Englund Gambit ?!

Hey! Today I faced the Englund Gambit for the first time. http://www.chess.com/live/game/1351754555

I would appreciate an analysis and some tips and ideas when facing the Englund Gambit.

Cheers, Checker.

Your link doesn`t work, i hope http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1351754555 does.

The most important variation or trap in the englund is this one:

After 2...f6 you can grap the pawn or more easyly play something like 3. e4 or 3.Nf3 with a much better game. 3... d5 is one sac too much. Compared to the danish gambit (1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc2 cxb2 5. Bxb2) black exposes his king too much.

Thanks for the reply. I am pretty happy that my opponent didn't attempt this trap, I may have even failed to defence properly. Is the Englund Gambit considered "sound" at GM level or at the top?

Even in the pre-computer era it was unsound, but it still might work as a surprise weapon, even when the computers give some kind of +2 pawns.

The highest rated player who played the Englund was Paul Keres. But i think in 1933 he was not yet world class:

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=24011

Then comes one game of

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=968780

and two games of

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=4398866

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=4389354

The problem is, that many games of such strong players are in the database and the white player can prepare well if he knows, that the oppenent could play the englund.

 ....sigh. Once again: At the 1200 level openings are the last thing you should be concerned about. You didn't face "The Englund Gambit!!!!?!"...you faced an absolutely horrible opponent.

It is truly unbelievable that no matter how often beginners are told to ignore studying openings and work on tactics and endgames instead they still spend their time consumed by studying openings and memorizing lines ...which as we know won't do them one bit of good whatsoever.

What a joke.

We're going to have to agree to disagree then. You study the endgame to learn about pawn structure and planning - Not the opening.

The only thing you need to know about the opening @ ~1000 is sound principles and sound tactics. If he spent all of his time on tactics and none of it on openings, he'd always play a better opening than the guy who just studies openings (at that level). This is just a fact.

You don't need theory to win material or space @ ~1000.

ALL he needs to do is just look at what the opening actually was after his games so he becomes familiar with them. That's it. If he has more time to study than just that, putting the first few moves into a database and seeing what the possible variations are is fine. Studying theory up to move 15 and what not is just insane at that level. None of it matters since the player's tactical misunderstandings guarantee a loss anyway.

• Uhm Warbringer, I didn't ask about lines in the Englund Gambit at all... All I did was ask advice how I should play against this kind of gambit that I never have faced before. I am asking some help from people that are not patzers like me.

I'm also a very great patzer, but i hope i helped you a bit. 

You asked for some advice for playing against the englund, i showed you the trap after 2...Nc3 3. Bf4 Qe7 and so on, but no line against 2...f6. But accepting and then developing your pieces as fast as possible and maybe give the pawn back, when holding makes too much problems, is all i know about this or other rather unsound gambits. 

And maybe you heard about that openings are sound when grandmasters use them. So you asked about that. And there i can't answer that it's totally crap and no grandmaster ever played the englund, because that would not be true. But more important, no grandmaster or international master uses it on a regular basis. That`s a great sign that this line is not sound.

But in practical play, even when faster time controls like 15+10 are used, the soundness of a opening is not the most important thing you should care about. You still have to play better then your opponent to win the game.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice! You seem like uber-patzer, mind if I add you so we could play some games to improve my level (and maybe yours too)  ?

"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4

I suspect that IM John Watson had in mind something between those extremes. Anyway, one can read about Englund and lots of others in Taming Wild Chess Openings by John Watson and Eric Schiller.

Thanks for the advice! I'll definetly will look that book up.