Englund Gambit Complex

Hello everyone, I wanted to discuss the Englund Gambit Complex. It begins where white plays d4, and black counters with the gambit e5. If white takes the pawn, then black will usually end up with: better positioning, a free rook, or a quick checkmate. However, if white does NOT capture the "free" pawn, then black is in a horrible position and is under extreme attack. I have had this gambit work out perfectly for me, and also fail miserably. When is the best time to use it, or should I use it at all?

Thanks guys. Could you show me an example where white makes it work?

Also, what is the best response to d4? e6?

Thanks!

Not just a free pawn, but a central pawn at that. 

You are probably recalling that since the From Gambit is sound 3...d6 in the Englund must be too.  However, there's a very important difference between the two: Against 1.f4 black has a kingside weakness to leverage against white whereas 1.d4 achieves the same things as 1.f4 while also being a developing move and having support of the queen (and not weakening the king)

1.f4,e5!? 2.fxe5,d6 3.exd6,Bxd6 is compensation, black sacrificed both central pawns and white could develop a pawn center and black has two central open files to pressure these pawns if white advances them. 

1.d4,e5? 2.dxe5,d6 3.exd6,Bxd6 and 4.e4 can be played immediately since there's no check by ...Qh4+

2.e4! or if you really don't want to enter the French 2.Nf3 or 2.c4 are fine.  If you can grab the center do it!  Just be aware of the different plans for both sides.  Your d4 pawn will be the nexus of operations for some time (black will play ...c5 maybe cxd4 and ...Qb6 and ...Nc6 piling on the pressure)  Black will surrender the center in some lines (1.e4,e6 2.d4,d5 3.Nc3,dxe4 4.Nxe4) The idea is to restrain and blockade d4.  Or black can goad you into playing dxc5 if keeping the tension, drive back your blockaders, and mobilize his pawn center. 

White of course has resources too, such as overprotecting d4 so his pieces can go elsewhere, though taking advantage of the bad lightsquared bishop is tough.  Black can try ...b6 lines, but that's even worse than the mainlines and causes more problems than it tries solving. 

The Zilbermintz-Stadleman variation 3...Nge7 is much better

Why not just play the Budapest?  Most people play 2.c4 anyway and if 2.Nf3 then 2...e6 or 2...g6 and continue development then chip away at d4.  

Oh good lord. You are going remonstrate using semantics? The one thing I find so frustrating with players with titles and or decent ratings is that they fail to comphrend that some of the chess public actually do hang on their every word and accept it as gospel. Whether it is right or wrong is a moot point but good (titled) players should accept some responsiblity for this (misplaced?) adulation and support their own comments with something other than dogmatic utterances.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5!? is the Albin Countergambit and this can be viewed as another instance of Black playing a "waiting move" to allow White to weaken his center with c2-c4 before opening up the position with e7-e5.  Black's play is very different in this defense, though.  And like the Budapest, it can be avoided with 2.Nf3, although this deprives White of the opportunity to play QGD positions where the KN goes to e2 that a lot of White players like.

However in this case it is right so I do not see you point. The Englund gambit is bad in basicly every variation because black does not have anywhere near enough compensation for the pawn. 

Sure you win games with this opening or rather despite the opening. At low ratings chess is decided by tactics. But that does not make the opening any better. 

I am not going to say are right or wrong. I will ask you this: Have you read Englund Gambit by Stefan Bucker? Have you had a chance to look at any of the Nge7 Englund gambit articles in Kaissiber? If you answered no, just what are you basing your assessment on? Dogmatic waffle in General opening tomes like ECO, BCO and MCO?....You are do exactly as IM Pfren, making generalised sweeping statements without a shred of offered evidence...

The next setp is probably someone stumping up with some computer driven analysis...

Oh the joys of the modern compter age. I bet you free thinkers like Alapin, Tartakower, Alekhine & the rest are probably spinning in their graves...

Sorry to bring you the news but the opening in chess is dogmatic. It is all about getting your pieces out as efficient as possible. 

There is just no way you can argue that Ne7 -> Ng6 -> Ne5 is a effective system of development (although as pfren said it is better then exposing you queen early). If white just normally responds with development moves like 4. Nc3 there is just no way to deny white won a development tempo for nothing. There is no weakness or anything bad for white. He has harmonious lead in developmend

I know it is useless to discuss with the fans of bad openings like the 1. f3 and such but just think logically. An opening where you deliberatly lose tempi for nothing cannot be good. 

Openings like the Englund Gambit are always a controversial issue...

Nobody is forced to play it, but some people like me are playing this opening, to be exactly, its my standard response to 1.d4. in every kind of chess games, Blitz, OTB and correspondence.Iam considering to take a look at the Albin, but actually i dont have the time to study a new defence. I consider myself to be a good amateur player, not more, not less.

From the theoretical point of view, i wouldnt recommend to play the Englund, because, as IM pfren said, you are ending in a worse position, when White knows the right variations.

To be succesful with the Englund Gambit, you have to diversify your game.

Except of the Zilbermints-Variation, which cant excite me because of moving around the knight to recapture the sacrificed pawn, i prefer to get compensation for the gambit pawn, so i play 2...d6 (the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit) or 1...f6 (the Soller-Gambit), sometimes also the main lines of the Englund with Nc6 and Qe7 (although i think you nearly have the same development problems as in the Zilbermints-Gambit).

I often manage to get active play on the king side or in the centre and win quickly, when White is playing too lame or careless, sometimes i got crushed within 20 moves, thats the risk for playing this kind of stuff.

When you expect full compensation for the pawn against a perfect playing opponent, you shouldnt play the Englund, but if you want to lure him on unknown territory and you know the ideas and tactics behind this opening, its a good choice even on higer club levels.

Is that it? The crux of your point of view is based upon sarcasm? Full points to Moonie & Dark Falcon for at least trying to explain themselves logically. However my point is not that the Englund Gambit is sound or unsound rather that subjective philosophies are being applied to sweeping generalizations in the guise of logical deduction to prove a point and in the case pfren, the added emphasis of sarcasm is supposed to emphasize the clarity of the so called logic involved.

I like Dark Falcon's post because he quite succinctly presents his own personal objective philosophy on how to play the opening and I do agree with him about not playing the Englund should you be expecting full compensation for the pawn in the variations he highlights. This is an objective rationalization. Where as pfren roars with subjective sarcastic dogma and his point is made?

Further more I suggest that Dark Falcon's post as a whole refutes Moonies asertion that the chess opening is dogmatic. The only dogma that appears with chess openings is with the people who trying to read far to much into their meaning. Much like religion.

It's not subjective. If it was any good more players would use it. It's as simple as that. 

Other openings like Alekhine's or the semi-tarrasch are played every now and then for a surprise but no one goes for the Englund.

It's not fasion as authors would like you to believe. Play the Englund against Anand and I'm sure he'll show you why it's "unfasionable." 

But for class players and maybe more you can probably play it just fine. But that's not the argument anyway.

Oh my. If a good player doesn't use an opening, it must be bad. I am sorry but this rates along side Moonie's comment on all chess openings being dogmatic.

Right... The fact that it's one of the least played defenses of all time is a coincidence. Or maybe the Englund is just too good so they don't use it. Yeah that must be it.