What is going on with the Mikenas Defense Lithuanian Variation?

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!

^^ this

I hear the same narrative all the time from gambit naysayers.

The 1600s say "those gambits work against 1400s, but once you start to play 1800s you'll need to learn a real opening"

The 2000s say "those gambits work against 1800s, but once you start to play masters you'll need to learn a real opening"

blah blah blah

The reality is, at least in online chess, dubious gambits work unbelievably well at every single level.

Here's me beating an 1866 in 19 moves in the smith morra GAMBIT DELINED (generally a nightmare for me)

an 1838 in 11

i beat an 1895 in the falkbeer counter gambit (I do better than the stats in this line)

charlick gambit stats from 1600-2000:

black isn't winning in ANY line. You should look at amateur games sometime. your preconceptions won't last long... ESPECIALLY sing lines where slalefish's favorite move has hideous losing stats whereas the -5 one is +10%.

no matter where my rating is, i don't want to play boring quiet games... EVER! that's why I quit TO BEGIN WITH!

even filterING 1600 & 1800 out for just 2000s...

and black STILL isn't winning shee! You are most wrong. are you going to be ANOTHER hard head who parrots GMs and ignores REALITY?! don't be that guy! numbers don't lie!

the "coolest" thing about the stats? FEW DRAWS! GM approved lines are soooo drawish! yuck!

I'll be back to share my last charlick. It was effing 80 moves long, but it was ALWAYS exciting, trying to stick to the core themes of the opening and USE MY PIECES.

It was such a challenging game that I "good game"ed my opponent. (Stupid spell check had a nervous breakdown over that)

I underpromoted to a rook on purpose to avoid stalemate and should have just sacked my pawn and knight to get my opponent out in the open. I lose "won" games chasing kings around my own effing pawns. I despise pawns

actually my very most recent charlick is another mini

I just love the wide open lanes to get my pieces where they need to be sooooooo much I don't miss those two pawns at all!

here's the 80 move slugfest

I probably should have just sacked the knight and pawn to get right to the end game. I waste lots of time and even some won games chasing kings around my own pawns and pieces. I also underpromoted to a rook on purpose. I don't promote to a queen unless I have to to minimize the stalemates I play for myself when I'm losing. It's more work, but far less margin for error, especially when time's low

I've never been happier than playing the charlick. it's the exact opposite of the stonewall and it lets me come up with attacks and counters all the time. it's a really good opening for berserkers like me.

how are you not a titled player?

heres some stattage

lichess players database obv

1600-2000

ruy lopez: 51-44

kings gambit: 52-45

marshall gambit is a non issue given the a4 ANTI marshall at 52-43

how, you may ask?

positional aggression exists

you may hate it, but it exists and is perfectly good

hopefully the OP will decide to learn to play real chess one day instead of going for cheap development attacks. that stuff dont work on experts and above. Not with any level of consistency that is.

The Albin is alright at your level. You can ignore the stats and play it. But if you had any sense you'd play 1. d4 ...e5 2. c4 ?? ...ed.