The Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #81

    -BEES-

    Dark_Falcon wrote:

    NuancedConfers hat geschrieben:
    Yeah, anything besides the Englund is sooooo boring. Especially at top level where they just play some lame QGD or Nimzo and agree to a draw afer fifteen moves!!
     
     
     

    Youve got me wrong...iam not talking about top level, iam talking about club level...

    The Englund and other unsound openings arent working versus against GM´s or IM´s, but most of us never face such opponents, most of us are playing against other patzers, like we all are ;-)

    QGD on club level is mostly a boring positional game, were it is a question of time, when one of the opponents makes the first bad moves...many times its ending in a dry endgame and thats not the style of chess i prefer.

    But everyone can play his favorite style...

    For attacking players on middle club level the sidelines of the Englund are a very good choice, if you familiar with the opening and the middlegame plans.

    Why not an Albin or a Schara Gambit? Sharp, dynamic gambits against d4 that actually have a few champions and advocates above a 2400 level? What is the advantage of playing Englund sidelines vs those?

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #82

    Dark_Falcon

    -BEES- hat geschrieben:
    Dark_Falcon wrote:
    NuancedConfers hat geschrieben:
    Yeah, anything besides the Englund is sooooo boring. Especially at top level where they just play some lame QGD or Nimzo and agree to a draw afer fifteen moves!!
     
     
     

    Youve got me wrong...iam not talking about top level, iam talking about club level...

    The Englund and other unsound openings arent working versus against GM´s or IM´s, but most of us never face such opponents, most of us are playing against other patzers, like we all are ;-)

    QGD on club level is mostly a boring positional game, were it is a question of time, when one of the opponents makes the first bad moves...many times its ending in a dry endgame and thats not the style of chess i prefer.

    But everyone can play his favorite style...

    For attacking players on middle club level the sidelines of the Englund are a very good choice, if you familiar with the opening and the middlegame plans.

    Why not an Albin or a Schara Gambit? Sharp, dynamic gambits against d4 that actually have a few champions and advocates above a 2400 level? What is the advantage of playing Englund sidelines vs those?

    the Albin and the Schara-Hennig-Gambit are also great options...i never said that you can or should only play the Englund, its a thread about the Blackburne-Hartlaub, thats why i didnt mentioned both gambits.

    Personally i also play the Albin and also the Baltic Defence (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5).

    On middle club level most people handle the Baltic like a Queens Gambit and dont take on d5 in the second move and finally you have a QGD on the board with a developed queenside bishop outside the pawn structure d5, e6, c6...

    There are many sharp alternatives beside the fashion standard openings.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #83

    -BEES-

    NuancedConfers wrote:
     
    Yeah, anything besides the Englund is sooooo boring. Especially at top level where they just play some lame QGD or Nimzo and agree to a draw afer fifteen moves!!

    You could cherry pick exciting games from any opening but I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that some openings are more likely to result in sharp, exciting play than others. There are mainlines that can do that--I find great pleasure in watching professional Dragon and Najdorf games. But facing d4 with Black, there does tend to be a tradeoff where the more aggressively you fight against it, the more flawed your opening tends to be structurally.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #84

    NuancedConfers

    My post was kind of tounge-in-cheek. Yeah, of course some gambit (or the KID, Benoni, etc.) is more likely to lead to sharp play, but that

    a) doesn't mean QGD hanging pawn positions (for instance) aren't interesting (exactly the opposite, IMO)

    b) traditionally quieter stuff can't turn crazy (as evidenced above)


Back to Top

Post your reply: