Q+A for beginners(and everyone else)

"... the Danish Gambit, [1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4] 3 c3, perhaps deserves more respect than it usually receives …" - GM John Nunn (1999)

It should be treated like any other good opening: with fear, anger, and hate...

1. d4 e5 is the Charlick Gambit. Henry Charlick, the first Australian champion, introduced this dubious line in the early1890s.

n9531l, you are slightly mistaken, but not by much. rychessmaster1 is correct.

Here is a quote from The Oxford Companion to Chess:

"ENGLUND GAMBIT, a version of the Charlick Gambit, played by the Swedish player Fritz Carl Anton Englund (1871-1933). In 1932 this gambit was tested in a small tournament held at Stockholm, won by Stoltz, but was not proved sound."

That is interesting. I have no doubt that it says that, but that is just not the way I learned it. Maybe the opening name changed over the years? I am not saying it is the case, but it is a possibility. Just think of how many main lines were changed/re-named just because someone found a refutation in a variation of it. That is the reason we have "main lines" and "old main lines." Perhaps that is happening here?

Well, Charlick played 1. d4 e5 first, so it makes sense to call it the Charlick Gambit if only those moves are given. 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Qd5 f6 5. exf6 Nxf6 is what Englund played, so that version would be the Englund Gambit.

Name 5 books every chess player must read. 

"Bumping a pawn"

I am a chess player who has played for about 5 years, study tactics, and openings, as well as play often, but do not win games with players who have lower ranks than me. How should I fix this?

5 for < 1500 players, 5 for > 1500 players

10 books total sounds like a lot of chess reading, but I'd love to hear even 3 or 4 solid ones for this list

Do you think playing chess960 is a helpful way to train tactics @rychessmaster1 ?

I'll let rychessmaster1 answer this for themselves. However, I personally would answer with a staunch "no." I find it MORE DIFFICULT to gain rating (and improve too) by playing weaker players. You could win 5 or 10 games in a row, but then lose all rating gained because of a single loss  The problem for GMs especially (but also higher rated players in general) is that there are less people at their skill level or better, so they have to play lower rated players by default. This is difficult to deal with constantly since the "weaker player" might: 

a) actually be stronger than you, but just has a new account

b) just have a good day and simply win

c) an improving player that the rating has yet to catch 

and so on

Daily chess.com games are even tougher to find opponent's for (why often times people challenge "friends") so I would imagine that rychessmaster1 would prefer to play games against 2000-ish players, but simply doesn't have that luxury as often as desired to really help boost rating. 

Like I said though, I let rychessmaster1 answer for themselves - I don't want to influence their judgement here  My personal answer though is that it is easier to improve if you are playing stronger competition than you. Not only due to the rating system, but also you tend to learn ideas and themes from the stronger opponents - so it teaches us more to play stronger opponents too. 

Which time control can lower rated players have better chance to beat higher rated players? Both observe fair play.

I don't mean lower beating higher regularly (or else they would be the higher rated one xD). Let me re-phrase what I mean another way. Let us say that a 2000 rated player is playing a player rated 1000 (time control is irrelevant to the point as it applies to all time controls). In this match-up it is fair to say that the 2000 player would gain 0 points from a win, but lose quite a lot from a loss, or even draw (in this case, elo-wise, it would be win: +0, draw: -16, loss: -32). However, let us now take that same match-up but give you some new information; the "1000 player" is actually 1800 strength, but has a newer chess.com account and the rating has yet to catch up since they have not played many (or any) games yet. If the 2000 player was versing an 1800 player then the spread should be as follows: win: +8, draw: -8, loss: -24. In this example, the 2000 rated player is still favored to win, but is essentially being robbed statistically by 8 points for a win (comparing win points earned from an 1800 versus 1000 rated opponent). Basically, the 2000 player will need to work extra hard to win compared to what would be needed statistically (since statistically it is a 1000 when 1800 should be in its place). This may sound like a rare case in this constructed example, but I am willing to inform that it probably happens more often than many suspect - perhaps not with the extreme of an 1800 rated 1000, but even a few hundred points of statistical discrepancy has the same (but lesser) impact. 

Of course the higher rated players should win more often (the definition and theory behind ratings), but all I am noting is that the higher rated player often has to be careful and work harder than one would expect (since the "weaker" player is sometimes not so "weak.")

I mean the ratings difference is 200-300.

Is aggressive or passive play better?

is white naturally stronger king-side, and black stronger queen-side? (because of the asymmetry of the king/queen and right to move, and recapturing positioning)

how valuable is the f-file, in particular, f4 and f5?