1.d4 e5. It is an unsound opening basically losing a centre pawn for nothing after dxe5 but give it a try if you're just goofing around at blitz or whatever. There is one very trappy line which wins for black straight from the opening but only if white falls for it and plays the wrong move.
Englund Gambit
Sort:
There is a variation connected with the Englund gambit which I used to play. It gives Black some easy development for the pawn, and it might get White into unfamiliar waters. The refutation is not that intuitive for white either:
Can't talk much about the mainline Englund though!
Jun 20, 2017
0
#4
There's nothing to talk about in the mainline... Black sacs a pawn, White gives it back and then he gets the initiative. If you're looking to hope your opponent blunders while your king chills on d8 then it might be right up your alley. Otherwise I figure you may as well play 3...d6 or 3...f6.
it is a trap
It's a bad gambit which does give black some compensation.
#5: white is much better by playing 6. Nc3 instead of falling for the trap.
The true gambits of 3. ... f6 and d6 give black freer development, but not enough compensation.
The other main line is 3. ... Nge7, intending Ng6 and Qe7. White can't hold the pawn safely, but by returning the pawn and exchanging knight, can build a strong center. Another problem with this line is a Nd5 attacking a queen on e7 which tangles black.
Bartholomew had a video in which he explained how bad Englund really is, and how easy it is to refute it by just not getting into a couple of cheap traps.
It still sucks
gambitlover έγραψε:
"You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one." - Mikhail Tal
Misha's dark forests never resembled any stupid gambit, though... his opening play ALWAYS was pretty conventional.
Jun 22, 2017
0
#13
Yes. Tal didn't play bad openings to get the positions he wanted. He just sort of got them anyway. I'm not even sure if Tal played many of those 2-3 move gambits at all.
Dec 13, 2019
0
#14
I lost to a freaking 600 in 6 moves because of this stupid gambit.
It's dangerous.
Has aryounge been here since 2017? Anyway, this is an example where (I think) a little opening reading can be helpful.
Dec 13, 2019
0
#16
It can be really dangerous.
However, it just stops working at a certain point. Players get to the point where they don't know it, and play it safe by giving back the pawn after 3...Qe7. Or they do know it, and mop you off the board with the refutation:
Dec 14, 2019
0
#17
MatthewFreitag wrote:
It can be really dangerous.
However, it just stops working at a certain point. Players get to the point where they don't know it, and play it safe by giving back the pawn after 3...Qe7. Or they do know it, and mop you off the board with the refutation:
Thank for that line! my game was that one except instead of playing Nc3 I played Bc3 after which Bb4 followed and I was quickly sunk.
MatthewFreitag wrote:
… 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bf4 Qb4+ 5. Bd2 Qxb2 6. Nc3 Now what? White's winning chances are gone. ...
Is that what you meant to type?
Actually the line 3...Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 is so bad for Black, that white should enforce it with 4.Bg5! (instead of 4.Bf4).
Hello, I saw something about the englund gambit somewhere, and I was wondering if anybody could explain what it is?? Thanks!