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

hi cellen

you're to dang lazy to learn how to READ before you open your mouth!

I don't get positional AT ALL!!! I TRIED to learn the SIMPLE pawn ending over 2 days with 4 books and NEVER ONCE even completed a chapter. my brain isn't wired for ABSTRACTION! I'VE SAID IT A MILLION EFFING TIMES TROLLBOY!!!

I'm a VISUAL thinker and positional concepts are INVISIBLE MUMBO JUMBO. You think I ENJOY this handicap?!!

Boden mating? I learned THAT instantly the first time I read THAT chapter in a book and STILL retain that UNDERSTANDABLE concept.

I have name and number dyslexia. that might be why positional makes ZERO SENSE to me at all. just pawns drive me crazy. I effing despise pawns! I don't know how to play them at all which is why I've learned to compensate with minor piece sacking can opener attacks to get the annoying little bastids out of the way. they're sneaky little monsters in my world and the tool of cowards afraid of a stand up fight.

this is my style. for what I lack in in positional know how, I make up for with creativity and tactical vision (unless pawns or pressure are driving me nuts trying to find a way to grab some initiative).

an opening that denies me tactical opportunities, like the stankwall and skankanavian are wastes of my talents and hold me back.

give me an truly aggressive and active start, and i'll end opponents QUICKLY. in looking at my gedult BDG games, I not only have a winning record with it, but never found a game that took more than 20 moves to win in over a dozen yesterday. I haven't even studied it like i did the main line BDG which I did poorly in, like pretty much any opening that plays Nc3 or Nc6 1st.

there's NO POINT in wasting time studying positional voodoo. I don't get it, i know i don't get it. that's life.

I will continue to improve my rating by finding MORE openings that suit my style so I can solve problems the same way this opening solved my 1.d4 problem, the alapin diemer SERIOUSLY solved my french dread, smith morra is the ONLY line I've beaten sicilians with, and stumbling onto the mieses gambit in the carokann by accident has led to a nice winning record there.

I win my games playing my way.

stonewalling LITERALLY holds me back where hartlaub charlick has set me free to find targets to chew on.

keep arguing that my winning stats are somehow "broken".

i would quit chess AGAIN and go back to just doing tactics exercises again before EVER adopting a toothless wussy GM approved pawn pushing coward's opening. I'm still trying to get rid of them as it is. fahgah scandinavian!!!

gambits for life!

and I like taking vulcans (I'm actually MORE logical than ANYONE here as a mastermind personality type and borderline logician) out of their plans and dragging them out into the open and stomping them every chance I can. like that annoying pawn pushing game above.

when you take a positional player out of THEIR safe space, they tend to crumble, unable to PLAY CHESS with their PIECES, to defend properly against attacks and so on. you drag a positional player down to gambit level accuracy, and they aren't as accurate as they THINK they are.

this is a mieses gambit game, but it's perhaps the most perfect example of defeating positional with tactical I've played

I was getting VERY annoyed at my opponent's pawn pushing crap until I decided to make my stand, and once I did, my pieces were PERFECTLY CO-ORDINATED for non-stop carnage.

if my pieces aren't ready to spring, I'm not happy, and if I get unhappy enough, I just don't want to play chess PERIOD as happened when I had enough of the stonewall and scandinavian with no adequate tools to study theory with, and until I found hartlaub charlick, no adequate theory to study.

there is NO 1.d4 reply BETTER suited for MY STYLE than this, and it only took me 20 years to find

YES, because it is self-imposed. The only barrier preventing you from learning positional play is your own defeatist attitude. Your brain isn't 'wired differently', you're just being lazy. Stop using genetics as an excuse to give up.

gik-tally, I love the meme!

all I see is Leonard Nimoy saying " pure energy".

now, to the chess. that Mieses opening was a good game! the second chess book that I ever read was Mikhail Tals 100 best games. it ruined my chess lol.

then I read How Karpov Wins by GM Edmar Mednis. and things made sense again.

as far as the Mieses goes, I wouldn't play exf3. white gets too much development.

as for the Englund, I have experimented with 1.d4,e5 2.c4,... and possibly Nc3 depending on play.

black has 3 choices:

1) take, exd4.

2) advance, e4

3) defend, d6 is the most logical. and black has entered a KID structure by default.

I used to play an expert level player who only played the Englund gambit against d4. that is how I would take him out of his game.

they dont. You just refuse to learn them

That feeling is relatable.

Though I also feel inclined to point out that 2 days of working isn't that much, in any craft or pursuit.

Sometimes, the effort that's required to properly learn a skill is better measured in months or even years, not days ...

There have been some chess lines and positions that I have wracked my brain against for countless hours, coming back to them again and again ... sometimes this kind of tedious work is required to reach a break-through - that "ah-hah!" moment that you've been trying to reach for weeks upon weeks.

Sometimes, it's like digging down through the soil. Digging, and digging, and digging ... Until your shovel finally strikes the wood of a buried chest.

But those chests will remain buried if one refuses to dig.

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.