The Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit
Sort:
Robert_New_Alekhine
Oct 26, 2014
0
#61
Oct 26, 2014
0
#62
IM prfen wrote: "Brilliant opening strategy: You suckrifice a couple of pieces in the opening, so there is no chance to blunder them later..."
I know somebody who sacrifices in the opening a lot - and unsoundly. Here is an example:
abrahampenrose wrote:
This is a funny thread. The little ones are saying they can beat experts and IMs with this "perfectly sound" opening. The IM is saying nu-uh you can't. Meanwhile lets look at the fred position.
Black loses two pawns, castling rights, and king safety. This is an awesome opening for bragging rights (look what i can give you and still win!), but dont drink your own kool aid. Its a bad bad opening, and if ya admit it, IM pfren will go away.
On a chessboard, you can fool an opponent into losing with bad moves. But you should never fool yourself. Let your opponent be overconfident. But never get confident yourself.
Well said!
i like to accept and then play g3 and I think it is correct
skotheim2 hat geschrieben:
i like to accept and then play g3 and I think it is correct
Sorry mate, wrong white pawn...the Blackburne-Hartlaub is 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6...youve showed the Froms gambit... :-) greetings!
Nov 11, 2015
0
#67
This is certainly better than the garbage line with Qe7 where black tries to play Qb4+ after Bf4 and hope for Bd2 Qxb2 Bc3, when Bb4 wins immediately.
lolurspammed hat geschrieben:
This is certainly better than the garbage line with Qe7 where black tries to play Qb4+ after Bf4 and hope for Bd2 Qxb2 Bc3, when Bb4 wins immediately.
I agree...both, the Soller with 2...f6 and the Blackburne-Hartlaub with the more quiet 2...d6 are better in practical chess (OTB and blitz) than the mainlines with Nc6 and Qe7, cause in this lines black remains passive, when white knows what to do.
In the sidelines with 2...f6 and 2...d6 you can get good counterplay, when White doesnt play straight forward.
This doesnt means,that the side lines of the Englund are sound openings...but no risk, no fun.
If you are afraid of being a pawn down or if you prefer to go for a minor attack on the queenside or pounding on an isolated pawn, then you better stay with the queens gambit declined.
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!!
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.
Dark_Falcon wrote:
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?
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.
-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.
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.
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)