Queen's Gambit Accepted simple question

HalfmoonBay1984
Or not so simple. Depending on who you are. Is white's best move 3. e3 or 3. e4 And just what kind of chess player is this website's lessons, who made it??? Nothing but a GM I should hope.........I need to get good 😢
Yigor

Both are optimal but 3. e4 is sharper. U can also play 3. Nf3. peshka.png

MichalMalkowski

Since the topic is arleady created, I have a simple question regarding QGA too.

Can someone explain why to accept the gambit at all? 

It is one of the first things we learn, that the extra pawn can't be hold. ( or rather it can, but at a cost far greater then its worth). By accepting, black gives up central power, allowing white to create strong pawn center, and obtain semi-open c-file.

 

So what black finds attractive in accepting the gambit? It seems to be walking stright into white's plans. For what reasons accepting is not considered an inaccurency?

Yigor
MichalMalkowski wrote:

Since the topic is arleady created, I have a simple question regarding QGA too.

Can someone explain why to accept the gambit at all? 

It is one of the first things we learn, that the extra pawn can't be hold. ( or rather it can, but at a cost far greater then its worth). By accepting, black gives up central power, allowing white to create strong pawn center, and obtain semi-open c-file.

So what black finds attractive in accepting the gambit? It seems to be walking stright into white's plans. For what reasons accepting is not considered an inaccurency?

 

Actually, contrary to the widespread idea, in many situations the pawn on c4 can be hold. By playing 2...dxc4, black doesn't give up the center and can counter-attack immediately with 3...c5 or 3...e5. peshka.png

JamesColeman
MichalMalkowski wrote:

Since the topic is arleady created, I have a simple question regarding QGA too.

Can someone explain why to accept the gambit at all? 

It is one of the first things we learn, that the extra pawn can't be hold. ( or rather it can, but at a cost far greater then its worth). By accepting, black gives up central power, allowing white to create strong pawn center, and obtain semi-open c-file.

 

So what black finds attractive in accepting the gambit? It seems to be walking stright into white's plans. For what reasons accepting is not considered an inaccurency?

 

I've played the QGA all my life (on an occasional basis). Some of the pluses are you get very free piece play; most of the moves that would simply defend the d5 pawn involve some type of concession or early passivity - and remember that in many lines of other openings eg. the Slav (which was my main opening) Black often does play ...dxc4 shortly anyway.

 

You also have a fairly easy plan and there's not much to remember, also on a practical note, a lot of players are poorly prepared to face it. So yeah, it's of course not 'better' than other openings but it's a perfectly reasonable option.

HalfmoonBay1984
Yigor wrote:

Both are optimal but 3. e4 is sharper. U can also play 3. Nf3.

 

Thank you for answering Yigor. I hope you don't mind telling me a little more clear? What in the chess world does "sharp play" mean? I think I know what it means. But do you think it would be considered unwise to follow sharp chess lines if you're not good enough yet to handle them? I'm what on chess.com would consider "An Intermediate Player" wink.png

I can handle players of ratings of anywhere between 1200 - 1600. From what I have to say about myself.

HalfmoonBay1984

SorryImAnon wrote:

I play d4 because I want to play e4 without black being able to play e5

how come you don't like playing e4 e5 games if i may ask?

MichalMalkowski

Thank You for Your answers.

Yigor
HalfmoonBay1984 wrote:
Yigor wrote:

Both are optimal but 3. e4 is sharper. U can also play 3. Nf3.

Thank you for answering Yigor. I hope you don't mind telling me a little more clear? What in the chess world does "sharp play" mean? I think I know what it means. But do you think it would be considered unwise to follow sharp chess lines if you're not good enough yet to handle them? I'm what on chess.com would consider "An Intermediate Player"

I can handle players of ratings of anywhere between 1200 - 1600. From what I have to say about myself.

 

Yes, "sharp" doesn't necessarily mean that it's better. wink.png I've introduced the notion of statistical sharpness:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/statistical-sharpness-and-evaluation

Let's calculate it in this case (chesstempo master database, ELO: 2200+).

  • 3. e4, sh1 = 1.1
  • 3. e3, sh1 = 0.7
  • 3. Nf3, sh1 = 0.7

Moves with sh1 > 1 are called statistically sharp (for white). It means that, by making such a move, the probability of winning is higher than the probability of a draw. peshka.png

MatthewFreitag

e3 is better, as you can never hold onto the pawn in e3 lines.

Example: 

 

HalfmoonBay1984

Thank you Yigor. And MatthewFreitag, that is very interesting play. But I agree with Yigor. 3. e3 leaves a spot open for the queen but if if black isn't dumb, he's not going to play c6 because of the upcoming queen or even b5 altogether! It's a lost position for black and terrible play, were black to hold on to the c pawn......

MatthewFreitag

e4 also opens up attacks such as e5, and gives black much more agressive responses. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS1-2kCsIiI

That video explains my basic reasoning behind liking e3 more.