Destroying lame 1.d4 players with the Englund gambit

Crazedrat1000 : Read the title of this thread : Englund players are lame. So we have to behave as herd animals and have no right to follow our own preferences which gives us more fun.

The title of the thread claims that 1. d4 players are lame. I think you're very confused.

You can follow your preferences while knowing the line you're playing is sub-optimal, but fun or whatever. What you can't do is stake a claim that the Englund is a good line against 1. d4 and then ignore counter-arguments / fail to provide your own reasoning, but default to "it's my preference!". Because you (the OP) made a claim.

It is not because statistics show that some opening is in majority more succesfull than another that it would also better in an individual case. I do not know the statistics of Basman 's g4 and g5 games, but I am sure his results will overflow the averages. Because of his personal talent in this kind of positions.

You are right, my mistake. Sorry, English is not my mother language.

Yes but when we say an opening is "good" we mean that usually not just in a bullet context, but in a somewhat generic and objective sense, and relative to the alternatives. For example.... how would our friend have scored had he obsessed about the Tarrasch instead? We have no idea. And how will he perform in a different time format, or in an OTB setting? Probably worse. His bullet rating far outstrips his others.

If the claim was something like... "the Englund is good in bullet" - well I probably would not strongly disagree with that (although it's not even performing well there), I would just respond that bullet is an inferior mode which rewards mostly memorization and tactics, and that a whole giant slew of openings work in bullet that don't work in other formats. Infact often when a line is analyzed and thought to be bad... the natural conclusion is "but maybe in bullet....". Bullet performance is really not a good standard of evaluation in this conversation. You can insist on bullet context but you should qualify your statements by that. The Englund is conducive to memorization and that's probably why he loves the line. Let's not pretend that the line is innovative or surprising, it is neither - it is a move-1 deviation that bullet players encounter 5-7% of the time, it's not surprising.

Stats and engine eval are the two most objective ways we have of assessing a line. The point here is not that either of these prove the case, but rather that the best information we have supports the case. When you're prone to fever dreams it's good to temper your opinions with some form of objective information, however you can obtain it.

I'm playing in a vote Chess game where our Black opponents played the Elephant Gambit (1 e4, e5; 2 Nf3, d5). We are in good shape (in fact, winning, in my opinion) and on the 43rd move. Vote Chess games are de facto correspondence games. Our "time control" is one move every 3 days with no conditionals as one can do in individual events. My point is that despite being disparged by most Chess books that focus on openings, I actually have new found respect for the Elephant Gambit. Although it is not ever going to be in my "arsenal" when playing Black (and I mostly play correspondence these days in individual tournaments), I see that it could be an effective weapon in blitz and relatively short time controls (G/30 d5) in classical style Chess. Even in longer time controls (G/90 d5) it might work at the under 2000 USCF rating level. Even though it seems doubtful to be used in correspondence games be them individual or vote Chess tournaments, it, nevertheless, properly played, can make the game be "stretched out" as evidenced by the aforementioned current vote Chess game that I am engaged in. One of my Chess friends, who usually has a USCF rating in the low 2000's, regularly plays "unsound" gambits even in slower time controls against his "equals". His results against them are slightly less than 50-50 and the one year he won our club championship (run as a 5 round Swiss), he, albeit, played more conservatively in the last two rounds with White and Black. Nevertheless, when playing guys rated 200 to 300 rating points lower than him (a common situation in the early rounds of a Swiss), he almost always wins with maybe a few draws sprinkled in. It has been said that he could have made Master years ago if he had not played such "nonsense". He's 51 years old now. He somewhat acknowledges this but he loves gambit play since he finds it more "fun" and interesting. Admittedly, as one of my Master friends joking observed, our gambit loving friend knows this "crap" (he used another word!) backwards and forwards!

By the way, my friend can't wait to see the vote Chess game I spoke of whhen it's finished since he plays the Elephant Gambit himself!

I was in a chessclub since I was 16. My repertoire in the beginning was Kings gambit with White, Kings Indian and Tarrasch as Black. I tried a lot of other sound openings in the years, but they did not improve my ratings. I won against lower rated guys and I could rarely whin against higher ones. I think it's normal, higher raters could think more moves ahead. After 30 years I got in the ban of unorthodox play and now my rating improved because I could sometimes win against much higher ratings. I learnt you do not have to play the best moves but the more embarassing and confusing ones. You have to give the opponent the opportunity to go wrong.

Although it is often said by strong players to play "the board and not the man", delving into crazy complicated lines can benefit the stronger player to give a quicker win as the weaker opponent will not be able to find the safest path to survive or to possibly even win. I believe that it was Emanuel Lasker who hinted at using psychology to get an advantage against an opponent like going into an ending from an advantageous middlegame if you feel that the ending phase of a Chess game is not their strength even if they have an edge. You use your wits to their best ability and whatever it takes to consistantly win, you gp for it!

I really agree with just about everything you post... and this is no exception!

I have a hypothesis:  "The dynamics of the game of Chess are same for everyone regardless of level when two opponent's of equal strength play each other"

I don't think these detractors understand the practical advantages you are talking about.

Englund, Latvian, King's Gambit, and others... It's so easy to look at an engine and say "the opening or defense is garbage, line xyz destroys it" then dismiss it. Thinking your going to play the position like a 3200+ engine is delusional at best! Thinking your going refute someone's pet line who is of similar strength is truly a cautionary tale!

As a club player, I know when I'm playing someone of similar strength and we are playing an opening that I am booked up on... if they play an equalizing move, I still have the practical advantage due to I have firm grip on the position. Any inaccuracies detected on my part lead to an attacking idea that I have developed through playing the position a 100 times or more OTB. I avoid lines that are good for my opponent or cut across their plans by transposing into another opening or defense. That's reality...

IMHO.... If someone finds out what you play and 10 min before the game, looks at an engine and prepares a winning idea... You didn't know the opening or defense as good as you should.

Then I believe you are spot on on playing certain openings based on certain philosophies. King's Gambit with the philosophy of romantic chess as an example.

The Chess you cite is exciting, varied and fun... AND PRACTICAL!!!! The chess your proponent's cite is theoretical, dry, predictable IMO... not very fun...

Certainly you don't have to play the best moves, but the analysis of a line does not end with "well this isn't an objectively good move, but it's somewhat uncommon, so it's good". But that's about the extent of the analysis I've seen in this thread. That combined with the waxing and waning, and so fourth.