Englund Gambit Complex

Ummm. Lets see: Black drops a pawn at move one, and then spends five moves (...Nc6, ...Nge7-g6, ...h6, ...Nxe5) just to get the pawn back, IF allowed.

What a brilliant concept- I have to congratulate the inventor: He proved beyond any doubt that logic in chess is useless.

The next step towards chess perfection is surely enough adopting and analysing that ingenious idea:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/i-have-engineered-a-new-opening-any-comments-welcome?page=1

 And then, to mercilessly crush Carlsen with it.

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.

It is really annoying, that players who play standard fashionable openings always want to teach unsound opening players, that it is evil and dumb to play a Gambit like the Englund. And Hadron is right, very often these statements and posts are full of dogma and sarcasm, sometime pure blaming.

Iam always open minded for a discussion about the pro´s and con´s of such an opening, but i think, it has to be objective...

@Titan: I will never play against Anand in my life, but iam playing against other good and bad amateur players, players like you and me. And on this level i have good results with the Englund or the Latvian or the Blackmar-Diemer, although i know, that all of these openings have weaknesses, maybe they are unsound in your point of view, but as long as i win more often than i lose and as long as i have fun to play this stuff, no one can convince me to play the QGD or the Sicilian.

You are invited to play some games against me and maybe i will show you how to lose against unfashionable openings...

At least the Blackmar-Diemer and the Latvian Gambits have some danger in their lines.  There is no need to fear an opening like the Englund Gambit which gives a pawn for no compensation.  The coorespondance games posted on page 1 clearly refute the defense dead.

Thanks for the pawn brah.

I'm not telling anyone what to play. I simply don't see the point in people pretending the opening is something amazing when it isn't. If it works for you that's fine but that doesn't change the objective problems with the opening. Frankly I don't see why people get worked up over these things. It's not like anyone is going to stop playing it because of evaluations anyway and if someone is going to play this then they should know the risks. 

From a philosophical point of view then:

I play chess to win. In order increase my chances to win I like to increase my chances for and advantage or atleast equal position in the opening. 

There are 2 ways to do that:

1. Play the objectively best openings by current state of theory and hope you know it better then your opponent. (Ruy Lopez, Sicilian, Grunfeld etc fall into this category) 

2. Play decent but somewhat rare openings where with your superiour knowledge of the positions helps you compensate for the fact that the opening objectively gives you less chances then point 1. (Ponziani, Kingsgambit, budapest gambit etc). Against a well prepared oponent you either have an equal position with white or a slightly worse position with black 

Openings like the englund or bongcloud do not fall in either categorie. With white you do not have to know much to get a slight edge and even normal development moves probably give you an edge. 

So I do not deny that these openings can be fun it does in no way maximize my chances to win. My oponents (2000-2300 range) have just to little trouble to find the good moves behind the board. 

You must be kidding, if you compare the Bongcloud with the Englund...

90% of all players, who judge about the Englund have never played or studied this opening, maybe they have met it once in a lifetime in an OTB match, but no more.

Sure, this opening has its weaknesses and its unsound, but i can show you plenty of my games, where White has fallen, because he thought natural development and moving around the board is enough to beat it.

You can't compare the Bongcloud with the Englund.

The former, under certain circumstances, can be fun- while the latter is fun only for people with strong SM tendencies.

Just another senseless statement from an "IM" with a blitz rating of under 1700...

Totally agreed, i have a copy of this book, though its rarely available in Germany, so i had to order it in the USA, but its worth the money if you are interested in the theory of this gambit.

Indeed its an improved version of Bückers Englund-book.

Another recommendation is Bloodgoods book dealing with the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit, although its a little bit too optimistic regarding the chances of the black side, but still fun to read and learn.

But most players are judging about the Englund as a pawn for nothing, although they never dealt with this opening seriously...OK, no problem :-)

No... Stefan loves bizarre openings, but he does not claim the Englund is not garbage. After all he is a pretty strong player (around 2400 FIDE at his peak, some twenty years ago). He just tried do defend the opening in a chesspub/kaissiber article (and a forum thread) but he ultimately admitted that Black has nothing to show for his pawn. Factly, he even made a few humoristic comments, like:

Tim Harding once wrote that the Englund Gambit was only playable below 2000 Elo. Maybe it is a sounder advice to start your chess career with a solid opening and only switch to the Englund, when you have reached Elo 2000.

Just another Englund-"Expert" in this thread with a useful comment and sharp "analysis"...

Nah, not. Stefan may love the bizarre, but he is a very serious analyser- he just loves to kill his time with things like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a5 (I can't even recall how he labelled this crap).

I'm not a Kaissiber subscriber, but I do own many of his old analytical pamphlets, and I did try some of his bizarre ideas OTB- unfortunately, not too succesfully in the majority of the cases. But he is a bright mind and a very likeable personality- after all I do have to praise him, we are about the same age, and both self-taught at chess...

I have heard of that, it's called the Mouseslip gambit.  Not to be confused with Tim Krabbe's MouseTRAP gambit 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bg5 Bxe4 4.d5.  The purpose of the Mouseslip gambit is to coerce an online opponent into believing you have made a fatal mistake in entering your 3rd move, so that they will assume you are out of book and they'll keep playing good moves.

I thought 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a5 was based on the trap 4. O-O Na7 5. Ba4 b5 6. Bb3 a4, but after 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Nxe5+ White has good compensation. So I guess I missed the point.

The Englund seems less active then the Budapest and less trappy then the Albin. So I don't know why anyone would play it.

There are two reasons I see for black to play this:

1. He somehow thinks white played 1.e4 due to vertigo or something, like maybe black had a lot of caffeine, sees stars, and has a headache and gets very dizzy if he stands up?

2. A beginner naively trying to apply From Gambit logic to 1.d4.  I've stated many times elsewhere why the From is vastly superior to 1.d4,e5 mainly because 1.f4 not only isn't a developing move, but also seeks to exploit the weakened e1-h4 diagonal. 

Like I said earlier just play 1...Nf6! and if 2.c4 (statistically more likely than other replies, even 2.Nf3, when a simple King or Queen's Indian setup will do)  then go for the Budapest.