you, and others. So that sort-of shreds your core argument, doesn't it? Not that it matters - your argument is somewhat beside the point, because your true motive is just to wax and wane poetic about yourself publicly. It's something you do every time this topic comes up... you look for opportunities to wax and wane

But the real problem with your whole shpeel here is that the Englund is *not innovative*. And this line is *not a surprise to d4 players*. You are saying nothing tangible about the line, it's all poetic nonsense.

If we were to poll random chess players, and ask them to come up with an "innovative and original" response to 1. d4 on the fly... the Englund would be one of the highest on the list of responses. This form of "innovation" you claim to have is an entirely known and predictable... it is a fraudulent form of innovation, it's actually just *algorithmic*. This is how your style should be characterized - you are playing cookbook style of chess that is very algorithmic, tactical, and deviates early, allowing you to drill specific lines very hard... this style works mainly in bullet in an online setting... It doesn't require imagination, that is just an illusion that you heavily indulge in... what it really requires heavy drilling, alot of work on tactics, a short time control, etc..

And again, the fact your rating in bullet is high does nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that the Englund is a good opening. Firstly, bullet is a fundamentally lame time format where anything can work, openings good in bullet don't generalize to other time formats. Secondly.... good players very often play crap openings and win with them - Hikaru and Magnus are known for that. Likewise bad players can play great openings and lose with them horribly... so when we say an opening is or good or bad... what do we even mean? Well, we're speaking in relative terms... and we're thinking in generic terms as well. In your case, if you were to switch to another opening you'd still be winning games at a high elo - and so an appeal to your rating simply does not prop up your point. But go and play the Englund in rapid for 20 games or so, at your current rapid elo, and come back here / post the results.

Btw - the main line I play as white is alot less common than the Englund, and it's unknown, hence genuinely innovative - not like what you play. So does that make me more of a romantic than you, by your own argument? I think it does. But your argument sucks. Because the fact a line is rare or non-standard is not the end of analysis on the line, it's the very beginning, but you only scratch the surface in your analysis.

I do not understand why some people has to tell others what openings to play. Do we not play for fun ? I like the Englund because I like active piece play in an open center. I do not search to play the best moves, I want to indulge in agressive moves even if they are considered bad. I am happy to play openings as the Halloween, the Tennison, Icelandic gambit, Wing Gambit. Sometimes I win, sometimes I loose. No one has the right to criticize, it is my choice. I do not deny there is more chances to win with other openings. I don't play for life or death, or for a lot of money. I play for the same reason as Tarrasch said, creative chess makes me happy. But not when I am obliged to play what other people order me.

I’ve played the Englund in all time formats successfully.

If I stopped playing it at certain points in longer time controls like 25-minute games or 2 hour classical games, it's because I believe a more conservative approach in the opening is more productive it’s more practical. Playing on the razor’s edge in a 2-hour game doesn’t seem optimal to me in the long run.

The problem arises when I read comments like yours, always looking down on these so called "dubious" openings like the Englund.

By the way, it's false that any opening works in bullet.

If you want to reach your competitive peak, you have to carefully choose which openings to play. I’ve run many experiments with the London System, the Colle System, the Dutch, the Modern (1.d4 g6), the Caro-Kann… and in the end, I track which openings give me better or worse win rates. And of course, I study all of them thoroughly before playing them.

What have I discovered? That playing "romantic chess" is very effective, especially in fast time controls like 1|0, 3|0, or 5|0.

All those internet commentators even masters and grandmasters are full of prejudice and many of them have never given these kinds of openings a real chance. So, due to those biases, they always say the same thing: "At high levels, this opening is unplayable. No one has ever won with this at high levels."
ALL LIES AND FALLACIES, THE RESULT OF IGNORANCE AND NEVER HAVING SERIOUSLY STUDIED OR PLAYED THESE OPENINGS.

I play the Englund in bullet out of necessity, not preference.

I also play 1.Nf3 g5 (the Herrstrom Gambit) out of necessity, not preference, because it gives me better results than playing "normally."

Thanks to this new kamikaze approach, I’ve gone from 2600 to 2800 in bullet on Lichess in just one year.

So your theory that “in bullet it doesn’t matter what you play” is false. If I went back to playing the Caro-Kann or the Slav, I wouldn’t get the same results and not because I lack knowledge of those openings. In fact, I’ve studied them more deeply than the Englund or the Latvian, precisely because I don’t play the Englund in slower time controls, so I have to memorize more lines in the Caro or the Slav.
But the results in bullet and blitz show that romantic-style chess wins more.

So every time I hear someone say that the Latvian or the Englund is garbage, I have to defend them because it’s a LIE.

And since it’s a LIE, and you’re only basing yourselves on your normie, NPC prejudices, you feel the need to trash openings that challenge the established norms.

That's the bullet winrate of the Englund at 2500 level. White is outscoring black by about 6-8%.

In contrast, black has a positive winrate in the Tarrasch at the same elo and time format. And infact, the Tarrasch works very well even in rapid formats... it's an open and active / tactical game all the same -

Likewise the Benko, English Defense, and Albin are all scoring better than the Englund at this level.

And this isn't just a matter of winrates, because these results are consistent with a rational analysis of the Englund compared with other positions.

So no, my claim is not a lie, it's actually based on fact - unlike your claims which are at best anecdotal. And this is 2500+ elo here.

Furthermore... I've played against the line many times which is probably a better perspective when weighing it against the alternatives. You can easily get too tunnel-visioned and fixated on one particular "magical" line if you allow yourself. And when we talk about "trying a line" - last time I looked at your stats you didn't have any 1. d4 games, which probably explains why you think the Englund gambit is surprising to 1. d4 players.

And again, when I say an opening is crap... what I mean is not that you can't win with it. I mean that it is not as good as other options, and in a general context. Infact, if it's your style to deviate early and drill a tactical line to death / study your tactics endlessly... then play online bullet formats, it could be good *within that context*. Nonetheless, its still scoring badly there, and in a general sense the line clearly sucks. The position sucks, it's not mere opinion....

So no, try again

No, people do have a right to criticize an opening, and the choice to play it - that's a purpose of a forum on openings. What people do not have a right to do is tell you i.e. order you to play it or not. But no one has done that, and it is an entirely false pretense that they have. What people are doing is rationally justifying opinions, and people are both capable of reasoning and beholden to it. If people provide strong, compelling reasoning and this seems to pressure you to consider their arguments... well that's just part of having a rational mind, it's what separates you from the apes.

By your same logic no one would have a right to espouse an opening, because when you say one opening is good you necessarily imply it's better than the alternatives, which is exactly what you've just implied we can never do. It's a nonsensical argument. And infact... you can't think without evaluating things. So your argument essentially suggests that we must keep our thoughts to ourselves. Which, as a general mentality is... dishonest and cowardly. So no.