ill beat all you niggaaaas
Most Aggressive Openings?
Sort:
Jul 29, 2013
0
#43
This is an extremely dangerous line for both side's and an extremely fun one. It's called the Frankenstien-Dracula Variation of the Vienna Game (though you can also get here from the bishop's opening).
SmyslovFan wrote:
Judging by this list, "aggressive" means "not quite sound, but if I throw away a pawn in the opening, I feel like I'm attacking".
For White, the more aggressive lines are not ones that peter out to dull equality after 20 moves, they are openings that give white nasty attacking chances throughout the game.
Some aggressive openings for White include the Two Knights, the Botvinnik Variation of the Queen's Gambit, and the main line of the Spanish.
In each of those, white maintains dangerous attacking chances throughout the game and Black needs to be extremely careful not to be blown out, not just on the first few moves, but deep into the middle game.
Take a look at this opening and learn just how aggressive the Queen's gambit can be!
That might be true, but I don't consider the botvinnik semi-slav to be a variation of the queens gambit.
The most agressive white opening I can think of is the anti-moscow gambit, yugoslav dragon, english attack najdorf, or similar lines. All require the cooperation of black.
The most agressive black opening against d4 would probably be the botvinnik, shown in your post.
The most agressive black opening against e4 would have to be some sort of dragon or najdorf, but once again this requires white's cooperation.
tmkroll wrote:
BigTy wrote:
Phife_Dawg wrote:
Multiple people have recommended the Latvian. How do you all think of that in comparison to the Elephant Gambit?
They're both garbage, but the Elephant is definitely worse. Just play sound openings, avoid trash, don't worry about throwing the kitchen sink at your opponent every game, learn to assess the position and play the correct moves, not the moves you would "like" to play, and your chess will improve far more than if you stick to a repertoire of cheap unsound gambits. Play mainlines with both colours and you will do better in the long run -- yes that means Open Sicilians, not Morra gambits; Ruy Lopez, not the Danish Gambit; etc.
Marra Gambit against Kasparov http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070396 It isn't played more at the higher levels because White already has an attack against the Sicilian and doesn't need a gambit, but it doesn't seem to be bad (unless you can actually give a refutation;) it's just a question of style. Ok the open line is better but the gambit won't lose you the game and it is clearly an agressive option. I don't think the Danish is bad either, just fairly boring,
and personally I think the Elephant is a better try than the Latvian to confuse the opponent and get in an attack if they don't know how to play it safe.. .see the games of Phil Corbin for example. ( http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview2/sakelsek-corbin.htm http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview3/short-corbin.htm )
The point of my post wasn't to say that the Morra is necessarily unsound or refuted, but rather, simply to point out that playing strong mainlines will give you better positions, and do more for your chess development, than any cheap gambit. And in the case of the Sicilian, White can get as good -- perhaps even better -- attacking chances in the Open Sicilian than in the Morra, without being a pawn down! Plus Black has a lot of set-ups in the Morra accepted, and thus White still has to know a lot to play it. And, he is playing a pawn down, so fogetting theory is perhaps even more fatal than forgetting it in Open Sicilian mainlines -- because, while forgetting your theory in the Open Sicilian might give Black a slight or solid positional advantage, forgetting it in the Morra really will leave Black up a pawn for nothing! Then, there is the issue of playing the Morra against reasonably strong opposition, say 2000+ players. By time you reach that level, you will probably want to switch to the Open Sicilian anyway to increase your chances of getting an edge with White, and then you will have wished you had been playing the Open Sicilian all along instead of trying to make the switch!! That all being said, I still think that with accurate play Black can be a pawn up for more-or-less nothing against the Morra.
And for those saying the albin is agressive, its not. White gets agressive play in the albin, not black:
That was me vs 2150, I will not post the rest of the game because it was too shameful how I lost.
BigTy wrote:
tmkroll wrote:
BigTy wrote:
Phife_Dawg wrote:
Multiple people have recommended the Latvian. How do you all think of that in comparison to the Elephant Gambit?
They're both garbage, but the Elephant is definitely worse. Just play sound openings, avoid trash, don't worry about throwing the kitchen sink at your opponent every game, learn to assess the position and play the correct moves, not the moves you would "like" to play, and your chess will improve far more than if you stick to a repertoire of cheap unsound gambits. Play mainlines with both colours and you will do better in the long run -- yes that means Open Sicilians, not Morra gambits; Ruy Lopez, not the Danish Gambit; etc.
Marra Gambit against Kasparov http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070396 It isn't played more at the higher levels because White already has an attack against the Sicilian and doesn't need a gambit, but it doesn't seem to be bad (unless you can actually give a refutation;) it's just a question of style. Ok the open line is better but the gambit won't lose you the game and it is clearly an agressive option. I don't think the Danish is bad either, just fairly boring,
and personally I think the Elephant is a better try than the Latvian to confuse the opponent and get in an attack if they don't know how to play it safe.. .see the games of Phil Corbin for example. ( http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview2/sakelsek-corbin.htm http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview3/short-corbin.htm )
The point of my post wasn't to say that the Morra is necessarily unsound or refuted, but rather, simply to point out that playing strong mainlines will give you better positions, and do more for your chess development, than any cheap gambit. And in the case of the Sicilian, White can get as good -- perhaps even better -- attacking chances in the Open Sicilian than in the Morra, without being a pawn down! Plus Black has a lot of set-ups in the Morra accepted, and thus White still has to know a lot to play it. And, he is playing a pawn down, so fogetting theory is perhaps even more fatal than forgetting it in Open Sicilian mainlines -- because, while forgetting your theory in the Open Sicilian might give Black a slight or solid positional advantage, forgetting it in the Morra really will leave Black up a pawn for nothing! Then, there is the issue of playing the Morra against reasonably strong opposition, say 2000+ players. By time you reach that level, you will probably want to switch to the Open Sicilian anyway to increase your chances of getting an edge with White, and then you will have wished you had been playing the Open Sicilian all along instead of trying to make the switch!! That all being said, I still think that with accurate play Black can be a pawn up for more-or-less nothing against the Morra.
I think are only disagreement is whether the gambit is sound, whether White has "compensation" or "more-or-less nothing" for the pawn, and you open by stating that argument wasn't the point of your post. I get your point. It's clear. And I don't actually think we disagree. This thread isn't about the wisest opening, though, the best choice to win more games and improve in the long run, though. It's just about "agressive" openings. I think the Parham attack is terrible, that teaching it to kids (as is done on a very large scale) is the worst kind of chess sin, but I can't say it's not agressive... I would even argue it's far too agressive to be good. Really it depends how you define agressive chess and I do think all of these gambits (some less wise than others) are agressive in their own right. Certainly there's a place for "cheap shots" in simuls and rapid games against super GMs like the Elephants and Smith-Morra I posted above.
GENERALreplacesQ wrote:
1. e4
2. Sicilian
3. Nimzo-Indian
Does anybody else have any responses in the "aggressive without gambiting" category?
Some people don't consider the Queen's gambit a true gambit, and the same with the Old benoni defense, so mayb those two, depending on whether you consider those two true gambits or not, since you're guaranteed to win the pawn back.
1) Fegatello Attack
2) Marshall Gambit
3) Englund Gambit
fried liver
How about Benko gambit i love it its most agressive for black and always leeds to WINS !!!!!
Who was Dubois? I never even heard of that one. I know about the Reti Opening but don't know about his defence.
Mar 10, 2014
0
#56
pfren wrote:
Misterfantastic wrote:
How about Benko gambit i love it its most agressive for black and always leeds to WINS !!!!!
The Benko is a quiet, strictly positional gambit, with few fireworks, which requires very good positional understanding, and even better endgame technique.
Agreed. Pal Benko used it to survive the opening and then dominate his opponents with his huge endgame talent! There are some who recommend this opening for novices because it lacks fireworks, but I think it's a poor opening choice until a player is good enough to appreciate the sort of endgames Black can get in this opening.
In tournament play, I, taking the White side, have scored 100% against players rated U2100 (USCF) in the Benko. They never seem to get the sort of endgames that Benko and Alburt did.
If you're looking for aggressive lines as Black that involve an early c5, take a look at the Modern Benoni (one of Tal's early hobby-horse openings) or even the Blumenfeld. That opening is extremely difficult for both sides.
The fried liver attack is a very aggressive and fun opening
The fried liver attack is a very aggressive and fun opening
king's gambit hands down for white
Then too all of you people who are against gambits, answer the question without using gambits, I'd like to see what you all recommend
. I'd enjoy using aggressive non-gambits, I just don't know any.