Owens Defense Naselwaus Gambit 58% wins 1600-2000
Sort:
What is the naselwaus?
3...Bxe4 take the pawn.
Noob my hiney!
I've CLIMBED up to 1891 where 10m isn't sandbagged trollboy and can go toe to toe with ANY 1800 in smith morra ESPECIALLY! I'll back to beat you over the head with my 1891 game when I'm off this toy computer.
FIRST off, the theory is VICIOUS and complete.
SECOND, owens is a line i do very badly against pawn chaining to block the bishop because i don't do positional
This theory is the SOLUTION to my owens problem and solving problems in one's games is how you progress. DUH!
My current rating after coming back from a break yesterday is 1647 and should be 100 points higher. it'd be 10 points higher if i didn't kf1 in my first game and resign
I'm fixing the holes in my repertoire like CRUSHING 1.d4 2:1 with the hartlaub charlick GAMBIT instead of losing 10% or more with the stonewall straightjacket, am crushing former nightmare carokanns 2:1 with the mieses I stumbled on BY ACCIDENT and stuck with winning, like maroczy fantasy wasn't, and have FINALLY solved my frech dread with awesome alapin diemer (how i accintally started playing mieses, not even knowing it existed) and am so happy to be up a % to 45:48 which will eventually be winning when I study that after more pressing matters like crushing owens, pirc and moderns with THIS theory and the byrne variation.
What a stupid froggin' question and an even stupider ASSumption about my skill and this site can rotate on its 10m rating sandbagging!
YOU'RE WELCOME for this FREE book you sad pathetic insecure troll
does not seem like white gets much in these positons, black has a slight disadvantage in space but hes also up a pawn and will win as more pieces get traded
EviLOverMind wrote:
@gik-tally
Why a noob player like you wasted so much time on that nonsense?
If you want to improve as a chess player you better learn how to play chess.
exactly. hes been having a hard time understanding this and claims that trash like this is good because its wins more in the 1500 lichess range
what part of FILTERED 1600-2000 are you illiterates unable to process?!
I got yer "noob" right HERE!
1891! climbing UP through 1800s!
I don't need to explain WHY I do anything to you troll boy! got that?!
I haven't been in a chess playing mood after my most recent slump and creating theory passes the time. after 700 lines of unpromising equal or less theory for the luccini gambit including the brutal rousseau, which I want to play, I had to take a break from that.
if owens players know what they're doing, I'm sure they could refute this theory, but the sneaky little 2% weasels are out of THEIR sneaky little 2% weasel books with THIS sneaky 1% weasel book... thus levelling the playing field and then stomping all over it.
unless you face an owens player who's read THIS thread, they're not going to waste their time on a 1% sideline. I wouldn't, but the naselwaus is the ONLY thing that came up as a "gambit" against the owens, and the stats are the stats. dragging the little sneaks onto YOUR turf punishes them, sometimes in as little as 6 moves.
there isn't a line in the book where black has winning stats regardless of the evaluations.
oh... DON'T play the nimzowisch against ME! I have winning stats there without even trying little boy. it USED to be a nightmare in my 1400 days where even 1200s beat me, but not anymore.
I eat passive players for lunch, and I'm 79% winning with 2.d4
WHUT?! WHUT?! WHUT?!!!
just as in poker, overconfidence and ESPECIALLY trash talking is the first sign of a WEAK player.
...Nb8, yeah... sidelining, like owens weasels might be a way to score wins, but then you're only PROVING MY POINT with THIS sidelining theory and the stats are the stats. look 'em up, book 'em up, reel 'em in when you hook 'em up
ZERO PERCENT?!!!
meanwhile... in the REAL WORLD, here's me beating an 1891 nimzo with 91% accuracy
no book, no theory, just PLAYING CHESS
2200... SURE I'd against me winning THAT game, but I DID beat an overconfident 2200 as a lowly 1469 at caissa chess, in 10 minute when my handle was gambitron and he played the 3.d4 main line scandinavian taunting me with "where's your gambit now?" when, he KNEW, or should have, if you want to see the scandinavian or icelandic gambit, you play 3.c4
so, after he trades pieces down, brings his queen out and goes on a pawn hunting spree on my queenside until I found a square he couldn't check me anymore, I sprung my rook to f3 or f4 x-ray on his king, pushed him back a rank with my own queen check, and grabbed his rook
"THERE'S MY GAMBIT!"
that was sooo satisfying to say to the troll! so, he decides he wants to trade queens and kept harrasing me until i decided, FINE, I'm up a rook, traded, and after he decided he was going to re-queen, i retreated my rook to f8 guarding the rank and blocking his king from crossing the file to stop my pawn. his overloaded king was helpless, so HE rage quit and made me wait 7 and a half minutes for my win.
I can beat a 2200. not every time, and definitely not in a positional battle, but YOU make mistakes too. like THIS "grandmaster" (?)
me? i go out of my way to encourage and or help 500s, not pathetically look for external validation.
not at the moment. I started out as an 1800 and beat other 1800s for 86 games
like I said, if you were half as capable as reading as you are running your sad pathetic mouth, i'm 1647. correction, 1657... and i'm gonna try and boost that right now
move 12 in a scandinavian... looking good
just blundered his queen! I got this
1800 on lichess is a joke, people on chess.com that are 1800 are much better
83% accuracy and 1665 thank you
oooh! carokannn!!! 2:1 odds! another caro falls for fried liver bait! 2 rooks vs rook bishop
Nc3 is not an inaccuracy, its a real move, just a little feeble.
88% accurate EASY win and now back up to 1673
58:39 against caros in 69 games... no need to do homework THERE... yet, but they're starting to catch on and my stats have slipped from 2:1, but 3:2 is just fine by me. and to think, i started playing it by accident.
I did better in this game because i took more time than usual figuring best moves out.
AngryPuffer wrote:
1800 on lichess is a joke, people on chess.com that are 1800 are much better
in 10 minute, YES, because chess.com sandbags 10 minute! that's why I refuse to play here as I did another site where my 10 minute rating was 300 points lower than my 15 minute one despite playing at the same exact pace and spotting my opponents 5 free minutes. sandbagging 10m is a criminal abomination.
i spit on it
I really don't care. my rating is what it is, and i'm working on improving it getting out of positional and on to juicy tactical variations I'm much better at
ratings or no ratings... 2 games at 83% and 88% accuracy are EXACTLY THAT, and not shabby. don't get me started on stalefish sandbagging gambits.
at the site that sandbagged blitz where I was something like 1550 in 15m and 1200 in 10, I beat a 2000+ as a "1200". he let me pin TWO pieces and capture with pawns in the center. it was funny watching him rage the first time when he couldn't take, then making the same blunder a few moves later
i stopped playing chess seriously and i fell to 1600 elo, those people still make many opening mistakes and every so often blunder pieces (on both chess.com and lichess) you just need to study the opening more and stop fooling around with these nonsense gambits and trash opening lines. instead focus on playing principled chess, try something like the scotch where you open up the center, you develop all your pieces to good squares, and try to create imbalances and win the game.
by playing these bogus gambits, you will climb to around 1800-2000 elo quite easily and get that dopamine boost you wanted so much. however, you will be unable to surpass that level because you will start encountering people who actually know how to properly deal with your gambits, you will encounter people who are prepared to deal with whatever crap you throw at them, and they will win without difficulty, and you will lose.
All my WINNING is in gambits
All of my FUN is in gambits
YOU really need to get over yourself and stop trying to tell people what to do.
The inability to create TREEs and train against them and ditch toothless Scandinavian and stonewall are why I QUIT playing! I don't care if my stats in the scandinavian are wining and it's where my highest accuracy games are. I still DESPISE IT... no mobility, no targets, no tactics NO FUN
you play chess because ratings are all YOU care about while i'll keep playing for fun, the mental exercise to keep my aging brain fit, and to find as many tactics as possible.
I have ZERO respect for cowardly pawn pushing pataks.
just last night a pawn pushing poodle who tried to be clever EVENTUALLY got neutered. I hated the game, but delighted in eating his heart and howling at kahless in the sky
Oh, it wasn't a poodle it was a pirc! Even MORE delicious!!!!
HOWWWWWWWWWWWWL!!!!!!!
Hypermodern COWARD! Come out and fight like a man trench weasel!
Having THEORY for the pirc, probably byrne, maybe 150, unlikely austrian would have made that a lot less annoying, just as owens is annoying.
I'll play my games my way, and if you don't like it... you know where you can go, and it ISN'T stovokor
you play like a 1300, it seems as if these openings are the reason for your inflated elo. you are the type of person to only fight the level 1 enemies in a game because its easy and makes you feel good when you kill them, but when you try to improve you are kicked down because you refuse to upgrade anything further or learn more
I can't stand hypermodern defenses and the owens, along with pirc/modern gets on my nerves. I looked for a gambit to counter it, and stumbled on the naselwaus. it has GREAT stats at the amateur level, and it's a sneaky under 1% attack on a sneaky 2% defense! beat the trench weasels at their own game, ESPECIALLY if you're an attacker, and I imagine most 1.e4 players are.
take a look at it, and see if you like it. all the stats given are for players rated 1600-2000. percentages in bold blue are for frequency of move 3 deviations, and bold black percentages are for continuations from the first branching. when I give an "interesting" evaluation (!?) for a move, it's because it has a lower evaluation than stockfish's choice, but is a move that performs better over the board like several lines that suggest f4. if a line ends in italics, that's stockfish's ponder if it's significantly stronger than the top performing over the board reply
if you haven't studied a line against the owens and would like some theory to drill so as not to be flat footed and take them weasels out of their book and into yours, check it out.
the shorter lines at the top have a bit of branching that would double the size of the theory and then some and the long ones don't have significant branching for the most part. I tried to cover the most essential lines.
O.K. I finally completed an entire BOOK for the naselwaus... probably the only one in existence. I noticed that a lot of themes repeat, and with 21 transpositions, the theory could be even longer, but this is pretty much EVERYTHING from white's perspective.
OK... the text converter did some weird formatting when I had everything in clear pages. it's even worse trying to paste it here as text.
LOOK! A TUMBLEWEED!