Indeed ! There is more than the "cheap tricks"
That's right, I've played it all my life at both low and high levels.
It's very effective and profitable because it opens up the position, which is a small psychological victory against the d4 player.
In reverse, it's a bit like the Scandinavian, where White is forced into a queen's pawn structure after exd5, which is the only good move.
I started by studying the Qe7 line, which is the main variation of the Englund, but I was never fully convinced by the critical line where you give a check on b4.
So later, I evolved and started playing the Zilbermints Variation (Nge7), even in classical games. It's a more solid line within the Englund, somewhat similar to the Budapest Gambit.
In the last two years, I’ve realized that the best practical option is to play d6—the Charlick Variation.
There are two refutation attempts for White in this line: Bg5 and maneuvering the knight to c3 and then Nb5. But I've found resources in both cases that keep it playable for Black, despite the engine's evaluation.
You gave this as a line and ended it as if Black is fine... White is a fair bit better here objectively and practically. Why would you start out a good chunk of your games clawing back from a worse position?
You gave this as a line and ended it as if Black is fine... White is a fair bit better here objectively and practically. Why would you start out a good chunk of your games clawing back from a worse position?
That's right, there isn't much that can be done, but it's playable in blitz.
There is some compensation, but you need to dig a bit deeper. I thought the same at first, haha.
I'm going to give you a sample variation
I'll also tell you that almost no one, at either low or high levels, plays this Nc3-Nb5 line, so playing the Englund, Charlick variation is still worth it, haha
The Englund is one of those lines where the people who think the line is good are either those who have never played 1. d4 as white, or bullet players. Smith Morra is in the same boat. Case in point, the OP has never played 1. d4.
White players get happy when they see the opening, I can tell you that. As far as dubious active lines go there are far better ones. The Albin, Budapest, Dutch, English Defense, and Benko are all better than the Englund. The only real benefit of the Englund is its simplicity, i.e. it's something black can play without having to study much. Or, something they can just study very deeply to try to win algorithmically in bullet. But bullet is a crap game mode, and what works there isn't going to work in normal time formats.
If you study a line for your entire life I'm sure you will do well in it, but that doesn't make the opening good.
Play the Budapest if you want to play e5, its better than the Englund.
Well, surprise surprise, you don't play the sicilian do you?
I doubt you can find anyone on this site who plays the sicilian as black, who knows the theory and isn't a beginner, who thinks the Smith Morra is good.
No, I don't play the main defenses really, and the Silician does not suit my style, as I need to memorize a LOT of theory to play it, whereas a very solid opening which is only slightly worse according to Stockfish such as the Alekhine is easy-to-learn, fun, and aggressive, while also being viable and not completely terrible if the opponent knows the correct line. The Silician is just too boring in my opinion. It's good, no doubt, just not for me. I'm the type of player who looks at how a position looks versus looking at an engine. I find the Smith Mora to be very strong, give fun attacking ideas, and enjoy heavy success as high as 2000 level, so I think it's good.
Look at this image from Opening Tree, a very reliable website that shows you success using different openings if the main line of 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 is played, in 9 million games, white has a 52% win rate. The opening is not bad. I know this includes lower-level games, but I do enjoy a 53% win rate with the Smith Mora, and I play the 2000s and 2100s at times, so it is very underrated in my opinion.
To draw meaningful conclusions from stats you need to filter them based on elo and look at the lines a little deeper. You don't play the mainline smith morra, so the database stats don't even apply to you, but if you look at the main lines and filter based on higher elos you will find black has a significantly higher winrate than white - like 10% higher. In the line I play black has a 20% higher winrate by move 8 after about 800 high elo games. It's not a surprise as to why.
You're getting wins mainly due to the fact you're not playing the main line, which is an improvement but it's still not great. There's a reason 95% of players stick to the main line - it's contradictory to play the Smith Morra then push f4 / expose your king and play a slower attack in an opening where whites advantage is all about his fleeting early kingside initiative. If you study almost any line you're going to win with it up to a certain point, especially in online games - the line is working for you because it's allowed you to study one line and not have to worry about anything else. That's the most I could grant your line. But that is a concession, there's a big difference between it working for you for practical reasons, and it being good.
Even from a practical standpoint there are better anti-sicilians.
As far as boredom - chess gets more fun the more you learn it. I've had many cases where I found an opening boring, then I learned the theory and found it interesting. There are also tons of ways of deviating in the sicilian, there's not one way of playing it. Some sicilian lines are played all the time, others are seen in 1% of games. Infact, the nimzowitsch sicilian is very similar to Alekhines defense. You could benefit from branching out and learning some more main lines.
Yes, the F4 line is the reason I'm having success. I don't play the mainline; it looks bad, so I play F4 for a nice aggressive position. I'm also a Vienna Game/Gambit player, so I enjoy playing F4 in almost all openings.
The Englund is one of those lines where the people who think the line is good are either those who have never played 1. d4 as white, or bullet players. Smith Morra is in the same boat. Case in point, the OP has never played 1. d4.
White players get happy when they see the opening, I can tell you that. As far as dubious active lines go there are far better ones. The Albin, Budapest, Dutch, English Defense, and Benko are all better than the Englund. The only real benefit of the Englund is its simplicity, i.e. it's something black can play without having to study much. Or, something they can just study very deeply to try to win algorithmically in bullet. But bullet is a crap game mode, and what works there isn't going to work in normal time formats.
If you study a line for your entire life I'm sure you will do well in it, but that doesn't make the opening good.
Fair enough. I never play 1.D4 before and maybe never will be. Your assesment is right though. I never say that englund is my top opening against 1.d4. Actually when I am in a good mood, not in a rush time, sitting alone in coffeeshop play rapid against 1.d4, I would choose 1.d5. But my point standstill too. Englund actually underrated and many many advanced intermediate player not ready challenged by it. I have no doubt the opening will be trashed in top top level. (Or maybe not..?) 😃
Little bit out of topic, why though I dont receive notification that my post have received this many good response?
There are different variations within the Englund Gambit; we would need to see which ones bother the white player more or less.
One cannot say that e5 is bad, especially if it is said by someone who hasn't studied the Englund Gambit deeply with the black pieces and hasn't even played it to see if it's effective or not in practice.
One also cannot say that bullet is garbage.
If the Englund works for you in bullet, I assure you it also works in blitz, and I speak from experience.
I have been a D4 player, and as D4 a player, the Englund bothered me because it changed the nature of the position; that is, it’s the black player who decides what is going to be played, not the white player.
Yes, the white player gains a pawn advantage easily, but the same happens in this line of the Scandinavian, which bothers me a lot, and even though I know the "refutation" with the white pieces, it still bothers me a lot because it takes me out of my comfort zone. The black player gets a very playable position despite the pawn down.
Play the Budapest if you want to play e5, its better than the Englund.
-
And Smith-Morra is good I don't get why you think otherwise.
-
I've played the Budapest before. It's okay, in the sense that if white knows his theory then black will be worse. I've met a few budapest players, and being an ex-budapest player myself I'd win most of the games pretty easily. Currently, the alekhine attack is the best bet against the gambit, but I also know tricks in the Nf3-Bc5 lines where white can instantly delete black's "Crazy Rook" attack with a5-Ra6. There's also the positional Nd2!? Which Karpov has played before, giving back the pawn but getting a strong queenside majority while black has zero counterplay in the position. I believe Nigel Short lost two games from the black side of that line.
But the Budapest is definitely sounder than the Englund.
As for the smith morra, I've lost more than enough games in daily games against a friend of mine to never accept the gambit again.
The Smith Morra line I posted earlier, at 2500 elo rapid, has a 26% winrate for white and a 65% winrate for black. And this is the line you wind up in ~85% of the time after accepting the gambit. At 2200 elo rapid black is up by 20% out of 800 games... large sample size, devastating results for white... presumably white should do better in rapid than in daily. White has no serious attack and is just down a pawn.
The data is the bottom line, the main line just isn't good, and the sidelines.... well, they're less dangerous in principle, there aren't that many and they're very rare to see. I don't see why you'd avoid it. It's not like avoiding it is an insta-win or something.
As black if there is an opening where 85% of players played move A, which leads to you winning 65% of the time... but 12% players play move B and you win 45% of the time, and 3% of players play move C and you lose 80% of the time.... (imagining some such line exists here) you're winning ~60% of your games as black, that's an opening you should play, it's fantastic for you.
Englund Gambit is one of the most misunderstood opening in my opinion. Most people think englund is just about 'playing cheap tricks'. Actually it, in fact, is one way for the black side to develop pieces faster than white. Yeah computer give +1 for the get go. But it is only if white always play the perfect moves. The reality is, at lower rating, white get tricked by black's englund, whilst in advance intermediate (right now up until 1900) white never prepared against englund player who doesnt play for tricks but only aims to develop the pieces faster. Suddenly white is often becomes the one that plays defensive. Its very fun to play too, even if I lost because it managed to throw any prep.
My 4 last englund gambit game in this site have resulted in 3 wins and 1 draw thus boosting my rapid rating past 1900. (Yeah its not only works for blitz but rapid as well!).
*on the other hand, maybe after I posted this, my rating started to drop. 😂