A Sound Sacrificial Attack???

its blackmar diemar gambit for eco

d00

or french defense

c00

 I believe you might be right although I am not certain because black did not take the e4-pawn on his second move...or it is the BDG, but which variation did it take form after 2)...e6?; after 3)c4 what is this opening called? Is this a normal continuation in the French? If not, is it an unsound way to continue?

"So if I like open line and attacking, why learn to be more positional?"

It's possible that at your level positional stuff does not really affect the result of the game too much, but a reason you would want to learn it is because no matter how you try to sterer a game you will not necessarily reach the tactical or positional position you were looking for. It's inevitable. And let's say you saced a pawn for compensation, your attack went smoothly, so your opponent gives two pawns to force a trade of queens and difuse the attack. Although this is a great situation, you being up a pawn, you will probably need some technique and nursing an advantage like a pawn often requires patient, positional skill. On the reverse side of things, if it's a closed game and one side has a positional advantage, then calm play is called for. However, this doesn't necessarily apply to the whole game. Eventually (if you're trying to win), you'll open up some lines and maybe after you win a pawn you're winning, but then the board explodes with tactics. In that case you have to calculate a lot to achieve victory.

The point is, tactics and positional play are often mixed quite nicely during the course of a whole game. Some games they might not be, but it's too hard to keep avoiding one part or the other and you can't become great unless you're at least comfortable with both.

What I meant was, not every position calls for an attack, and I was trying to show that even if there was an attacking middlegame that could turn into a subtle endgame battle later on.

"my problem is I am comfortable with tactics; not so much with positions."

I really believe that those who don't like strategy or positional play are really missing out on a big joy of chess. I think it's how strategy and tactics work together in most games that make chess so satisfying to play and learn. But unless you want to be a professional player, whether you ever study strategy a lot or not is up to you, I'm just saying it could be rewarding. Strategy is very learnable, just get a good book or two on this subject.

3...Bb4+? was bad, because although it traded, it weakens black dark squares and really sped up white's development. Black should just play 3...dxe4.

Interesting discussion. First of all my 2 cents regarding the final position offered by padman. After N:h5, i would have played R:h5 gh and then Ne4. i think it's much stronger. Now attack vs positional play, I think Hammerschlag your  attack worked because you a) you played with a weak player who didn't know how to defend and b) because you don't know how to play the openings properly. Please take no offense, I just want to help you to play better. If I was your coach, i would prohibit you to play things like d4 d5 e4 and Bd2 because you want to get rid of this piece and start the attack. As Fischer used to say, every move in the opening must be played with a sense and direction. The opening you played does look a little bit like Staunton's gambit in Dutch. Regarding positional game, often times when you get to 2000+ level, your opponent will "close" the game, in structures like Benoni and you must patiently improve your position because a one single knee jerking reaction will surely lead to defeat.   

hmmmm... i remember when I was being coached by A Fide Master here in Jamaica, and i asked him that same question... why do i ever need to concentrate on positional humbug if i prefer playing aggresive!...

i cant remember exactly what he told me, but its strange that even the world championship gives an answer to that! Though at the master level, Topolov is renown for his agressiveness, to exploit that his opponent Anand, won the second game by playing a really quiet positionally based game...  the truth is, and i found this out for myself, because i focused so much on tactics and finding ways to be aggressive, i realized that i was completely lost in games where knowledge of positional motifs and structured maneuvering is dominant!

... stay true to your style, but whenever the opportunity arises, take the time to really study positional chess, i've got a few ebooks on the matter i think would probably help if you'd like.

irie 

:)

This is my very subjective opinion but I think that chess players must learn how to play the well known, solid openings until you reach at least expert level. I play in A class/ Experts and I see very very rarely that people would play gambits like d4 d5 e4. My subjective opinion is that people play things like BDG because they are lazy to learn the principle openings. Also, if you play some players 400-500 points higher, you will get in trouble with "taking no prisoners" approach. They will out calculate you. Bd2 is may not be a bad move, may be it's even a theoretical move but i criticize it because i didn't understand your rationale for exchanging bishop. I think you are a good player and I like players with attacking style because I also prefer to attack rather then defend, but I learned that attack must be justified you can't attack just because you like to attack, the position should call for it. Look at Anand's 4th game for instance.

There are times to make and accept sacrifices and there are other times when you should not.  Normally I avoid them if I am doing well in a game!

I agree fiveofswords. But not all gambits are the same :). I think position arising from d4 d5 c4 is different from d4 d5 e4 :)