right. the theory might not be as scary as I first thought as once I got down to the sidelines, a lot of it transposes back up to main lines.
Come on the english isnt that scary.
You should just develop and avoid creating weaknesses.
Im black in this game my opponent is an 1800 in lichess I don’t know how to flip the board or paste it In.
the d5 variation is very annoying but most opponents just blunder the 2 pawns if you put enough pressure resulting in a pretty open game
right. the theory might not be as scary as I first thought as once I got down to the sidelines, a lot of it transposes back up to main lines.
Come on the english isnt that scary.
You should just develop and avoid creating weaknesses.
if I wasn't positionally brain dead, that would be a plan, but theory is the only way FOR ME to really get through an opening. I might not be able to UNDERSTAND opening theory, but it can be memorized... unless it's a move order nightmare like the rousseau gambit I wish I already knew. I tried studying it and in 1 attempted game, it went bad quickly
5 moves in, and I'm ALREADY losing, and it wasn't as anywhere near as intuitive as king's gambit is to me. I just want to quit the scandinavian SOOOOOO BAD! (and not play ANY defense that allows 2.e5, so it's gotta be 1.e4 e5. OH! It wasn't even a rousseu, but a jaenish/schliemann which I've NEVER studied.
it's REALLY annoying that I let white come in on the f diagonal! as an f pawn pusher, I should know better and realized Qh5+ was coming too late
all the "winning" white is doing is PURELY THEORETICAL! IF white plays correctly, he'll get an ADVANTAGE (not straight out WIN!), sure, but white never does, so your hating is based on NEGLIGIBLE possibilities. when and IF white starts improving, so will I, and have the home turf familiarity for testing lines.
like I'm pretty sure I already shared, even at the 2000 level, white isn't "winning" anything more than a few percentage points. BFD! I'm fine with that. it comes with the territory! if you can't take facing OCCASIONAL strong lines, don't play gambits.
I've come across a FEW players that hate gambits including 1 who hates englunds. (probably a londoner)
right. the theory might not be as scary as I first thought as once I got down to the sidelines, a lot of it transposes back up to main lines.
Come on the english isnt that scary.
You should just develop and avoid creating weaknesses.
if I wasn't positionally brain dead, that would be a plan, but theory is the only way FOR ME to really get through an opening. I might not be able to UNDERSTAND opening theory, but it can be memorized... unless it's a move order nightmare like the rousseau gambit I wish I already knew. I tried studying it and in 1 attempted game, it went bad quickly
5 moves in, and I'm ALREADY losing, and it wasn't as anywhere near as intuitive as king's gambit is to me. I just want to quit the scandinavian SOOOOOO BAD! (and not play ANY defense that allows 2.e5, so it's gotta be 1.e4 e5. OH! It wasn't even a rousseu, but a jaenish/schliemann which I've NEVER studied.
it's REALLY annoying that I let white come in on the f diagonal! as an f pawn pusher, I should know better and realized Qh5+ was coming too late
all the "winning" white is doing is PURELY THEORETICAL! IF white plays correctly, he'll get an ADVANTAGE (not straight out WIN!), sure, but white never does, so your hating is based on NEGLIGIBLE possibilities. when and IF white starts improving, so will I, and have the home turf familiarity for testing lines.
like I'm pretty sure I already shared, even at the 2000 level, white isn't "winning" anything more than a few percentage points. BFD! I'm fine with that. it comes with the territory! if you can't take facing OCCASIONAL strong lines, don't play gambits.
I've come across a FEW players that hate gambits including 1 who hates englunds. (probably a londoner)
80% of the game is positional play.
what has this forum become
what has this forum become
Bullying i recon.
it's become a place to talk about chess. here haters.. lap this one up!
UGH! I just DID NOT see that 26.Rxf3 rook lift coming and snap moved. all I saw was Rg1 and had dismissed 26.Rxf3 Qxf3
Im black in this game my opponent is an 1800 in lichess I don’t know how to flip the board or paste it In.
the d5 variation is very annoying but most opponents just blunder the 2 pawns if you put enough pressure resulting in a pretty open game
Clearly 1800 in lichess isn't good. d4-d5 is weak because this opening is winning for white and yet he lets black equalise with d5.]
After Nf6, white should probably play Bg5 and then if black goes Qa5+, Bd2 and maybe gambit the b pawn. But it isn't promising for white because black has been allowed to play e5. It's a small edge to black.
The thing with lichess players mostly is that there are 2 options. Absolute garbage play or titled level play almost no in between so it’s hard to gain elo points
but the d5 variation is pretty annoying and hard to play against for me cuz I can’t deal with space disadvantage a lot and i like attacking. I’m trying to work with space disadvantage with the Caro but I still lose a lot of my games cuz of the annoying bishop b5 pin
1d4 e5 2 de d6 3 ed Bd6 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 Bg5 Nf6 6 Nbd2 with e3/Bd3/c3/o-o to follow Whire just avoids cheapie
1d4 e5 2 de Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Nc3 White will be the one getting the cheapest in!
So again I ask how long do you intend to be a 1600 player?
I play this junk myself knowing full well it is junk, and I see the allure but don't fall for the illusion of great things from this opening scheme
No, a real gambit player would play f6. After all, this is only good for blitz anyway. So the right move is Bf4.
not me. f6 is UGLY! NORMALLY, you DO block Bg5 with f6, but not when there's a pawn on e5 ready to rip one's castle open and surrender development. Qd7 has better stats. I'd block with the bishop to keep developing and trade pieces. it might surrender 0-0-0 plans after 5.Bxe7 Nxe7 6.exd6 cxd6.
an isolated pawn is better than opening one's castle up in the opening, and inviting Qh5+ to further wreck the pawn structure. I don't agree with stalefish about f6.
If i'm going to gambit material, it's for attack, not throwing pawns and pieces at a problem until it goes away and creates a new one
besides, if white isn't calculating, there's POTENTIAL to win the exchange on g5 if white's careless and plays something like Nc3
when my opponent puts too much pressure on my position, I'll try to exchange. I get right in queens' faces when they're too much in my space. the OPPOSITE of removing a defender... remove the attacker.
If black wants to play ...f6 in the Englund, he can do it as early as move 2.
e.g.
No, a real gambit player would play f6. After all, this is only good for blitz anyway. So the right move is Bf4.
not me. f6 is UGLY! NORMALLY, you DO block Bg5 with f6, but not when there's a pawn on e5 ready to rip one's castle open and surrender development. Qd7 has better stats. I'd block with the bishop to keep developing and trade pieces. it might surrender 0-0-0 plans after 5.Bxe7 Nxe7 6.exd6 cxd6.
an isolated pawn is better than opening one's castle up in the opening, and inviting Qh5+ to further wreck the pawn structure. I don't agree with stalefish about f6.
If i'm going to gambit material, it's for attack, not throwing pawns and pieces at a problem until it goes away and creates a new one
besides, if white isn't calculating, there's POTENTIAL to win the exchange on g5 if white's careless and plays something like Nc3
when my opponent puts too much pressure on my position, I'll try to exchange. I get right in queens' faces when they're too much in my space. the OPPOSITE of removing a defender... remove the attacker.
Just play the Semi-Slav or Benko Gambit lol I mean you don't get much more attacking than the Semi-Slav (well, botvinnik) and the e5 d6 thing isn't bad but when they don't accept it's quite ugly
I play this junk myself knowing full well it is junk, and I see the allure but don't fall for the illusion of great things from this opening scheme
the GREAT THING about this opening is that it lets me do MY THING MY WAY. it's an opening I understand and that doesn't leave me screaming in rage trapped behind my own pawns every effing game as with the (OMG I hate it!) slav-wall. open center, lead in development, SUPER MOBILITY. what's so hard for people to understand? I despise fianchettos, so this is the ONLY game in town FOR ME.
I've begged and begged and effing BEGGED for an opening EXACTLY LIKE THIS for over a decade and quit chess because no one thought to suggest it.
it's the ONLY... I repeat ONLY line that i like to play as black! eff the skankinavian and skankwall!!!
eff indians, benko and anything else with a fianchetto!
eff closed lines
eff positional lines!!!! (and eff everybody that keeps trying to steer me AWAY from my FAVORITE line and into more crap I despise!) you don't want to play it, don't, but I found a life partner that SPEAKS MY LANGUAGE unlike all the JUNK you all recommend. unless there's something MORE open and tactical without VILE DESPICABLE fianchettos, there's nothing more my style vs 1.d4 than THIS.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
BTW I have my first win with my advance variation "book line" with ...f5 & ...Bc5 after losing my 1st attempt, though my stats are winning so far against 2.d5.
right. the theory might not be as scary as I first thought as once I got down to the sidelines, a lot of it transposes back up to main lines.