x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Need opinions on this game...Queen Pawn opening. (I played the Englund gambit).

  • #1
    I played black and won a pretty instructive game.  And for reference, I am around 1800 uscf rating.  What are your opinions of the game, and what recommendations would you make?  Thank you!


    new

  • #2

    You transposed into a carlsbad structure but you didn't play the move 3...d5 which was critical. After 3...g6 4.e4 White is simply better. I guess White was also playing the opening name game and just played "system moves." This can be a bad thing to do. White seemed to avoid the move e4 when there was no reason not to play it.

     

     

    Why not 5...d5? If White plays 6.Bd3 then you can play 6...Ne7 which allows you to trade off the light-squared bishops which is good for Black. 5...b6 6.Nc3 is annoying because White is threatening 7.Nb5.

    18...Qxe2. Black is cramped anyway. Otherwise White can capture on e8.

    36...h6 I don't understand. Black is a piece up and White's king is done because the rook on e8 cuts it off. So it's like R+p v R+N+2p. There's no way White can defend this. Something like 36...Re2 or 36...b5 looks normal to me. Just win the game. White's rook isn't going to do anything on it's own.

  • #3
    penandpaper0089 wrote:

    You transposed into a carlsbad structure but you didn't play the move 3...d5 which was critical. After 3...g6 4.e4 White is simply better. I guess White was also playing the opening name game and just played "system moves." This can be a bad thing to do. White seemed to avoid the move e4 when there was no reason not to play it.

     

     

    Why not 5...d5? If White plays 6.Bd3 then you can play 6...Ne7 which allows you to trade off the light-squared bishops which is good for Black. 5...b6 6.Nc3 is annoying because White is threatening 7.Nb5.

    18...Qxe2. Black is cramped anyway. Otherwise White can capture on e8.

    36...h6 I don't understand. Black is a piece up and White's king is done because the rook on e8 cuts it off. So it's like R+p v R+N+2p. There's no way White can defend this. Something like 36...Re2 or 36...b5 looks normal to me. Just win the game. White's rook isn't going to do anything on it's own.

    Thank you for the feedback, sir!

    I didn't want to play d5 because I was going for a more hypermodern setup.

     

    Also, according to the engine, if white takes the rook on e8 on move 19.....it will be a VERY tricky game.  Q+B+K  vs.  R + R + B + K is not easy to win.  The engine gives white a 0.9 advantage after the full trade...

     

    Also, I played h6 near the end because I wanted my weak pawns to be on the same rank as my rook.  The white rook was attacking h7 anyway.  It was a fairly easy win, BUT I did not wish to allow white even the slightest counterplay.

  • #4

    This is how the engine viewed my performance overall (black).  Many excellent moves and ZERO mistakes and ZERO blunders.

    null

  • #5

    This was Saragossa opening(1.c3) and not Englund Gambit.

  • #6

    You are interesting person, I remember I mention the Englund Gambit was playable below master level and you said it was unsound; and I mention that even masters lose to it. So you are open minded and have propensity for bizarre and offbeat opening and defense. When I play unsound opening I understand their limitation and why masters avoid them, I don't do it for shock value but a short cut to win against my low rated opponent. Against low rated opponents there is no disputing in the opening, no theory and a lot times they don't play book anyway so why should I. 

     

     You might not like what I going to say but its the truth, you re not a tactician, you are a positional player. As a positional player you shine brightly and its your biggest strength but as a tactician you fail; tactician thrive in chaos and mayhem and in their position is really messy and logic throw out, they rely on their true strength calculation and intuition that how they dominate their opponents. You like calm waters and predictability and you try to have harmony in your position and this goes against your nature unorthodox thinking. I prove my point, 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 going for calm waters and any tactician would of went for space 2...e4; 2...Nc6 development or the risky 2...d6 hoping for a gambit. When you play unorthodox opening or defense there has to be a purpose and why you doing it; for me is to understand why they are unsound and relying on my natural abilities as a calculator. I personally would of went for 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 3.cxd4 d5! = black completely as equality, not 3...g6 its a poor move and not according to chess principles or position because 4.e4 white gets a big advantage.

  • #7

    yureesystem wrote:

    You are interesting person, I remember I mention the Englund Gambit was playable below master level and you said it was unsound; and I mention that even masters lose to it. So you are open minded and have propensity for bizarre and offbeat opening and defense. When I play unsound opening I understand their limitation and why masters avoid them, I don't do it for shock value but a short cut to win against my low rated opponent. Against low rated opponents there is no disputing in the opening, no theory and a lot times they don't play book anyway so why should I. 

     

     You might not like what I going to say but its the truth, you re not a tactician, you are a positional player. As a positional player you shine brightly and its your biggest strength but as a tactician you fail; tactician thrive in chaos and mayhem and in their position is really messy and logic throw out, they rely on their true strength calculation and intuition that how they dominate their opponents. You like calm waters and predictability and you try to have harmony in your position and this goes against your nature unorthodox thinking. I prove my point, 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 going for calm waters and any tactician would of went for space 2...e4; 2...Nc6 development or the risky 2...d6 hoping for a gambit. When you play unorthodox opening or defense there has to be a purpose and why you doing it; for me is to understand why they are unsound and relying on my natural abilities as a calculator. I personally would of went for 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 3.cxd4 d5! = black completely as equality, not 3...g6 its a poor move and not according to chess principles or position because 4.e4 white gets a big advantage.

    4. e4 does NOT give white a BIG advantage. The engine maintains +0.7....that is almost equal. And I am both a tactician and a positional player. I mix up my play styles. Here I just had a gameplan for a calm double fianchetto and see what the hell my opponent wants to do.
  • #8
    LeonSKennedy992 wrote:
    yureesystem wrote:

    You are interesting person, I remember I mention the Englund Gambit was playable below master level and you said it was unsound; and I mention that even masters lose to it. So you are open minded and have propensity for bizarre and offbeat opening and defense. When I play unsound opening I understand their limitation and why masters avoid them, I don't do it for shock value but a short cut to win against my low rated opponent. Against low rated opponents there is no disputing in the opening, no theory and a lot times they don't play book anyway so why should I. 

     

     You might not like what I going to say but its the truth, you re not a tactician, you are a positional player. As a positional player you shine brightly and its your biggest strength but as a tactician you fail; tactician thrive in chaos and mayhem and in their position is really messy and logic throw out, they rely on their true strength calculation and intuition that how they dominate their opponents. You like calm waters and predictability and you try to have harmony in your position and this goes against your nature unorthodox thinking. I prove my point, 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 going for calm waters and any tactician would of went for space 2...e4; 2...Nc6 development or the risky 2...d6 hoping for a gambit. When you play unorthodox opening or defense there has to be a purpose and why you doing it; for me is to understand why they are unsound and relying on my natural abilities as a calculator. I personally would of went for 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 3.cxd4 d5! = black completely as equality, not 3...g6 its a poor move and not according to chess principles or position because 4.e4 white gets a big advantage.

    4. e4 does NOT give white a BIG advantage. The engine maintains +0.7....that is almost equal. And I am both a tactician and a positional player. I mix up my play styles. Here I just had a gameplan for a calm double fianchetto and see what the hell my opponent wants to do.

    +0.7 is not close to equal , it's actually close to winning(assuming the engine is right).

  • #9

    DeirdreSkye wrote:

    LeonSKennedy992 wrote:
    yureesystem wrote:

    You are interesting person, I remember I mention the Englund Gambit was playable below master level and you said it was unsound; and I mention that even masters lose to it. So you are open minded and have propensity for bizarre and offbeat opening and defense. When I play unsound opening I understand their limitation and why masters avoid them, I don't do it for shock value but a short cut to win against my low rated opponent. Against low rated opponents there is no disputing in the opening, no theory and a lot times they don't play book anyway so why should I. 

     

     You might not like what I going to say but its the truth, you re not a tactician, you are a positional player. As a positional player you shine brightly and its your biggest strength but as a tactician you fail; tactician thrive in chaos and mayhem and in their position is really messy and logic throw out, they rely on their true strength calculation and intuition that how they dominate their opponents. You like calm waters and predictability and you try to have harmony in your position and this goes against your nature unorthodox thinking. I prove my point, 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 going for calm waters and any tactician would of went for space 2...e4; 2...Nc6 development or the risky 2...d6 hoping for a gambit. When you play unorthodox opening or defense there has to be a purpose and why you doing it; for me is to understand why they are unsound and relying on my natural abilities as a calculator. I personally would of went for 1.d4 e5 2.c3 exd4 3.cxd4 d5! = black completely as equality, not 3...g6 its a poor move and not according to chess principles or position because 4.e4 white gets a big advantage.

    4. e4 does NOT give white a BIG advantage. The engine maintains +0.7....that is almost equal. And I am both a tactician and a positional player. I mix up my play styles. Here I just had a gameplan for a calm double fianchetto and see what the hell my opponent wants to do.

    +0.7 is not close to equal , it's actually close to winning(assuming the engine is right).

    it means white has an advantage of like a tiny bit more than HALF a pawn......white shouldn't be doing a victory dance just because I go for a double fianchetto.
  • #10

    LeonSKennedy 992 wrote: 4. e4 does NOT give white a BIG advantage. The engine maintains +0.7....that is almost equal. And I am both a tactician and a positional player. I mix up my play styles. Here I just had a gameplan for a calm double fianchetto and see what the hell my opponent wants to do.   

     

     

     

    I am a attacker this is a dream position for me, I have all the chances and you have none.Otb  experts will  will have a field day in this game, that is why we grab the center it give us attacking chances and pieces mobility; in a fianchetto setup it take longer to accomplish your development; that is why 3...d5 is imperative to sound development. If playing dubious opening or defense so you can experimenting on unsound  principles because of your opponent rating and you get away from being punish, one day it might be a crucial game you must win and you develop some bad habits that cost your defeat. You need to understand when you were lucky and overstepped sound chess principles, I do that and the change the order of moves; I play the modern against 1.d4 trying to get aggressive KID setup and sometime I go too far from soundness and I get a lucky win because my opponent miss some tactics. You post your game so you can get positive feedback and learn, here I suggesting to adjust to your move to 3...d5 next time. BTW the engine likes 2...e4 a lot instead of 2...exd4. 

  • #11
    yureesystem wrote:

    LeonSKennedy 992 wrote: 4. e4 does NOT give white a BIG advantage. The engine maintains +0.7....that is almost equal. And I am both a tactician and a positional player. I mix up my play styles. Here I just had a gameplan for a calm double fianchetto and see what the hell my opponent wants to do.   

     

     

     

    I am a attacker this is a dream position for me, I have all the chances and you have none.Otb  experts will  will have a field day in this game, that is why we grab the center it give us attacking chances and pieces mobility; in a fianchetto setup it take longer to accomplish your development; that is why 3...d5 is imperative to sound development. If playing dubious opening or defense so you can experimenting on unsound  principles because of your opponent rating and you get away from being punish, one day it might be a crucial game you must win and you develop some bad habits that cost your defeat. You need to understand when you were lucky and overstepped sound chess principles, I do that an change the order of moves; I play the modern against 1.d4 trying to get aggressive KID setup and sometime I go too far from soundness and I get a lucky win because my opponent miss some tactics. You post your game so you can get positive feedback and learn, here I suggesting to adjust to your move to 3...d5 next time. BTW the engine likes 2...e4 a lot instead of 2...exd4. 

    the double fianchetto is NOT unsound. What I played is pretty similar to a Hippopotamus ....The point is to allow white many ways to play.....then COUNTER his plan.

  • #12
    LeonSKennedy992 wrote:
    yureesystem wrote:

    LeonSKennedy 992 wrote: 4. e4 does NOT give white a BIG advantage. The engine maintains +0.7....that is almost equal. And I am both a tactician and a positional player. I mix up my play styles. Here I just had a gameplan for a calm double fianchetto and see what the hell my opponent wants to do.   

     

     

     

    I am a attacker this is a dream position for me, I have all the chances and you have none.Otb  experts will  will have a field day in this game, that is why we grab the center it give us attacking chances and pieces mobility; in a fianchetto setup it take longer to accomplish your development; that is why 3...d5 is imperative to sound development. If playing dubious opening or defense so you can experimenting on unsound  principles because of your opponent rating and you get away from being punish, one day it might be a crucial game you must win and you develop some bad habits that cost your defeat. You need to understand when you were lucky and overstepped sound chess principles, I do that an change the order of moves; I play the modern against 1.d4 trying to get aggressive KID setup and sometime I go too far from soundness and I get a lucky win because my opponent miss some tactics. You post your game so you can get positive feedback and learn, here I suggesting to adjust to your move to 3...d5 next time. BTW the engine likes 2...e4 a lot instead of 2...exd4. 

    the double fianchetto is NOT unsound. What I played is pretty similar to a Hippopotamus ....The point is to allow white many ways to play.....then COUNTER his plan.

     

     

     

    I was looking for the killer move but I couldn't find one; I do have solid advantage and I should be content. 4.e4 Bg7 5. Nc3 b6 6.Be3 Bb7 7.Qd2 Ne7 8.Bd3 d6 9.Nge2 0-0 10.0-0 solid advantage; sometime unorthodox play aren't refutable immediately but I have all the play and black is defending.

  • #13

    As always with the hippo defense, white maintains an advantage....until he has his nervous breakdown that is lol

  • #14

    This position is different than even the hippo... Say White does play 4.e4. Now he has a 2 on one pawn advantage. How will Black attempt to play against these pawns? Well he has the e-line but let's face it: White isn't going to just blunder the e-pawn randomly and lose. It's a start but Black needs more. If he plays for ...d5 then the f6 square will be severely weakened after e5. So unless there's a really good reason for this move Black probably won't play it. That means that the only thing resembling a break for Black is ...c5. That's literally all there is. ...f5 is typically losing somehow so I won't even consider it.

     

    So basically Black's whole strategy will be to try and get into a Benoni structure that isn't worse for him. Because if you stay in "hippo mode" forever the pawns will become too much sooner or later. This also presents another problem with Black's development. A bishop on b7 can be useful in the fluid center but is rarely useful in benoni structures. Sometimes it puts pressure on the d5 pawn and makes it difficult for White to play e4-e5 but that's not the kind of benoni that will arise in this position. So ...Bb7 actually isn't all that useful. 

     

    And if you don't play ...Bb7 then where does the knight on b8 go? Who knows... So while it's not losing or anything, it's difficult for Black to play this.

  • #15
    LeonSKennedy992 wrote:

    As always with the hippo defense, white maintains an advantage....until he has his nervous breakdown that is lol

     

     

     

    I don't mind grinding a  win, its the safest course and a guarantee win; it is biggest arsenal in my bag of tricks. I understand why you play unorthodox opening, there a comfort in not memorizing book lines because it is tedious work; I play the sicilian side line and been quite successful but in one game this 1900 playing very aggressive in the opening and I am suffering and trying to avoid from being crush; I succeed from losing in  the opening and going to a slight worse endgame. I wonder is it worth playing slightly dubious lines because my opponent aren't strong enough to punish me and I will never play this way against expert or master. My friend who is a very strong fide master advice me play the opening if you were playing against a GM, meaning play sound and no dubious opening.

  • #16

    Your friend made a veryyy dumb comment. If I am playing a much lowet rated opponent, I will always play with traps in mind (but not unsound), to try and end the game as quickly as possible. Also, the scandinavian gambit is perfectly sound. Every engine says the position is barelyyy better for white. Try and refute it.

  • #17
    LeonSKennedy992 wrote:

    Your friend made a veryyy dumb comment. If I am playing a much lowet rated opponent, I will always play with traps in mind (but not unsound), to try and end the game as quickly as possible. Also, the scandinavian gambit is perfectly sound. Every engine says the position is barelyyy better for white. Try and refute it.

     

    My friend is very strong master once rated 2500 uscf and we are not masters; mine highest rating was 2110 uscf and never made to 2200 uscf. His advice is sound and it seem to work him.

  • #18

     It is weird that only your wins are instructive.

    You never posted an instructive defeat.

    In this game you lost a very easy mate in 3(or in 6 if white wants to delay it) because you were preccoupied with your attack.

    Now , that was indeed very instructive.

  • #19

    alright I will post a loss

Top

Online Now