Hi
Duras Gambit.
Sort:
19 days ago
0
#83
burblegurg wrote:
Durås gambit is one of my favorites for a reason, especially because high elo players still fall for it. in most variations, black is actually the one attacking, when it seems like you are defending. I dislike playing with my knight to f6 because I prefer the more extremely secure position of bf8, ng8, kh8, rh7
I would highly recommend you to NEVER play kf7 ever again. I understand that sometimes the duras gambit can be a decent opening, but kf7 pretty much makes it worse than the bongcloud. And from there, this opening just drives deeper into pure insanity.
Here's why: you are aiming for a pretty much EXACT 9 move line in the hopes of winning a queen. If this guarenteed you a queen or gave you valid compensation if you didn't, this opening would make a little more sense. But nope! You decide you hate stockfish and logic, so you run your king to the edge of the board, while making sure that there are no pawns left to protect it! On the other hand, all the moves until bd3 are reasonable by white. bd3 blocks the d2 pawn from developing the dark squared bishop, and its clear that your white bishop and queen are not enough to checkmate yet. This move is not that horrible, but the next one absolutely is. Relying on qh5/qh4 is the most absurd part of this opening yet. White has a dozen different options to go to after bh6, all which still rank white a pawn or more above black. If white moves literally anywhere but those two squares, they are up 2 pawns while your kingside is quite... interestingly positioned. You said that "high elo players still fall for it," but a discovered attack is a quite well known type of threat to most players, making it even less likely qh5/4 occurs. The position black has relies pretty much on a singular type of threat, and if it doesn't work, black is doomed. You aren't attacking if this line doesn't work; white's queen is out and if they are able to bring in more pieces, that's game over for black. The thing craziest about this "trap" is that even if it does work, it gives black about a 2.5 point (the same amount white is up the entire opening for winning a pawn and having black's king go on f7) advantage for winning a queen!
I get that you probably play this type of opening because its fun and most people don't know what to do. But remember, there are many other opening traps that are far less risky. I also understand that this opening would work on lower rated players more often, and its probably not nearly as bad as I was yapping about it. But you are just learning to rely on the hope that your opponent doesn't see your tactic instead of building up to one that is forced, when you should think of them just as smart as you. It teaches you to focus on a single, unlikely line that will most likely never reach fruition instead of learning the important opening ideas of piece development and king safety. In the end, its your choice whether you want to keep playing this opening. But weigh the likelihood of your opponent falling for it to your position if they don't. Is it worth it?
19 days ago
0
#84
TheYoungElite wrote:
burblegurg wrote:
Durås gambit is one of my favorites for a reason, especially because high elo players still fall for it. in most variations, black is actually the one attacking, when it seems like you are defending. I dislike playing with my knight to f6 because I prefer the more extremely secure position of bf8, ng8, kh8, rh7
I would highly recommend you to NEVER play kf7 ever again. I understand that sometimes the duras gambit can be a decent opening, but kf7 pretty much makes it worse than the bongcloud. And from there, this opening just drives deeper into pure insanity.
Here's why: you are aiming for a pretty much EXACT 9 move line in the hopes of winning a queen. If this guarenteed you a queen or gave you valid compensation if you didn't, this opening would make a little more sense. But nope! You decide you hate stockfish and logic, so you run your king to the edge of the board, while making sure that there are no pawns left to protect it! On the other hand, all the moves until bd3 are reasonable by white. bd3 blocks the d2 pawn from developing the dark squared bishop, and its clear that your white bishop and queen are not enough to checkmate yet. This move is not that horrible, but the next one absolutely is. Relying on qh5/qh4 is the most absurd part of this opening yet. White has a dozen different options to go to after bh6, all which still rank white a pawn or more above black. If white moves literally anywhere but those two squares, they are up 2 pawns while your kingside is quite... interestingly positioned. You said that "high elo players still fall for it," but a discovered attack is a quite well known type of threat to most players, making it even less likely qh5/4 occurs. The position black has relies pretty much on a singular type of threat, and if it doesn't work, black is doomed. You aren't attacking if this line doesn't work; white's queen is out and if they are able to bring in more pieces, that's game over for black. The thing craziest about this "trap" is that even if it does work, it gives black about a point (the same amount white is up the entire opening for winning a pawn and having black's king go on f7) advantage for winning a queen!
I get that you probably play this type of opening because its fun and most people don't know what to do. But remember, there are many other opening traps that are far less risky. I also understand that this opening would work on lower rated players more often, and its probably not nearly as bad as I was yapping about it. But you are just learning to rely on the hope that your opponent doesn't see your tactic instead of building up to one that is forced, when you should think of them just as smart as you. It teaches you to focus on a single, unlikely line that will most likely never reach fruition instead of learning the important opening ideas of piece development and king safety. In the end, its your choice whether you want to keep playing this opening. But weigh the likelihood of your opponent falling for it to your position if they don't. Is it worth it?
Preach it!
At least in my game I have conceded that because my opponent made a mistake on the 6th move, my claim that the Duras Gambit won me the game could be contested if I had a better opponent.
Durås gambit is one of my favorites for a reason, especially because high elo players still fall for it. in most variations, black is actually the one attacking, when it seems like you are defending. I dislike playing with my knight to f6 because I prefer the more extremely secure position of bf8, ng8, kh8, rh7
Are you describing this game or the game you previously posted?
In the game you posted, if I were white, I would have played 7.Qg6 instead of attacking the rook with my bishop. My queen couldn't be attacked, and if my opponent were to attack my pawn and check the king with their bishop, like they did in your game's 7th and 8th moves, my king could take it because my queen is out of the rook's attacking line.
Even if I had played 7.Bd3 first, when black's bishop attacks my queen, I would have played 8.Qf5 instead. I think it's very bold as black to assume that white is going to move their queen in front of their opponent's rook's attacking line instead of lining it up with their own bishop to go for a checkmate.
In my scenario here, if black were experienced, they would likely see that white's bishop is now open to attacking their rook and having mate, so they would advance a pawn in front of their queen or bishop that allows them to defend the rook and prevent the checkmate.
Worst case scenario for white, the game evens out but they still have black's king in a precarious position. That's why I wouldn't move my king 2nd if I were black.