White gets good atacking chances
Queen's Gambit is horrible
Sort:
Jan 1, 2020
0
#44
Strangemover wrote:
That is a better line than 4.Qa4+ stuff.
I only spent one minute analyzing that line.
GVSK1728 wrote:
Calling me a "stupid clown"? That is RUDE and also opinion. Don't deny it.
You did set yourself up for abuse by saying that the Queen's Gambit is a horrible opening. It's actually the best opening, according to the chess.com stats. It has also been played by some of the greatest chess players of all-time, with very positive results.
ChessNoob1827 wrote:
And White is fine
I actually analyzed that variation. I think that 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Be6 4. Qa4ch c6 5. Bxc4 b5 is better for black.
Asparagusic_acids wrote:
White gets good atacking chances
I didn't consider Nbd2. Interesting.
GVSK1728 wrote:
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Be6 e3 simply doesn’t work.
https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=4152280
Jan 1, 2020
0
#49
GVSK1728 wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Hadron wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Nice job leaving out White's 2 best moves, 3.Nf3 and 3.e3.
Only a stupid clown would utter the QG as bad, dubious, unsound, or any other negative adjective.
And, as per normal, you do not disappoint. It does make one wonder if buying any sort of membership gets you a pass on abusing people because you seem to do it an awful lot on multiple threads without any recriminations.
Now chess,
If the Queen's Gambit is horrible for White, stick to Fischer's maxum about e4 being best by test and if the Queen's Gambit is bad for black then do not play d5 and if you must there are better and sharper methods than accepting the pawn
Have a nice day!
That is because I do not abuse. I speak the truth! Sometimes the truth hurts! If the truth hurts your snowflake feelings, too bad!
You don't get penalized for speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god!
If the truth is too much for you, go be a follower of Trump's Twitter BS!
Calling me a "stupid clown"? That is RUDE and also opinion. Don't deny it.
Whatever, Snowflake! Too bad you can't accept the truth! Again I will say, only a stupid clown would claim the Queen's Gambit is a horrible opening! You may not like playing it and may not prefer the positions that result from it, but to claim it's horrible is someone only a stupid clown would say!
I myself don't play the QG these days. I play 1.e4 (or 1.b4 or 1.c3) as White and against 1.d4, I'm a King's Indian player, but just because you don't play it doesn't make it horrible! SHEESH!
Jan 1, 2020
0
#50
@GVSK1728
You seem to dislike the queen gambit because of the pawn's loss but don't forget that the aim in the opening is not to keep the material balanced but rather create a position where your pieces are developped, you control the center and your king is safer.
One example of a full piece gambit that shows the strenght of the lead in development, center and king safety.
GVSK1728 έγραψε:
Calling me a "stupid clown"? That is RUDE and also opinion. Don't deny it.
Yes, this is quite unfair. You don't look like a clown.
hmchessuser wrote (~19 hours ago):
After 2. dxc4, wouldn't Qa4 win the pawn back?
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1049093
I was browsing through a 1966 book by Alexey Sokolsky and came across a reference to this game, indicating that "bringing the Queen out so early in the game is not to be recommended." After 11...Rfd8, he commented that Black had an "advantage in development".
It's pretty obvious that the OP is either trolling or doesn't really know how to play chess. There is no poit in re-inventing theory that was well known to every strong player by around 1920
Jan 2, 2020
0
#54
melvinbluestone wrote:
pfren wrote:
The Queen's Gambit is horrible on pink chessboards.
Amen to that.
Who's playing this game, Elle Woods?
Miley Cyrus and she twerks every time she captures anything!
Laskersnephew wrote (~1 hour ago):
It's pretty obvious that the OP is either trolling or doesn't really know how to play chess. There is no poit in re-inventing theory that was well known to every strong player by around 1920
I think that some sort of hostility is understandable as a reaction to a declaration that the Queen's Gambit is horrible. On the other hand, the subject is perhaps of interest. In 2016, IM Andrew Martin wrote, "An early ...b5 is risky and was given the thumbs down by theoreticians until very recently, when computers have shown that Black can get away with it in certain circumstances. Generally, after 3 Nf3 b5 is poor, whereas after 3 e3 and 3 e4, it may be playable."
https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=3604275
The distance between "The Queen's Gambit is Horrible" and "Black can get away with it [b5] under certain circumstances" is light years. And if you look at the sample variations the OP provided, you will be under no illusion that he knew what he was talking about
kindaspongey wrote:
… I think that some sort of hostility is understandable as a reaction to a declaration that the Queen's Gambit is horrible. On the other hand, the subject is perhaps of interest. …
blueemu wrote:
Doesn't 6. b3 recover the Pawn with advantage?
https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=4056696
5.Nc6 is good for black.
Bxc4
Nxb4
Qxb7
Rb8 Qa6 Nb4 too much activity for black.