Perhaps you could use a pgn
punish the French with the nice scoring Alapin Diemer Gambit! (basic theory tree)
Sort:
perhaps more "interesting", but not as strong performing. that, and it's too much like the monte carlo which I've grown to hate.
48:48 in the main line is reason to AVOID a "gambit" in my book (pun intended)
MUCH MORE booties getting waxed in the Alapin.
want pgn? I'll see if i can convert my tree into pgn.
well, I saved the tree as a pgn file, but have no way to attach it here. hold on, I'll look into finding a host I can link to. OK, here's a link where you can download the pgn
If you know of a better place to share it, I'll do that, but google drive should work. I got the pgn from my Chess Tempo tree. There's no way to directly share that that I could see
back to the diemer duhm,
is 57:39 in 5,395 games which is really nice, if evaluated as -2.5, but I'm still liking the Alalapin Diemer because it's so similar to the maroczy fantasy carokann, and I bet the two transpose between each other even.
it's strong in the 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. c4 dxe4 4. d5 Nf6 5. Nc3 sideline too, but I DESPISE ANY pawn in the way of knight to f. that's an immediate deal breaker right there for me. the similarity to the blackmar diemer and king's gambit works for me. i like open f files and my bishop on c4 which the maroczy allows at least in some variations. when I saw THAT, I really got interested and started a book on that, but there's a lot of lines in that. the alapin is a relatively theory light gambit, at least the first 7 moves. that's why i'm sharing this and not the fantasy variation... yet
i just checked my book out there, and it's more than twice as long with half of my theory ending at 6...? and most of the rest having no replies for move 7 yet.
everyone has their own style.
Dec 21, 2022
0
#6
alexlehrersh wrote:
Diemer-Dum is more intresting
Both are bad for White!
not statistically. evaluation(ally?) maybe, but any opening that scores 8% better before move 5 is not bad. theoretical perfect games do not exist at the amateur level.
i'm soooo happy to have discovered jonathan shrantz's, gotham chess' and remote chess academy's youtube channels. those are 3 wicked strong players who "get it" when it comes to gambits. it warms my heart when i hear one of them say in essence "well, you're 2 pawns down here, but winning 85% of your games" that screams INITIATIVE! to me and that's what this attacker longs for. i hate most of the crap i have to play just to get to a king's gambit game where I score better than my peers because it suits my style. i'm not even booked up in it and NEVER play h4, EVER!
I mean come on NY! as a fellow giants fan, you gotta love a team that wins the "real game" from a come back from the dead wild card draw. that's what loving gambits is like kind of. haters hate, but when you stomp them in just a dozen moves, ohhhh that's the stuff!
56:41 MINIMUM from move 4 continuations? explain to me how that's actually BAD. 15% PERFORMANCE edge! If I could bet a penny on EVERY alapin diemer game played. I'd get a pizza real quick.
meanwhile, I have a great deal on the brooklynn bridge I'd like to share with you and a fantastic offer from an oil shiek in exile.
Some of them are interesting but most are just awful. An example would be his really awful English Gambit that he warned everyone not to play but Eric Rosen played it and lost. I played it and won but it's still awful. I do watch the content so if it is in an opening I play, I know what to do so I don't lose instantly
@1
It will rather be the French player who will punish your Alapin Diemer Gambit.
Dec 22, 2022
0
#10
1983B-Boy wrote:
not statistically. evaluation(ally?) maybe, but any opening that scores 8% better before move 5 is not bad. theoretical perfect games do not exist at the amateur level.
i'm soooo happy to have discovered jonathan shrantz's, gotham chess' and remote chess academy's youtube channels. those are 3 wicked strong players who "get it" when it comes to gambits. it warms my heart when i hear one of them say in essence "well, you're 2 pawns down here, but winning 85% of your games" that screams INITIATIVE! to me and that's what this attacker longs for. i hate most of the crap i have to play just to get to a king's gambit game where I score better than my peers because it suits my style. i'm not even booked up in it and NEVER play h4, EVER!
I mean come on NY! as a fellow giants fan, you gotta love a team that wins the "real game" from a come back from the dead wild card draw. that's what loving gambits is like kind of. haters hate, but when you stomp them in just a dozen moves, ohhhh that's the stuff!
56:41 MINIMUM from move 4 continuations? explain to me how that's actually BAD. 15% PERFORMANCE edge! If I could bet a penny on EVERY alapin diemer game played. I'd get a pizza real quick.
meanwhile, I have a great deal on the brooklynn bridge I'd like to share with you and a fantastic offer from an oil shiek in exile.
Statistics after 3 or 4 moves are useless. It includes all the garbage by Black players that have no idea what they are doing, like 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3? dxe4 4.f3? (Even worse than the dubious 4.Nd2) 4...f5, for example, is a terrible move for Black.
You need to base it on statistics after best play from both sides starting with Black's third move and going about 10 moves deep.
Best statistics also does not equal best move.
You actually have to study and research and understand the position.
Your faulty assessment would be the equivalent to me saying that 1.d4 Nf6 2.c3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 must be good for White or. Lack because of some stupid numerical statistic in a database full of faulty games, especially online databases full of 30 second, 1 minute, and 3 minute games. I am not one to judge the Grunfeld because I don't understand it, just like how you are clueless about the French when you think database statistics at move 3 of a database full of fast online games is valid.
SMH!
tygxc wrote:
@1
It will rather be the French player who will punish your Alapin Diemer Gambit.
Same here. Although I haven't really done a lot of prep against it, I win most of the time. It just shows that most people that play it don't know what they are doing
There are two things going on in this thread:
- Advocacy of the Alapin Gambit (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3). White gives up a pawn and gets about half a pawn in compensation, where some of that compensation comes from being white. That's not a great achievement with the white pieces, but it can give some practical chances against certain French players.
- Using a database and associated explorer tree ("statistics") to justify an opening choice. That's just wrong. We can use a database to decide what to look at, but we need to use hard, cold analysis when deciding what to actually play. Otherwise, we are failing to engage our brains and simply gambling that our opponent will make the same mistakes as the previous players did who wound up in the database. As soon as you meet an opponent who has used the same database and their brain, you will suffer.
Summary: Alapin is dodgy; using the database like this is even more dodgy.
P.S. It's quite easy to post a PGN in the forums, use the button that looks like a chessboard and you get various options.
COMPLETELY disagree! databases are the key to punishing amateurs for their REPEATED mistakes like lines where a few HUNDRED players fall for mate in one on move 8. the deeper you dig into variations where one side is winning significantly more, the more traps and pitfalls you discover.
the players that lose are losing for REASONS. following the winning players' games, one uncovers what they are.
will gambits work against a REALLY well prepared opponent who's positionally saavy and on the lookout for tactics? of course not, but they are a MINORITY. I'll take 1 horrible loss every 10 games to crush 7 or 8 players really badly any day.
i got exhausted trying to build a smith morra book because there's alreadt 30+ transpositions in it, but there's also TONS of quick mates and especially positions with significant advantage.
it was precisely because of my OWN book building that I gained a HUGE advantage over a 1700 in my very first maroczy attempt. i never fully finished studying the theory I've made so far when it started making me fall asleep, and my opponent eventually turned the tables and won, but I was super excited to have survived my first 8 or so moves fully "in book" and even up in evaluation. I'm going to find the game. BRB
I have a bit of a problem with move orders. they make my head hurt trying to learn new theory, but any time i'm doing well the first 10 moves in a game, I'm happy. it's fighting a losing game already on move 7 or 8 that vexes me.
had I studied my theory better, I would have INCREASED my advantage as players break under pressure. small advantages grow larger. I'm pleased as punch with my first attempt at not getting kicked around by a carokan and raging at their completely development crushing pawn chain. It wasn't a completely open game, but 9.Bc4 was the best move and what I'd LONGED to play in EVERY caro kann game I've hated.
haters can hate all they want. i'm gonna learn these two openenings, the hard way, as i've done with king's gambit, if I have to. I'll lose some games, badly even, but i'm already doing that more often than not and if i ONLY make it to 50:50 performance, that's more than good enough as that's all you're going to get out of "respectable" (BORING) lines anyways, but I find nooks and crannies where I beat the odds when I have some kind of theory, even if it's just experience.
the stats for falkbeer counter gambit, for example, favor BLACK 47:50 in 1.2 million games, but I'm doing 50:42 WINGING IT! give me a double edged OPEN position, and i'll do MY THING.
that's what I expect out of my budding alapin/fantasy repertoire. getting an open f file is ALWAYS my thing! I'm a king's gambiteer! i'm sure that's why I do much better with the 3.f3 gedult than 3.Nc3 blackmar diemer. i'm NOT an Nc3 player. I'm an Nf3/Bc4 guy, and an open f file with a rook bearing down on f7 gives me the pressure i need to break opponents in under 20 moves.
my very last gedult gambit game is essentially FLAWLESS! if i'm not playing the best performing move (COMPLETELY by INSTINCT! "no book study needed"), i'm finishing my opponent off playing PERFECT tactics that stockfish agrees with.
Nf3/Bc4 and 0-0 with an open f file. I LIVE FOR IT!
i REALLY need to get rid of the 2.e5 allowing scandinavian and into ...f5 reversed king's gambits. rousseau/luccini/calabrese/jaenish-schliemann even if the tactics are very different. i know i could find wins just by using my king's gambit tactics as i did when I tried the latvian gambit over a decade ago. those openings are much more my style than positional slugfests in the scandinavian.
hate all you want, but f3 is the next best thing to f4 in my book, except in the sicilian. I did terribly in the grand prix, advance, exchange (?) and even wing gambit, but took like aduck to water when the Qe2/Rd1/Rc1 formation still worked in the smith morra and was beating 90% of my opponents, losing to only ONE lower rated player with performance stats that were well over 200 points over my 1450, i think, rating.
THIS tactician lives for gambits. you do your thing and we'll meet over the board.
oh that gedult game was DELICIOUS. it might be my best game EVER in centipawns. it came naturally too. I know my comfort zone
Games opposing people with about 1000 elo difference between them hardly prove anything...
Dec 23, 2022
0
#16
indeed. I gotta admit, I've recommended this Gambit a number of times before and it's not a bad option when playing against obviously weaker players, casual gamers or that ONE particular Arch-rival (you know who I mean! heh); but yeah, to be used ONLY casually or on special occasions AND also after extensively practicing & gaining familiarity with it! I think speed games are a cool as long as you don't play it against the same opponent over n over again, or you can use it against a bot opponent, which is common sense to me. I've personally only really used it, on occasion (of course), in OTB Classic gameplay. And only with my Clubmate who was quite abit stronger than me who extensively only played the French & Sicilian Dragon. (record: 1-3).
pfren wrote:
1983B-Boy wrote:
well, I saved the tree as a pgn file, but have no way to attach it here. hold on, I'll look into finding a host I can link to. OK, here's a link where you can download the pgn
If you know of a better place to share it, I'll do that, but google drive should work. I got the pgn from my Chess Tempo tree. There's no way to directly share that that I could see
Useless stuff. It needs no brains to see that after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3? dxe4 4.f3 Nf6 5.fxe4 Nxe4 5.Bd3 the knight is not really attacked yet because of the check from h4, and so Black can play 5...c5, exchanging white's last central pawn.
An ICCF game between two weak players (as a strong ICCF player would never play that crap as white), where white was toast around move ten.
Of course mr. Ruffle may have fun playing these crappy gambits, but that's all. We have played one at ICCF, he played a stupid gambit again, and Black was winning as early as move three!
useless THEORY as only half a dozen players have made THAT MOVE! you're talking about a STATISTICAL ANOMALY! if everyone played it, then it would be RELEVANT, IT ISN'T!
you aren't punishing ANYONE with your stockfish analysis. meanwhile, in the real world, the theory holds up. NICE TRY mr. woulda coulda shoulda, but didn't
55:43 = killer STATS... what actually happens, not your FANTASY involving games that NEVER HAPPEN...
"oh no! i shouldn't play this GAMBIT (gambiteers LIVE for risk and double edged games!) because for every 1,700 players i mostly beat, half a dozen will make the best move! ohhhh... I'm sooooo fuhreekin' scared!"
HAHAHAHA!
meanwhile, back in the REALO WORLD, my stats are already improved
NEVER in this game did my opponent EVER have an advantage. I kept blowing mine, but I won it my way, and even pulled off a lot of "best moves" if not all of them
I'm quite proud that I stayed either "in book" or followed the strongest moves up to move 11 where I've already lost the game much of the time being clueless about openings. I have a WORKABLE system now I can wrap my head around, and it ties in PERFECTLY with my gedult gambit vs scandinavian (which needs work) and my maroczy fantasy. I'm an f pawn pusher. I live for open f files and attacks on f7. whoever can hate this line all they want, but it outperforms black's WEAK REPLIES more often than not, and it just suits my style versus imploding behind the dreaded carokan pawn chain. i'll toss a knight or a bishop at 2 fianchetto pawns any day. i DESPISE pawns. i want them out of the way. I had SO MUCH breathing room in this game. that's how i find my attacks. I expect my results to improve even more as I start getting used to this even if french COWARDS run from gambits with their skirts hiked and screaming like little girls. I had to give the monte carlo up because of it.
they have THEIR hide behind their pawns preferences, and I have my rip 'em out in the open and fight like a man way
I effing DESPISE pawn pushers! THAT's why I'm liking the alapin, it gives me a chance to rip weasels out of their burrows in the MAIN LINES
grandmaster parrots can hate on gambits all they want and call them "unsound", but here's me dispatching an 1841 in just NINE MOVES in the Icelandic gambit, which I've since dropped and have returned to my FAMILIAR scandinavian gambit which performs better and ISN'T a "pavnov transfer" until WHITE transposes to the pavnov. oh I hate that renaming!
initiative is NOT to be underestrimated! look the youtube video up where a mere 1700 crushes a GRANDMASTER with the "unsound smith morra gambit"
all I do is attack. OH I'm sooo sick of the stonewall straight jacket! I do OK in it, but it's the opposite of fun in the center
after looking for an antidote to carokanns which drive me nuts without theory and hating the monte carlo french because trench weasels refuse the gambit because they wet their beds at night with Bc4 nightmares, I looked into the nice scoring alapin diemer which I'm REALLY liking because it's VERY SIMILAR to the even stronger performing (but theoretically deep) maroczy/fantasy variation. I like that! I also like the king's gambit gedult (BDG) related open f file goal. i managed to get a QUICK 5 point advantage against the caro the first time i tried the maroczy, but blew it when I chased black's king's knight one too many times and am annoyed that both of the french games I attempted to alapin diemer were against players who dodge the exchange variation.
anyways, here's theory and performance stats for anyone looking to test this variation out
[[[[T#]]]] is a transposition point
56:40@1,246 means white scores 56% wins and black scores 40% at 1,246 games
+0.5 is a stockfish evaluation that white has a slight half pawn advantage with - numbers favoring black. I prefer to play lines that score the best, but in a couple of the lines that go down a pawn or more, I also offer moves with higher evaluations in case you prefer those.
hope this helps SOMEONE:
French Alapin Diemer Gambit
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3
3…dxe4 4.f3 52:45@10k -0.7
4…exf3 5.Nxf3 Nf6 6.Nc3 56:41@735 -0.5
6… Bb4 7.Bd3 [[[[T5]]]] 66:31@408
7…Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 68:30@1,877 +0.6
8…0-0 9.0-0 [[[[T8]]]] 73:24@949 +1.4
8…Nc6 9.0-0 0-0 67:31@347 +1.2
8…Nd5 9.Bd2 [[[[T7]]]] 70:27@165 +0.6
7…0-0 8.0-0 67:30@1,401 -0.5
8…b6 9.Qe1 76:23@159 -0.8
8…Nc6 9.Qe1 70:29@525 -0.3
8…Bxc3 9.bxc3 SEE: Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 O-O 9.O-O (T8)
8…Nbd7 9.Qe1 71:25@128 +0.3
8…c5 9.Qe1 cxd4 10.Bxd4 Nc6 11.Be3 Nd5 12.Bd2 Nxc3 13.bxc3 80%@5 -1.0
8…h6 9.Qd2 76%@25 +0.3
7…Nd5 8.Bd2 67:30@675 =
8…Nxc3 9.bxc3 70:29@276 +0.3
8…Bxc3 9.Bxc3 SEE: 7…Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Nd5 9.Bd2 (T7)
8…O-O 9.O-O 67:31@89 =
8…Nc6 9.O-O 53:42@57 +0.4
7…Nc6 [[[[T6]]]] 8.0-0 65:32@1,928 -0.4
6…Be7 7.Bd3 [[[[T3]]]] 7…O-O 8.O-O
8…b6 9.Qe1 Bb7 10.Rd1 60%@83 -0.2
8…Nbd7 9.Qe1 63:35@433 -0.9
8…Nc6 9.Qe1? 58:39@443 -2.9
8…c6 9.Qe1 67:31@455 =
8…c5 9.Qe1 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Rd1!? 80%@20 -1.0 (12.Qh4 -0.2)
6…Nc6 7.Bd3 62:35@2,348 -0.8
7…Bb4 8.0-0 SEE: exf3 5.Nxf3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Bd3 Nc6 (T6)
7…Be7 8.Qe2 O-O 9.O-O-O? 59:38@76 -1.4
7…Bd6 8.O-O [[[[T1]]]]
6…Bd6 7.Bd3 58:39@900 -0.8
7…Nc6 8.0-0 SEE: 6…Nc6 7.Bd3 Bd6 (T1)
7…0-0 8.0-0 [[[[T2]]]] 58:39@450 -0.7
8…Nbd7 9.Qe1 68:31@94 =
8…b6 9.Qe1 Bb7 10.Qh4 70:27@86 +1.5
8…Nc6 9.Qe1? 58:39@193 -2.2
8…c6 9.Qe1 71:26@140 +0.7
8…h6 9.Qd2 69%@36 -0.7
4…Nf6 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Bd3 58:40@527 -1.3
6…Nf6 7.Nf3 56:41@319 -0.7
7…Be7 8.Nc3 SEE: 4…exf3 5.Nxf3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Bd3 (T3)
7…Bd6 8.O-O O-O 9.Nc3 SEE: 4…exf3 5.Nxf3 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bd6 7.Bd3 0-0 8.0-0 (T2)
7…Nc6 8.O-O 56:42@622 -0.9
8…Bd6 9.Qe1? 64:34@107 -1.6
8…Be7 9.Qe1? 64:31@61 -1.8
7…Bb4+ 8.Nc3 SEE: 4.f3 Nf6 5.fxe4 Nxe4 6.Bd3 Nf6 7.Nf3 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 (T5)
7…b6 8.O-O Bb7 9.Nc3 63:38@56 -0.5
6…Qh4+?? 7.g3 Nxg3 8.Bf2 Bd6 9.Qf3 86%@14 +3.2
3…Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.c3 57:40@1,246 +0.5
6…Nc6 7.Nf3 56:40@1,031 +0.3
7…Qb6? 8.Qd2 [[[[T5]]]] 58:39@654 +1.2
7…cxd4 8.cxd4 [[[[T4]]]] 60:35@605 +0.9
7…Be7 8.Bd3 60:36@252 +0.8
6…cxd4 7.cxd4 Nc6 8.Nf3 SEE: Nc6 7.Nf3 cxd4 8.cxd4 (T4)
6…Qb6 7.Qd2 63:35@105 +1.1
7…Nc6 8.Nf3 SEE: Nc6 7.Nf3 Qb6 8.Qd2 (T5)
7… cxd4 8.cxd4 65:30@20 +1.2