You are not playing against stockfish on this site. You are playing against humans. You dont have to play the best moves, you have to play the most embarassing ones. If you want to win, then give your opponent the opportunity to go wrong.
If they call it scrap , unsound or tricks, dont worry. I often won the game, but lost the after analysis. Does it matter ? Look at some games of Tal, they were not correct, stockfish would have beaten him, but he became world champion with it.
If you and your opponent have the same talent, the guy with the most memory will usually win. Do you want to spend hours, days, years in learning by heart the perfect opening lines ? Oh no, not me !
My range here was about 1950 when I changed my repertoire from "sound" openings to Halloween Gambit, Englund Gambit and other crititized openings; my range increased with more than 400 points by that.
Not only here, also in OTB games, I defeated guys with more than 200 points above me. Before I was never been able to do so.
You make a good point, and I love gambits. I've been playing more aggressively as white and throwing caution to the wind lately. Here's the thing... I'm signing up for a USCF Membership today. The Paul Morphy Open is in New Orleans this weekend. If I enter and play people I've never met, I'd play the Colorado Gambit in a second. But every week there's rated games and the same people always show up. I can't play the Colorado Gambit week in and week out against the same guys. I need a second option.
I've beaten GMs in seven moves with White in the Ray Gordon Gambit, but that won't help me get to 3000 Elo, other than what I learn from playing the gambit (I've mentioned that is valuable).
Trick trick trick....chess based on t ricks doesn't hold up well over time, especially at the top levels, where the same small group of players plays each other.
I don't mind the tricks, because as soon as I master one, my rating goes up courtesy of the points I get fed from the one-dimensional trickster who can't adapt.
BTW, I train 12-14 hours a day, six days a week. You?
I'm not trying to be a gm. Congrats on your achievements and whatnot but chess does not come easily to me. I'm not trying to create a repertoire that's going to get me to 3000. I'm trying to pull an upset every now and then against people rated around 2000.
I do spend an inordinate amount of time on chess though. Probably as much as you. My blitz rating has improved a solid 200+ points this past year. It's still horribly low but I'll take what I can get. I was the worst chess player ever when I started.
I wanted some opinions. I took about a 2 year break from the Nimzowitsch to learn some other openings. I want to play it again because I love the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.d5 Nce7...
This is a 2300-level "trick" opening that is very difficult to refute, which is why many players like it. After 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.d5 Nce7 4 Nf3 Ng6 5 h4!, Black must play precisely, which he usually will since most of the moves are obvious and forced, but White's advantage requires a deep understanding both of the variations which result, and the positional underpinnings. Once White masters this, however, it's like a rating-point ATM. Black will lose to maybe one in ten players to them being booked up, and give the other nine heck, at least under 2400.
There's a reason this opening has never been played in a world title match. Being able to beat weak players with it is certainly useful, if one is a weak player themselves and never aspires to top-level chess.
As much as I hate to agree with anything StupidGM writes, he's actually right in this case (except for that little insult stuck in at the end, "if one is a weak player" etc.). Moreover, the line he gave is only one of multiple ways that white can get an advantage in this opening. This is exactly why I play it only sparingly and only against masters and below. It does two things: (1) create an unbalanced position where white can't dry out the game and go for a draw against the stronger player, and (2) hide my real opening repertoire from the IMs and GMs I may play in later rounds, if/when they stop by to look at my game.
However, if all one does is book up on inferior openings in order to refute them, and neglect all study of actual chess (you know, middlegame strategy, tactics, endgame technique), a.k.a. the method of "improvement" recommended by StupidGM, what will happen is you will get an opening advantage against a higher-rated player who plays e.g. 1...Nc6 - and then fail to convert it and be outplayed. I've done this (outplay, not be outplayed) a number of times.
FM Chuddog is correct! This is why it is very difficult to be master, other area in their game is weak.