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

the scandinavian and stonewall are very easy to deal with. you just refuse to study them

"Stalefish" has a lot better understanding of chess than most of us and it says that it is +.54 for white with perfect play. The gambit is playable but I think I'd rather play a more classical game like the Nimzo-Indian or Catalan.

I tried to study the hated sicilian advance where ANY stank opening that allows 2.e5 can crawl under a rock and decay, and got nowhere with its infuriating move order crap.

I know MY style, and don't agree with the "escape artist" assessment that suggested french and english, it's fried liver muzio.

THIS is TOTALLY ME, from stumbling onto the mieses by accident, and figuring out when and how I could strike in this battle I muzioed the french outta with mobility, initiative, and getting those annoying pawns out of my way the hard, but FUN way

No book learnin', no one trick pony trap plans, no way fried liver is on the menu, so can opener attack it is. Mobility, initiative, and find your targets on the move. I am so satisfied with the POSITIONAL adjustments i made like re-activating the annoying pawn blocked c4 bishop, and how ruthlessly forcing my run was with perfectly coordinated pieces on great threat free squares. I wish I wasn't on this toy computer to see what a .3 centipawn loss is in accuracy

Get those effing pawns out of my way!

Is how I play. It's MY STYLE

if your style is playing dubious gambits where you lose if your opponent knows what hes doing, then go ahead.

if you want a open/sharp game so badly, then play the open Sicilian, milner berry (sound gambit), austrian attack, 150 setup agianst fianchettos, and open ruy lopez setups.

i can give you analysis and studies on these if you want

it is true that you will get sharp open positions in your gambits, but if your opponment has any idea what hes doing then you will end up in worse position and get nothing from playing that gambit.

If you look at stats in your own games, more often than not, if one player plays low accuracy, it tends to drag the other's down too, thus LEVELLING the playing field, or dragging them on to MY TURF.

You keep talking like every player knows how to play perfectly and are afraid of non-existent boogeyman men. Yes, there IS a main line against hartlaub charlick, and NO ONE PLAYS IT!

Perhaps the "escape artist" style assessment us more accurate than I want to accept because a lot of my games, like that mieses, that I was 90% accurate in, BTW, are fight on my back slugfest until i get the chance to stand up and start kicking.

Dubious wins at the amateur level. You look at ANY stat bump 1600-2000 in an opening and it's probably a gambit. Initiative is more powerful than pawns. If one isn't planning for an endgame, they're irrelevant, even hindrances. I HATE PAWNS! that is never going to change. Pieces are easier to understand.

I'm playing lines that emphasize MY strength, tactics and creativity.

When I looked at that can opener position, I was out of ideas because my opponent was driving me nuts playing HIS pawn pushing game. when I played my NOT A BLUNDER can opener attack, I made my opponent play MY open it up fast attacking game.

Initiative is my secret sauce, not counting pawns. The harder I can pressure, the better I can improve a position.

Deny me targets pushing cowardly pawns, and yeah, you can smother me with a pillow, but the klingon in me has nothing but contempt for such cowardly BORING play. I can't imagine anyone actually having FUN playing like that.

My style (limited by having to play lines that hinder it) is what holds my rating where it is while hypermoderns and still having to stonewall are what's holding me back.

Hartlaub charlick has set me free and speaks MY can opener attack loving style. You can babble all the nonsense about it you want, but you're not Me, you don't walk in my shoes, and you know absolutely nothing about what's best for me. ALL of my winning is in GAMBITS. Well... that and toothless Scandinavian which I despise if nothing else for allowing putrid 2.e5... a sniveling coward's pawn push, making ME have to push a totally no my style c pawn which does nothing to Nf6, Bc5 or open my f file.

I'm sure I have losing stats against that and know NOTHING I try against 3.d4 works.

What kind of something something insists a player DOUBLES DOWN on an opening that SUPRESSES ones strengths and raises unbearable stress when there are much more suitable lines that SCORE MUCH BETTER available?

Trying to study that sicilian advance abomination and only learning a few new ideas only INCREASED my frustration and contempt just like 2 wasted days trying to make sense of 4 different authors' MEANINGLESS babble on pawn endings.

You keep talking in absolutes that ignore BOTH statitistical FACTs as well as an individual's strengths, and in my case, TOTAL inability to understand ANY positional BABBLE. So, keep babbling babylon

Better yet, go school nakumura and show HIM the error of HIS gambiting ways.

Gambiteers will NEVER go away. You gave your cowardly afraid of battle ways and we play chess

If gambits are REALLY "so bad"

1. Why do they tend to have 8% better stats at their start in amateur games?

2. Why do french players run from them SCREAMING like little french girls that run into safe little corners and cry?

3. Why are so many players TERRIFIED of the marshall?

4. Why are many player's MOST HATED openings gambits like scotch, danish, king's and at least ONE play has admitted hating ENGLUND?

Could it be because THEY suck at tactical the same way I do positional?

I would quit chess AGAIN before ever giving a SINGLE gambit up, unless I find a better one like double danish/goering.

Non gambits don't strike hard and fast enough. That's probably why I'm so much better at gedult over BDG... 3.Nc3 wastes time where going straight to 3.f3 is more direct in its f7 aims.

The more time a line takes, the more time an opponent has to castle or throw cowardly pawns in the way. NOPE!

if you want to play dubiously for a quick win and for that dopamine rush then go ahead. but if you actually want to improve then stop playing your little ¨quick win¨ gambits

gambits are not all bad. some are good, some are bad. i sometimes play the benko and kings gambit and they work quite well, but thats because the ideas behind them are sound and you have legit compensation

here you have a big center and better development and activity for a pawn.

here you have absolutely nothing to compensate for your lost pawn

another great example is the smith morra/danish/göring gambit. these gambits have classical sound principles behind them. you use the open board and development advantage to take advantage of weak squares and checkmate black.

danish/goering are low on my priorities list after seeing my scandinavian stats are worse than I thought. I really despise that toothless target blind positional straightjacket with every fiber of my being.

back to TEDIOUS, & not as promising as rousseau, luccini gambit research. at least my falkbeer research is complete. well, I guess not today as clunky website refuses to cooperate today.

well the site finally cooperated, and after a couple hors of simple copying and pasting over 100 lines with transpositions, still in the luccini, my head is hurting

after a frustrating loss when an opponent queenside castled and thwarted my c2 aimed bishop with 3 pawn pushes, this "found my open lane" game in an annoying sideline was refreshing

gik-tally, I fully support anyway you wish to play.

chess maybe the last frontier where a man can live or die by his own choices. And accept the benefits or consequences as such.

but I do have to call issue with your comment about cowardly Vulcans hiding behind their pawns earlier in the thread.

I as one of those "cowardly Vulcans" as you described us is to me " illogical!"

some of us like the Caro kann and the QGA. And the exquisite beauty of a Karpovian game slowly squeezeing a position till there is nothing left but resignation. Or the silent realization on your opponents face that he cannot stop the pawn regardless of his best attempts. or the knowing that THAT file, THAT square, or THAT diagonal belongs to me!

Live long and Prosper

Gik-Tally, I would be interested to know what your OTB record is with the Englund Gambit? And what the strength of your opponents are there?

No offense, but the Englund gambit is utterly refuted. It is just not a good opening, and white can maintain his advantage relatively easily. It is more of a one-trick opening, in which won't get you very far. Though I suppose in fast blitz it is still playable.

EXACTLY

gik-tally, do you have any games where white does not play 2.dxe5?

I was curious what your thoughts and ideas are around say of white playing 2.c4,... instead?

I play my rating or higher, and my current stats are 43:53 with it, and I've had a losing streak, but that's not the point, well, compared to my WAY BEYOND PASSIVE losing slav wall stats, it kind of is. I love the open center and mobility WITHOUT vile despicable i hate them with a burning passion, get over it, fianchettos.

It's a stand up fight against sneaky pawn pushers I'm trying to drag on my battlefield with the weapons I'm most comfortable with. I'm going to have to start booking up.

There are no acceptable alternatives for me. It's WHY I quit playing a decade ago and only did tactics puzzles when i wanted to PLAY SOME CHESS.

I will play nothing BUT open file tactical

I support you brother!

chess is a vast sea and there is room for everyone to swim.

exactly.

i believe that in order to get better you need to learn how to handle both positional and tactical games, and this gik-tally dude is just too lazy to do so. maybe if he learned how positional games work and how to win in a positional game, he might get better, but for now he will stay as as some 1300 blundering away pieces exclaiming that "its what my god Mikhail Tal would do!" as he proceeds to lose the game down 2 pawns and a knight because he didn't use the "compensation" he had correctly.