END your 1.d4/London/closed game/positional woes forever with 1.d4 e5!? 2.dxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6!

maybe he should learn openings and middlegames and/or even endgames from online videos like on youtube

model win with the Hartlaub-Charlick

unfortunately it's quite rare to win this quick

If I find myself in some random gambit I don't know I'm not going to take the pawn, I'm just giving it back and playing chess.

In this case black can't even take the pawn back. This position looks terrible for black -

I have never played against the England Gambit.

I have been mainly 1.e4 player the majority of my chess careers.

The times I did play or experiment with 1.d4 no one ever played this line against me.

It is safe to say this position is unique to me.

I read the majority of this thread to understand what people had to say about this position.

Several people have said this line is refuted, but their seemed to be debate on the refutation.

————————————

Once, I read a great quote by famous chess player.

I can’t remember who said the quote as it has been many years since I read it.

I can’t remember the author, but I still remember the words.

”To Refute a Gambit, One must Accept it.”

The quote popped in my mind because a lot of people on this thread seem to believe in order to refute the above line declining the Gambit is way to go.

It made me wonder and as I began to wonder I started looking at the chess position.

The below position:

I starred at the position for 2 hours.

The move I found was Bd2.

I think the move Bd2 is very powerful.

If a true refutation existed, I think I would start by looking at the move Bd2.

What do the England Gambit players play against the move Bd2?

Have you ever seen it?

I play a reversed Scandinavian (as white) and usually do every well against the defense, not sure it's all that sound

another quick mate

against this I play Bg4 first and then if Bg5 attacking the queen it moves to d7

I thought the move Bd2 was a very powerful move because I believe it attacks Black weakness. I was taught in order to win a chess game. You must seek to attack your opponents weakness.

So the question is:

What do you think is Black’s weakness below?

Some people might know what is weak above and Some people might not know what is weak.

The answer I came up with is the Dark Squares, but not all Dark squares are weak. It is very specific set of Dark squares which are weak.

How did I reach the above conclusion?

Well, normally in a Queen Pawn position, White has pawn on occupying d4 (Dark Square) and it is influencing the e5 (Dark Square). Black also has lines where he attacks or influence Dark Center Squares. The Kings Indian Defense for example.

So under normal conditions the Center Dark Squares d4 & e5 are being occupied by pawns or are being attacked/influenced by pawns.

Now, when you look at the below position, what do you notice?

Most of the pawns which Occupy or Control the Center d4 & e5 dark square have been traded off.

What does this mean?

What this means is the Center Dark Squares have become weaker vs. normal.

What else do you notice?

The Dark Center Squares d4 & e5 are part of a Diagonal. What minor piece in chess attacks on Diagonals? Dark Square Bishop

So in the above position, I have recognized a weakness due to how Black played and I want to attack it. I want to use Bishop to attack it.

I want the Bishop on the d4 & e5 diagonal.

How does a person normally get Bishop on that diagonal? They often do it by playing b3 & Bb3.

The problem is if white plays b3. They can run into problems with Black playing a Qf6 sort of move which would force white to play an awkward move like c3 which defeats the purpose of what white is trying to achieve.
So how does white attack the weaknesses while avoiding the b3 issue?

The move I came up with was Bd2.

The idea is the Bishop on d2 is temporary and the plan is to move the Bishop to c3.

The follow up ideas would be to build more pressure against the d4 & e5 Dark Squares.

the compensation is that the position is easier to play with black, if you take the pawn I take back, kick the bishop out with f6 and castle and black is ahead in development

if not black will eventually take the pawn on e5

also +0.9 doesn't mean anything if you're not playing a GM or so (especially in the opening)

I think white best move is to take the d6 pawn.

I think the 4.Bd2 line seems very scary for Black.

I don’t see what Black can do against it.

—————————————

However, Several people have been showing these White side declining the d6 pawn lines.

I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the 3.Nf3 declining line.

I think if Black responses to Nf3 with 3…Nc6.

I do like the look of Bg5 because Black will have to play awkward Queen move in front of there Bishop.

——————————

If Black plays 3…Bg4, I am wondering about the move Bf4.

I don’t seem to like Bg5 in that line because if Black moves their Queen it isn’t in front of the Bishop anymore. It doesn’t look as bad for Black.

Bf4 seems to threaten an isolated pawn for Black.

If White does play Bf4, Black seems to be in awkward situation. Would Black have to play d5? 

I think the whole thing looks much more promising if you play the gambit with white.

Right, but after 2...d4 white's best line is to struggle achieving equality (3.Nce2 e5 4.Ng3 Be6!).

I don't think 3. Nb1 is that bad. It looks like an Englund Gambit declined (1. d4 e5 2. d5) with colors reversed. Black has an extra tempo, but the position is closed, so it shouldn't make much difference. It won't give you an opening advantage, but it should be playable.

Here's how your position is performing on lichess for black at 2200 blitz. This is the position we reached without consulting an engine or theory, just playing good looking natural moves:

When you play suboptimal moves such as e3 for white your argument works out better, though still not very well... after Bxd6 white can just play Ne4 or Nc4 and try to trade, there's really nothing good you can do there beside trade, and the move is not that hard to find. At this point you have pretty much nothing. The logic for finding this move is kind of like.... well, I'm up a pawn, he's trying to attack so I'd like to trade down, he can't avoid the trade... Alternatively white can play c3 and plan to castle queenside. Castling into the attack via e3 would be low on my list of things to do here. As white I can see you planning to castle queenside / push your kingside pawns a mile away. Still, even e3 is performing well, though I think I'd probably have played c3.

Eval generally matters, it reflects the actual logic of the position. There are cases where human compensation makes up for loss of objective eval but it is not every case, this is not something to be assumed by default with no further analysis, to do that would be to allow Dunning-Krugers to rule decisions.

Generally speaking gambits work out better if a) you're white, b) the opponent plays some non-developing move, c) you're not throwing away central pawns, d) you have some complex pressure as a result. Here you have none of that. Even in the suboptimal position you setup - there is no serious threat on the d file. If white plays Rd1 your queen will be under pressure on the d file... Qd2 wasn't a super useful move. Your bishop is eyeing the kingside, but white hasn't castled kingside... and whites bishop is also over there. To push your pawns you'll have to retreat your bishop first. When you do tempo white bishop he'll just retreat it to g3 and threaten to trade it off for yours. White also has a pin via Bb5 he can play if he wants...

This isn't just abstract theorizing, I've played against the Englund many times and it is very noticeably easier to play against... it is really nothing like facing mainline d4 positions in terms of the difficulty.