Benko Gambit and NimzoIndian. Just annoying openings i like to really win those games.
This (i.e.) Bowlder Attack
Here are some traps to look out for against the Bowlder Attack.
Twinchicky, in your diagram, White can play 11. d4 to protect the knight.
Crushing 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6:
The knight sac on move 17 was probably dubious and unnecessary, but I was winning anyway.
Ofcourse i could name moves that I never see in my OTB games like 1. f3 or something but since I never get them i am not too bothered.
Normal Slav (with dxc4 / Bf5 / Bb4) mainly for 2 reasons. 1) It is hard to get anything solid against it where white has a clear plan and 2) It is hard to sideline it (with for example g3).
Yeah, the one I don't know how to respond to xD
Hehe, who said I don't enjoy going all nuclear thermonal war on people? Neh, the beauty of chess is that each player gets to pick his/her own moves (unless forced). I feel these players are cheating on their own. Many times when someone tries the fried liver and I refute it, it's over for them. The memorized trick didn't work. Now what should I do? (don't get me wrong though, when someone falls in a carefully planned trap that I put up, I also enjoy it, but I (try) to make sure I can finish the game if they won't fall for it!
What is this "refutation" of the fried liver you speak of? Is it this?
EDIT: 8...Nb4 is easily defensible by 9. Bb3, I think.
Other than Bb3, white can simply ignore the fork and continue the attack. This is especially useful in blitz and bullet.
The only ones I can think of that kinda annoy me are the random e4 gambits like the max lange, scotch gambit, danish etc.
May I ask what you inserted into your post? Is it a diagram, puzzle, game board?
I keep seeing - http://grab.by/sIKw Anyone else with the same problem?
I was quoting Twinchicky's post on the first page. It was a line in the Fried Liver. And yes, I am facing the same problem :/
scholars mate after scholars mate after scholars mate after scholars mate
YES! Especially when it's done by really strong players who are so hard to defend correctly against.
The London System and Exchange French (though I no longer play the French, and never need to worry about the latter). They are the dumbest openings ever. You might as well offer a draw on move 3 in both cases.
Even the Colle, Torre, and Trompowsky (which even I have played all 3 of these at some point) have winning possibilities, but the London is a dead draw from the get-go!
People that know me know that I've played just about every opening under the sun. Everything from the normal Najdorf Sicilian, Petroff, Caro-Kann, French, Alekhine, Modern, etc to the offbeat Owen's Defense, Balogh Counter-Gambit, Sokolsky, and Tubingen Gambit (1.Nc3 Nf6 2.g4), but I can still say to this day that I have never played the London System or the Exchange French as White. NEVER! About the closest thing I've ever played was the Dangerfield Attack against the Dutch (1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3, but note the lack of Nf3 until Black commits one way or another, and even here, the ideas are completely different than that of the London System. For example, in many cases, g4 (against the Stonewall setup) or h4 (against Leningrad setups) are played. The London? They just move that pawn to h3, slip the Bishop down to h2, crawl into a hole, and do nothing, and draw!
Would you play the London against a player who was much stronger in hopes of a draw? Especially if a draw is all you need to win your section?
It's interesting that some of the "annoyed" are irritated that their opponents play openings that force them to work hard.I rather enjoy allowing my opponent to play their pet line...and then trying to win anyway.
I hate those openings (by whatever names) that put me in an anxious state by move 13. I dislike the openings that fill me with dread at the thought of my rating going down. I abhor the openings that cause me to move my pieces around just to stay alive.