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

sometimes

sometimes not

then sometimes again

I very much enjoy fighting on my terms and my way as black for once.

why are people still on this forum? this gambit is complete trash and easy to refute

END your 1.d4/London/closed game/positional woes forever with 1.e4

decining is how you win

1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 d6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4.Bg5

has NEVER HAPPENED in a game yet. otherwise I'm 44:56 with 3...Bg4 in 9 games and have won 4 out of 5 games with 3...Nc6. I should make learning to play 3...Nc6 a priority and do a bit of homework

4.Bf4 - won 2 out of 3 games

4.e4 won

4.exd6 won

so yes, this opening does punish WHITE's many mistakes, hard pressed to intuitively find the winning line.

i haven't beaten 2.c4 or 2.Nc3 yet

here's how you beat it:

I hate playing hide and seek with kings and pawns in the center and lose games for it, but not as spectacularly as this one I passed 2 opportunities to grab that rook because I was too busy stressing the center, and possibly the clock

why keep continuing to use trashy gambits that have clear refutations? these little tricks will only get you so far and if you truly want to get better then start playing something more sound. again these gambits are the reasnn why you will never get better and keep losing.

Yes, all that WINNING and finally ENJOYING games as black for the FIRST TIME EVER, is "holding me back". I should go back to the "respectable" stonewall, go back to losing 10% or more of my games, hate playing and toss my tactical tools out the window to appease your sad butt?

All my WINNING is in gambits, except the toothless scandinavian which i DESPISE, and even then, get crushed in closed and positional lines, and all of my losing is in positional and hypermodern.

It's too freakin' bad for YOU that attackers love gambits. As bad as you claim this gambit is, I just smoked an 1850 with it BECAUSE I need mobility. That's where my skills shine and you positional weenies aren't as smart as you THINK you are getting mated in under 20 without your safe little cocoon.

I'm going to keep playing MY WAY wherever my rating peaks. I hate long boring games, even if I win them. Chess is GLORIOUS BATTLE! I'll leave cowardly bean counting accounting to you.

I've searched for EXACTLY this opening 2 decades with the likes of you trying to gatekeep everyone else's repertoire. All your trash talk, but my CRUSHING STATS, with an "inferior" opening only makes each win MORE DELICIOUS.

I spit on your positional lawn, now that I've found hartlaub charlick, pawn pushing cowards gotta FIGHT ON MY TURF, and they just aren't up to it. They can't keep up with a ruthless CREATIVE attacker who disrupts their plans.

If I WASN'T crushing opponents, no matter WHAT they throw at me 2:1, you might have a point, but arguing against RESULTS makes you look intellectually challenged.

Out in the open is MY STYLE, deal with it troll. The only thing holding ME back is everything ELSE I play as black and that feeds my stress and frustration, keeping me "out of the zone", where I can think more clearly, and games come EASY, even at the 1800 level.

I get wood every time someone pushes 1.d4... yeah... you THOUGHT I was going to play passive and = so you can get that nice cushy pawn pushing coward endgame you wanted... not going to happen DEFEND YOURSELF OR DIE!

you're such a bawk-bawk-bawk, you're AFRAID of lines NOBODY PLAYS! just the possibility that someone COULD makes you wet your pants in terror.

In very many of my games in which I'm losing badly, most likely getting positionally smothered and unable to get mobile, once pawn pusher runs out of steam, I crush them with mobility when I FINALLY get to make an offensive move.

It ain't over til the fat klingon sings. I win by attacking. It's what I do, and I do it better than my peers. Even if I was good at positional, I still wouldn't play it because it's BORING BORING BORING!!!

you can still play agressively without having to play a dubious opening where white wins if he knows what hes doing. I play the leningrad dutch solely because it forces an imbalanced position where i have the chance to play a dynamic game.

again you will never be a good chess player if you refuse to learn principled chess. im going to assume that you dont care about that and just want to go for tricks and get that dopamine rush you get when you beat them with your little gambit.

you seriously should not be complaining about Scandinavian or closed players when you play these cheese little opening traps that gotham or some other youtuber taught you

lenningrad is a fianchetto system. i hate fianchettos. hartlaub charlick is the ONLY non-fianchetto attacking system. that's why it was love at first sight.

NOBODY taught me the CRUSHING mieses gambit! I stubled onto it by accident and just stuck with destroying carokanns.

I quit chess for over a decade over stankwall and skankanavian with no tools to create trees or train with them, and no-one suggesting hartlaub charlick which I begged and begged for, so when I got the urge to play chess again because i couldn't take online cheating river rat math in poker anymore, i just did tactics puzzles. no playing, just tactics because that's ALL I WANT TO DO.

get over your condescending tone their trollboy. you know NOTHING of any value

why do you sound like a politician writing a campaign speech tho

sorry, like a Trump social media post

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!