@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
Is the danish gambit sound?
Sort:
At the 2000 level yes, but at the 1700 level you can overrun players your own strength with it.
tygxc wrote:
@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
Cobra2721 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
The one and only right approach is to play against the pieces- not the opponent.
pfren wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
The one and only right approach is to play against the pieces- not the opponent.
That is one of the worst pieces of advice ever. Preperation is one of the biggest things in chess. This example is not to do with my first comment, however it proves your theory wrong. Say I have a tournament, and I find out my oponent. Say I generally play the RuyLopez, however in preperation I find out he plays a terrible line against the Italian (for example). Now, you are saying even though I am all but guaranteed a winningposition if I play the Italian, I should still play the RuyLopez. That makes zero sense.
Cobra2721 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
The one and only right approach is to play against the pieces- not the opponent.
That is one of the worst pieces of advice ever. Preperation is one of the biggest things in chess. This example is not to do with my first comment, however it proves your theory wrong. Say I have a tournament, and I find out my oponent. Say I generally play the RuyLopez, however in preperation I find out he plays a terrible line against the Italian (for example). Now, you are saying even though I am all but guaranteed a winningposition if I play the Italian, I should still play the RuyLopez. That makes zero sense.
So, you assume that your opponent is dumb enough to repeat the same "terrible line" ad infinitum, and for that reason you decide playing an opening which you have little to no experience with. Yes, it makes total sense, but rather not in this universe.
The one and only thing you know before the game against a class level opponent, is that sooner or later your opponent (and you, too) will blunder badly, and so you SHOULD be playing your familiar opening/structure to reduce your chances of blundering. Every other approach is plain silly.
Opening preparation starts to make sense at the >1900 FIDE level (which is way above yours), and judging from your stance, you will be there the day pigs fly.
pfren wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
The one and only right approach is to play against the pieces- not the opponent.
That is one of the worst pieces of advice ever. Preperation is one of the biggest things in chess. This example is not to do with my first comment, however it proves your theory wrong. Say I have a tournament, and I find out my oponent. Say I generally play the RuyLopez, however in preperation I find out he plays a terrible line against the Italian (for example). Now, you are saying even though I am all but guaranteed a winningposition if I play the Italian, I should still play the RuyLopez. That makes zero sense.
So, you assume that your opponent is dumb enough to repeat the same "terrible line" ad infinitum, and for that reason you decide playing an opening which you have little to no experience with. Yes, it makes total sense, but rather not in this universe.
The one and only thing you know before the game against a class level opponent, is that sooner or later your opponent (and you, too) will blunder badly, and so you SHOULD be playing your familiar opening/structure to reduce your chances of blundering. Every other approach is plain silly.
Opening preparation starts to make sense at the >1900 FIDE level (which is way above yours), and judging from your stance, you will be there the day pigs fly.
What? I was about 1400 when playing my last tourney, and opening prep made me win a game. I used to play E5 for a long time, so I know loads of lines their, but I had recently started playing the Sicillian (and still do). However, my opponent played the Kings Gambit vs E5, so I played E5 and won the game (I learned a refutation line) all because of OPENING PREPERATION, plus I WAS 1400. Just defeated both ur arguments with one stone
I love when a 1400 tells a IM how to think and what is the way.
No reassessment : "I am right, u are wrong, the end".
I didnt know there was a refutation of the king's gambit. There are some equalizing lines, maybe some with slight advantage for black. But just a line giving a winning position, could u share it please?
poucin wrote:
I love when a 1400 tells a IM how to think and what is the way.
No reassessment : "I am right, u are wrong, the end".
I didnt know there was a refutation of the king's gambit. There are some equalizing lines, maybe some with slight advantage for black. But just a line giving a winning position, could u share it please?
I am 1600 (underated here) and plus rating doesnt matter.
In a argument
Its like u saying PSG is better than Bayern Munich, and me saying then "Well I'm better than u at football so Im right". Makes NO sense
Nov 4, 2022
0
#73
betgo wrote:
I play about 1400 blitz and 1750 rapid, and I have an extremely high win percentage with the Danish gambit. Basically, no one I play knows the Schlecter Defence, giving back both pawns, and few know how to decline it correctly. It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences though.
They just take all the pawns. it's all good for them if they know the lines, but it's also sound. stockfish says it's only -0.3. I Know a preson that is rated 1900 USCF that frequently plays this opening.
Nov 4, 2022
0
#74
poucin wrote:
I love when a 1400 tells a IM how to think and what is the way.
No reassessment : "I am right, u are wrong, the end".
I didnt know there was a refutation of the king's gambit. There are some equalizing lines, maybe some with slight advantage for black. But just a line giving a winning position, could u share it please?
I think normally taking the pawn is best for black ( according to stockfish) and a KGD is equal/slightly better for black. Maybe you are talking about a line where white makes a mistake, but otherwise declining the kings gambit is drawn.
Cobra2721 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
pfren wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
The one and only right approach is to play against the pieces- not the opponent.
That is one of the worst pieces of advice ever. Preperation is one of the biggest things in chess. This example is not to do with my first comment, however it proves your theory wrong. Say I have a tournament, and I find out my oponent. Say I generally play the RuyLopez, however in preperation I find out he plays a terrible line against the Italian (for example). Now, you are saying even though I am all but guaranteed a winningposition if I play the Italian, I should still play the RuyLopez. That makes zero sense.
So, you assume that your opponent is dumb enough to repeat the same "terrible line" ad infinitum, and for that reason you decide playing an opening which you have little to no experience with. Yes, it makes total sense, but rather not in this universe.
The one and only thing you know before the game against a class level opponent, is that sooner or later your opponent (and you, too) will blunder badly, and so you SHOULD be playing your familiar opening/structure to reduce your chances of blundering. Every other approach is plain silly.
Opening preparation starts to make sense at the >1900 FIDE level (which is way above yours), and judging from your stance, you will be there the day pigs fly.
What? I was about 1400 when playing my last tourney, and opening prep made me win a game. I used to play E5 for a long time, so I know loads of lines their, but I had recently started playing the Sicillian (and still do). However, my opponent played the Kings Gambit vs E5, so I played E5 and won the game (I learned a refutation line) all because of OPENING PREPERATION, plus I WAS 1400. Just defeated both ur arguments with one stone
Who knows how many games you would have won, if you spent that time on tactics rather than on opening prep.
Jenium wrote:
Who knows how many games you would have won, if you spent that time on tactics rather than on opening prep.
Opportunity cost is probably not his forte, if he can't spell preparation 
...
btickler wrote:
Jenium wrote:
Who knows how many games you would have won, if you spent that time on tactics rather than on opening prep.
Opportunity cost is probably not his forte, if he can't spell preparation ...
When you have lost a argument.
Admit you were wrong X
Correct their spelling YES
Cobra2721 wrote:
When you have lost a argument.
Admit you were wrong X
Correct their spelling YES
Lol, everyone rated above you has told you are wrong. Suck it up.
Defaultedwastaken wrote:
I think normally taking the pawn is best for black ( according to stockfish) and a KGD is equal/slightly better for black. Maybe you are talking about a line where white makes a mistake, but otherwise declining the kings gambit is drawn.
It makes no particular sense to quote the Stockfish evalauation on a certain position. If Stockfish claims that Black is ahead by +2.0, and the position is irrational to my eyes, I wouldn't bother at all following the engine recommendation.
btickler wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
When you have lost a argument.
Admit you were wrong X
Correct their spelling YES
Lol, everyone rated above you has told you are wrong. Suck it up.
rating doesn't mean anything. Again, say we r having a argument about who is better, Liverpool or Arsenal, I am not gonna say "Well I am better than you at football so I am right". There is ZERO logic in that. The same applies here. Opening prep is NEEDED. EVERY top player does it.
I play about 1400 blitz and 1750 rapid, and I have an extremely high win percentage with the Danish gambit. Basically, no one I play knows the Schlecter Defence, giving back both pawns, and few know how to decline it correctly. It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences though.