What is going on with the Mikenas Defense Lithuanian Variation?

having just started playing the englund gambit > hartlaub charlick variation 1.d4 e5!? 2.dxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6, I need something to play against 2.c4. My instinct (and because I always wanted to play it to begin with) would be to play 2...d5 and transpose to the albin counter gambit, but it has terrible stats.

2...Nc6 3.d5 Nce7, on the other hand, has KILLER stats as UGLY (as in stonewallish straightjacket with pawns in the way in the center and a poorly placed knight) as it looks to me.

what's going on here? what is black's positional edge or his powerful plan to get such 41:56 stats in EITHER main line?

and black plays ...Ng6 after EITHER 4.Nc3 or 4.e4 and at least in the 4.e3 line, gets AT LEAST a 56% win rate no matter WHAT line he choses to play! there's some powerful mojo happening here.

i look at it, and I see a hideous closed center I'd want to sack a minor piece if I have to to open things up.

It scores so well for black because alot of white players don't know what they're doing and weaken their dark squares by playing e4 (and/or Bg5xf6), and then castle kingside straight into black's attack.

Also, it is mostly reached through a 1...Nc6 move order, and most people who play it likely specialize in these structures, which could explain black's score.

After Ng6, black wants to play Bc5, Nf6, d6, 0-0 and play for a kingside attack.

Something like this:

It's good for White

lol you insane. the lituanian variation is an improved knights tango.

in what world is this "ugly"? black has almost equalized already. black got the equivalent of the van geet attack with 1.e4 d5 2.nc3 d4 but the extra tempo of c5 being completely harmless.
here is a 10 move miniature i played vs an expert in a tournament game.

not so ugly anymore huh? those ugly knights are raptors waiting to pounce in a kingside attack. Main reason you dont see it often is because the normal move order with 1.d4 nc6 allow white a free hand for 2nd move . the Most common here is 2.nf3 which stops the lituanian plan and now black must play a chigorin with nf3 variation, a quirky KID with an early nc6 or maybe a zurich nimzo indian if he can.

thank you captain obvious! never seen 7 move games composed of perfect moves personally

i know how badly participation points mean to you.

This line is irrelevant since 2. dxe5 is better.

I only came to this thread because I thought it was about a variation of the Mikenas variation against the Modern Benoni. And I was only interested in that because I was really thinking of the critical line, which is not the Mikenas variation but which I once confused with it over 30 years ago and it stuck in my mind.

how is it ugly? it's CLOSED with a big chunk of pawns IN THE CENTER blocking EVERYTHING. I despise closed positions. that's why I quit the stonewall and and still kicking butts 2:1 with the hartlaub charlick gambit, but I need a reply to 1.d4 e5!? 2.c4. I'd WANT to play the albin gambit from here, but black is doing worse in that OTB and better with THIS variation.

GAMBITING my 2 central pawns in the hartlaub charlick is the entire reason I play THAT line. it's the exact opposite of "slav-walling" which is half or more of the reason I quit chess over a decade ago. this line does the exact opposite of what I'm after with 1.d4 e5!? 2.dxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6

i tried watching a mikenas video, but this is just a sideline from that move order whereas 2.c4 the #2 reply to the englund gambit after the 2.dxe5 main line.

DESPITE the stats, I think I'll try the albin. this is a POSITIONAL line then? I hate it! all the anti-tactical positional crap in the scandinavian is the reason I STILL hate playing THAT. I tried to learn the rousseau gambit, but after getting nowhere with it after 2 hours of studying just THAT move order nightmare... without even building and learning the REST of my repertoire has put those plans on the back burner.

Okay, but it can also be reached through either 1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 e5 or 1.c4 Nc6 2.d4 e5, and also shares many transpositions with both 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 and also 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6.

My definition of ugly is that pawn on d6 in the Hartlaub-Charlick. But if you're comfortable in those positions you could try this (although no guarantees white will take on e5):

I'm playing 1.d4 e5 as black and need theory for 2.c4. again, despite the bad stats, the albin is going to be way more my open game tactics loving style, like the hartlaub charlick. it's soooo nice having pieces developed and open lanes to swing them in. I wish SOMEONE told me about the harlaub charlick all those years I begged for a stonewall exit and kept getting told to indian/benko/benoni, only I DESPISE fianchettos... either side of them.

give me a QUICK king's gambit/BDG etc. style semi-open f file with a knight on f and a bishop on c, and that's what makes me happy. I'm kicking soooo much butt with the carokann mieses that I actually started playing by ACCIDENT with way better results than attempting maroczy fantasy

improved knight's tango my furry exit! it's a CLOSED GAME and closed games must die. the only thing I hate more than a closed game straight jacket is a hypermodern trench weasel who hides behind pawn moves

you can't co-ordinate your pieces in closed positions and there's no mobility. and who the eff wants to plat 50 move plus games? not me!

THIS is more my style:

its a closed game in that white has a space advantage but so what? the attack bishop is developed outside the pawn chain and all your pieces have useful and healthy squares. If piece play attack isnt enough you have two pawn breaks to work with. It has none of the obvious diadvantages of a lot of cramped losed games.
you cant force open games with black especially agaisnt 1.d4 . if white wants boring and safe advantage he will get it.

oh i've hated the french a VERY LONG TIME! I used to have less than 20% winning stats... possibly closer to 10% up to at least 1500. I beat an 1800 once with the exchange variation, hate the advance variation and giving trench weasel my own pawn to hide behind, i TRIED playing the monte carlo variation, but weasels run from that with their skirts raised like pretty much every other ngambit, but i'm doing OK with the alapin diemer which I started to compliment my gedult (I do bad in MOST early knight to c lines) blackmar diemer against fellow scandinavians (Oh i despise playing the marshall and want to ...e5/...f5 sooooo bad!), which uses ideas similar to good old king's gambit and am DESTROYING carokanns with the BDG transpositional mieses gambit which I immediately started destroying black in BY ACCIDENT confusing it with the alapin diemer and was having lousy results trying to play the maroczy fantasy.

i REALLY love my 3x BDG + KG repertoire. smith morra isn't as easy as it used to be. when i started playing it with minimal theory and the standard Qe2/Rfd1/Rhc1 formation and tactics... tactics.... sooooo many tactics! i was winning 90% or MORE of my games, only lost to 2 lower rated players, and by the time I quit playing chess, my rating in just the smith morra was something like 300 points higher than my mid 1500s rating in only smith morra games. not these days, but i still like it

my 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Be3 stats are 44:48 in 52 games vs 43:57 playing 3.d4 and even worse 41:59 in 27 "monte carlo gambits" (DECLINED!) I'm at a respectable 52:48 in 23 alapin gambits accepted games. I'm happy with those results if not all that sideline crap

FINALLY beating french players in a dozen or so moves once in a while is soooo satisfying. if only I had such "my style" lines against the rest of hypermoderns.

here's one of my best games against a french fry:

I only made 3 inaccurate moves with no mistakes or blunders. most of my wins take much longer

french don't fall for Bxf7+ pin break tactics like carokanns do.

and at least my current favorite carokann game

I like open spaces and mobility and long for semi-open f files and a knight on f and a bishop on c. the mieses and I are on the same page. I was meant to stumble into it

lets see

1. white makes his bishop on c1 completely locked to slightly lessen the range of your own AND lets black get a free f5? it is not exactly a great tradeoff. 
2. lets say after reading 1 you still dont like it.... play bb4 instead and try to damage the pawn structure . play moves like a5 or qe7 if needed and consider the bc5 retreat if they play e4. Even if black cant guarantee damaging the pawn structure , losing the bishop pair in this position is not a big deal..

1...e5?? And 2...d6?? Are both trash moves. Anything can beat the 1500 chumps, but the moment you start facing real opposition, like those with 1800+ over the board ratings, which can be anywhere from 1700 to 2200 on here, your results will suck.

Better off sticking to something more sound. If you hate the Stonewall and closed positions in general, play the Grunfeld. There are 5 types of center, only 2 of which are closed in nature:

Closed - The center two files are completely blocked with play on the wings - i.e. Advance French, Classical King's Indian

Mobile - One side gets a big center with mobile pawns, other side chips away and entices over-extension. You hate closed, I hate THIS! i.e. Alekhine, Grunfeld

Static - One central file is blocked, neighboring files feature either semi-open (Exchange QGD) or pawn breaks (orthodox QGD, Stonewall Dutch)

Open - Minimum one fully open file. Exchange French, Petroff, Berlin.

Dynamic - Amorphous pawn structures. Basically everything else. Saemisch King's Indian, Najdorf Sicilian, etc.

I'm not a fan of 2...d6, but I play 1...e5 against 1.d4 every single game as black and commit absolute murder. All my opponents are higher than 2200 on here. Just this year I have beaten more than 100 titled players with 1.d4 e5.

my results would be much poorer with literally any other opening, 1...e5 is black's best way of getting an attacking game against d4.

If OP is playing OTB where people might see he likes the Hartbaub-Charlick and have time to prepare for him, it could be a risky choice. But if he wants a weapon to use in his online games, it will serve him well, no matter how strong his oponents are.

then you playing the wrong opponents period

my understanding is grunfeld is a POSITIONAL system and if I remember correctly, it involves fianchettos too. NO EFFING WAY! I despise fianchettos!

nothing wrong with the englund hartlaub/charlick AT ALL! I'm DESTROYING opponents 2:1 with it! I've never been happier. I will live my ENTIRE chess life by TACTICS. that's what I do, that's what I understand. I refuse to play an opening that isn't tactics based.

I'm STILL despising the scandinavian... mostly because of 2.e5 and 3.d4, but all the rest of it is pretty freakin' toothless. If it weren't for the move order nightmare that it is, I'd be playing the rousseau gambit already.

I mean look at my STATS!

losing stats slav-walling (and I've been playing the stonewall for almost 2 decades and played it as attack too before switching to 1.e4 and getting into my kind of games

in just 27 games with minimal study, I'm destroying opponents 2 to 1 and somehow you see that as BAD?! how does that work?

the bottom line is I used to DREAM EXACTLY of sacking my 2 center pawns to open the center and have strong pressuring development and the charlick delivers the goods soooo good, I'm married to it! i play chess for loud brash tactics and double edged positions. you keep believing GM hype about GM results in GM main lines, but here in the REAL WORLD, gambiteers OWN the opposition.

I don't see myself ever getting over 2000, and even if I did, then I'd just have to play my gambits that much better. I'm not going to give them up EVER! It's the REASON I play chess! My PTSD gets triggered when I'm forced to play black 3x in a row or when everyone I face is a hypermodern, longing to get my tactics on. the only way to do that is with development and mobility.

The hartlaub charlick is soooo much funner than stonewalling, even when the games go on long (I hate that) because I'm finding tools to pressure and counter with like I could never trapped behind pawns.

"sound openings" SUCK! THEY'RE TOOTHLESS!