openings about getting pawns out of the way?

I love gambits. I'm a tactical player, I like mobility and initiative, but something I REALLY LIKE, is getting pawns out of the way. I'm prone to making can opener attacks (using a minor piece to tear a pair of pawns out of the way.

what are some openings that you know of, or especially love for getting pawns out of the way?

hartlaub charlick gambit

I love how this game opens the center up so much compared to ANY response to 1.d4 that I know of

king's gambit

I love the standard Nf3/Bc4 development for fried liver attacks on f7 and the semi-open f file

gedult blackmar diemer gambit

It's VERY OPEN in the center and f file, with similar plans on f7. I tried the 3.Nc3 mainline, but do best pushing f3 asap... was doing terrible with the maroczy fantasy variation of the carokann, but when I mixed it up in my head with the alapin diemer french, and played 3.be3 and went straight to f3, I started getting a lot of games with this theme, I've played out 3 times with the same mate where ...Nf6 & ...Bg4 transpose

the alapin diemer french

smith morra gambit

You could try the danish gambit

or also

The first one is a little too risky to play in an actual game but the Danish gambit can be very powerful

I so want to play the DOUBLE danish where white offers the b2 pawn instead of taking as is the "normal" danish gambit as shown on the second board. I don't like that variation as much as I do badly with knight to c before f lines, and it does nothing to attack 0-0, where the double danish already has Bc4 on the job and trying to get the other bishop involved too.

I like the looks of the Qd6 scandinavian better than Qxd5 which I hated, but it blocks the bishop in. regardless, ALL scandinavians can be "refuted" with 2.e5 putting an inescapable cramp that prevents ...Nf6 from ever happening and I despise that with a passion. i'll take a look at those other 3 gambits

stafford gambit is good for black if white plays the main line, but bad STATISTICALLY after:

Danish Gambit gets White nothing.

Black has completely equalized after 1.e4 e5 2.d4?! exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d5!! 6.Bxd5 Nf6 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 and Black has zero problems!

well, black has achieved equality, at least in your line 3...d5 4.exd5 Nf6 gets there faster for black.

in your line, 5...d5 is a mere 11% sideline where white's scooping 63% of players up 57:40 or better in about 1.4m games and back to crushing again in the rest of the sidelines. 7.Nc3 is -1.3 in eval, but scores 54:42 in 18k games.

1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3

3...Qe7 is stockfish's choice and is 43:53 @ 118k -0.4

_____4.Bd3 d5 38:59 @ 28k -0.7

_____4. cxd4 Qxe4+ 48:48 @ 19k -0.5

_____4. Qxd4? Nc6 38:57 @ 13k -0.9

3...d5 Sorensen Defense = 46:50 @ 764k games

_____4. exd5 Nf6 5. cxd4 Bb4+ 42:54 @ 25k -0.2

_____4. Qxd4 Nf6 42:53 @ 57.8k -0.3

_____4. e5? dxc3 5. Nxc3 d4 44:54 @ 1k -0.9

_____4. cxd4? dxe4 5. Nc3 Nf6 45:51 @ 78k -1.0

looks like black's 2 best performing danish responses at the amateur level

WING GAMBIT! Get that light bishop on d3, get ready for h4/h5, and get after that Black King! (Also works vs. the French, so you can get lots of games with it)

i tried the sicilian wing gambit and hated it and the lousy theory book i bought, with pamplet level info, and half of the book wasn't even about wing gambit. I clicked with the smith morra right away with maybe 50 lines of theory

Yeah it's interesting how some openings just click. The guy who won me over on Wing Gambit is this guy on YouTube. Whether you play it or not, do yourself a favor and watch 10 minutes of this - he's hilarious

https://youtu.be/xjJrSDuIUHY?si=GS3c2cxSRVADd4CA

Results statistics are useless. Results don't equate to soundness.

A line may be 100% refuted, but only score 71% because the refutation is complicated or not know by all that play whatever said opening is.

In the line I gave, Black is 100% equal. Equal does not mean draw. The overall numbers only indicate a large sample. They do not equate to the correct evaluation.

If, hypothetically, 50 percent of 5th graders know what the capital of New Mexico is, that does not mean that in room 233 of Fort Bend Elementary filled with 34 5th graders, exactly 17 would get it right.

No database has every chess game ever played. Also, what is known today may not have been known in 1973. Yet those statistical numbers could include games from 1900 to today. Maybe Black didn't know what to do in 1933 and White wins 85 percent of games and draws 10 percent, only losing 5 percent. But by 2023, maybe Black scores 51% to White's 49%. If you factor in those games from the past, you have a large number of flaws that will lead to a number that is not in line with the theory of the opening at its present time.

1) Old games skewing the numbers - in the case above, you factor in the old games and it may show as 59% for White when it should be 50% with best play.

2) Not all games played are included, which increases the variance.

If you want the closest thing to a database showing the soundness of an opening and the scoring percentage, download games from the last 10 years on ICCF.com. ICCF is International Correspondence Chess Federation. In over the board or internet, the clock plays a factor as well, not just the soundness of the position. I lost a game over the board last night that I was outright winning due to a gross blunder in time trouble.

With ICCF, you've got engines involved as well. You will likely see a draw ratio of somewhere between 80 and 90%, sometimes higher in certain events. But you will get a better read of accurate percentages, like in 500,000 Sicilians, you might have 35000 wins for White, 15000 wins for Black, and 450,000 draws, which would be a 52% score for White (260,000 points out of a possible 500,000).

Trying to validate that White is better on a line that is dead because because of some random past Results is hogwash and only someone who is very niave would believe that to be a valid basis to claim White has an advantage when he in fact doesn't!

And "soundness" DOESN'T RELATE TO STATS!

screw pawn pushing coward GMs and engines! Their convoluted plans are often SUICIDE in the REAL WORLD.

I don't listen to ANYONE on chess theory unless they have the stats to back their claims up.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one

Stats, ESPECIALLY in gambits, which is where most of the winning is at the amateur level, show you where all the bodies are buried, and when you follow those stronger performing lines, you find all of those mates in 8, traps, and +5 positions. Stats don't lie, and real humans don't play those perfect IMAGINARY lines that only exist, pun intended, in THEORY.

Talk in "IF"s all you want, ignore statistically verifyable truths because they hurt your feelers, but the stats are the stats, and anyone that ignores them is living in a DELUSIONAL magical unicorn altverse.

If your GM mainlines were a threat, then they'd have the killer stats gambits OWN, and not wishy washy 48:48 or 20:60:20 boring stats.

All you're espousing us that everyone should LOSE properly only playing equality seeking lines. Meanwhile, us gambiteers are waging asymmetrical warfare, and at my level, positional weenies CANT KEEP UP.

arguing against stats makes you look like a science denying bobblehead when FACTs don't give a flying frog about your delusions or feelers. Stats = reality and reality is verifyable with stats. Embrace the TRUTH! You don't have to like it, but you have zero credibility when you deny it. NONE mindless collection of GM approved "talking points"

I'll stick where MY winning stats are, and chase lines where others are winning to improve MY stats. Fortunately, amateur stats favor gambits, so I can SURMISE that a line that's 48:48 is another toothless pawn pushing main line i'd only do poorly in anyways while the 1 with 8% winning stats by move 3 or 4 is the one where i can use MY tactics based tool set.

It's too freakin' bad you pawn pushers lose 8% more than you win against "inferior" gambits...

OOOOH THAT'S GOTTA STING!

I love me the hartlaub charlick gambit! Take my 2 center pawns PLEASE OH PLEAE OH PLEASE!!! they were only in my way and holding me back. Now that I have open lines in the center for both bishops, a semi-open e file and fully open d, I can get my pieces swinging and make things happen like never before!

2:1 STATS! i'm FINALLY 3% away from equality against the french with alapin diemer now too that i have a line i can develop for attacks with, without cowardly poodles running from every other gambit you throw at them or pushing pawns. Stats led me to that result (along with liking the semi-open f file BDG themes) and with serious homework, I could join all the other gambiteers with winning stats.

Funny how I keep finding my comfort zone through stats. OK, well not with maroczy fantasy maybe, but confusing that with alapin diemer (love me some BDGs!) and playing 3.Be3 led to INSTANT crushing stats against caro kanns simply playing my fried liver way... zero theory!

First off, reported for the name-calling - Science-denying bobblehead????

Secondly, if you are going to quote, do it right for crying out loud!

I said Soundness does not EQUATE to statistics. Equate and relate are not the same thing. I never said they don't relate, but I also emphasized that when you factor in:

A) Low rated players

B) Short time controls

C) Tons of missing games

D) Old games

Variance goes up for each of those factors, and especially how high that variance gets with chess.com's database makes the statistics too insignificant to determine a correct level of soundness.

And unlike some people, I merely put facts on the posts, not name-calling! When you have to use name-calling to defend yourself, it makes you sound weak, kind of like someone that took the stand on Monday in New York!

Who cares about what is sound or not. The post was obviously about someone trying to find a fun gambit to play, not the Berlin.

No, I want this to be about ripping pawns out of the way. If someone knows of an anti grobnik that does that, share it. I can't be the world's only pawn hater.

Staunton Gambit is an awesome anti stonewall.

By the very nature of GETTING PAWNS OUT OF THE WAY, gambits are bound to happen.

Are there no grandmaster lines about opening closed games trading on equality? You have to ask the right questions to get the right answers, then there's all the party poopers who don't want to see people find their happy place even if they know where it is and want to troll against a clearly labeled unambiguous topic, instead of contribute anything productive.

You bet I love gambits. I'm all about mobility, initiative and getting those vile putrid hideous abominationistical pawns out of my way

GUILTY!!!