forget the (tricks) just play solid sound rapid developement toward the center chess!
What Openings have serious flaws?
Sort:
AtahanT wrote:
I think the easiest refutation of the englund is simply: 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Qd5
Dead easy to remember and play imo. Frankly a 1600 that misplays the englund gambit in the opening doesn't deserve to be a 1600. Ofc that is if you actually were a 1600 when you met this 1600 player. I'm guessing that you were probably underrated back when you won with your englund gambit lines against 1600.
Oddly, nobody ever played Qd5 against me in all the times I played the Englund. And I used it from the time I was rated 1300's USCF until 1500's. I think I played 6 or 7 slow USCF tourney games with it, scoring 1 draw and winning the rest. My results in other openings in that time period were just pathetic, which is why my rating was so low. Getting 1. d4 players out of their comfort zone at that level was enough to get the win, even if they didn't specifically fall into the obvious traps.
Against the higher rated players, they just played natural developing moves, letting me have the gambit pawn back, but leaving my pieces awkward, while their pieces were positioned naturally. Material ended up even, but they finished developing and started attacking while I was still trying to untie my position. Given that these guys were already rated higher than me, I couldn't afford to start from an inferior position, which is why I gave up the gambit when I reached a level of trying to beat 1800+ opposition regularly.
Mar 23, 2010
0
#24
I like the people who play whatever they want with no idea about an opening's basic ideas and themes. It makes winning much simpler.
Mar 23, 2010
0
#25
I like playing whatever I want, without any basic ideas or themes. It makes me worry less and win more. ;)
nickf001 wrote:
Most "amateurs" do not fully understand any opening - or at least I speak for myself - except in a fairly limited way. There are perhaps some lines which give more practical advantages like the Sicilian Morra at club level, but which are avoided by the GMs.
You can get away with almost anything - Basman was playing 1.e4 e5 2.a3! and won.
Just don't play the Damiano. Of course. That's just stupid.
The Damiano is not that bad, if black plays Qe7 then he should survive.
thechessvids wrote:
nickf001 wrote:
Most "amateurs" do not fully understand any opening - or at least I speak for myself - except in a fairly limited way. There are perhaps some lines which give more practical advantages like the Sicilian Morra at club level, but which are avoided by the GMs.
You can get away with almost anything - Basman was playing 1.e4 e5 2.a3! and won.
Just don't play the Damiano. Of course. That's just stupid.
The Damiano is not that bad, if black plays Qe7 then he should survive.
Isn't the King's Gambit refuted by Fischer's Defense 3...d6
No.