TIRED OF 1.d4 . PLAY ALBIN COUNTER GAMBIT

Nothing wrong the the Dutch and QGD, - or even QGA. But you might find that even IM's do not face Albin every day, and you might also have a good game against him with that. But a lot depends on your strength versus his strength, and if he is vastly stronger he might play anything and win and you might play anything and lose. I used to say, - it doesn't matter what you play, as long as you play it well. I specialize in unorthodox openings and have the best results otb using them. When I switch to the traditional tested weapons, it often becomes a struggle of who knows more theory. Sometimes you just want to play chess and not battle the latest sharpest lines. If you become predictable in chess, and the opponent knows exactly what you are playing, you might become an easy target for their preparation. Playing different stuff and not always orthodox or completely "sound" stuff may be a way to throw off your opponent early. I do not want to discount the classical approach completely though, because it is perhaps most sound, and also a good idea. I guess, what I'm trying to say is, that as organic emotionally driven individuals, our brains do not thrive on eating the same old grub every day, sometimes a little variation, even for the sake of variation, is a good idea.

well chess is about surprising  ur opponent

Chess is about playing good logical moves, not to play refuted "agressive"gambits.

That is one way to look at it, and of course you do have a point, though I think that the Albin is better than its reputation, and I am not entirely sure that it is categorized (although I may be wrong) as an aggressive gambit. I would think it is more of a positional gambit, with some tactical motifs. I recall talking with an FM at my chess club about it, - all he said was, that he remembered, white should be careful not to play a too early e3. I had many early successes playing it, albeit against random opponents on the internet. Over the board, I admittedly haven't played it a lot, perhaps a single time or so in the past 15 years or so.

Of course if your opponent  play badly you can beat him with Albin.Showing compensation   against  stronger and prepared  opponent is another think. 

It all depends - in 2004-5 Alexander Morozevich (GM) beat both Topalov, Gelfand and Sokolov (GMs) using Albin Countergambit, so the gambit is perhaps more out of fashion than entirely refuted.

thrillerfan calles everything garbage, his last victim was the evans gambit which i disagree a lot.

Unfortunately concerning the albin he is right, the morozevich-albin-era is gone.

White is better in every line. 

challenge me and i'll play albin

ALBIN GIVES ONLY 0.4 ADVANTAGE FOR WHITE . IT IS A SOUND OPENING TO SURPRISE YOUR OPPONENTS   

0.4 is the advantage of having the first move alone, so not losing anything on the way would make the albin a super duper opening and every gm would play it 

I've been trying to get an albin, but everyone plays 1.e4... ;-)

I don't know how many times the king's gambit has been pronounced dead and buried, and it is still alive and kicking. Perhaps albin is one of those cases too...

 well i dont agree

it's okay to not agree

I agree 

 square0 what makes it, that you specialized in offbeat openings?

usually people always complain about the theory they got to learn in the well known openings, but in every well known opening are alot of sidelines, which are not just sound but also not so full of theory. People might say, well if you are not going to play the absolut mainline, why not play some offbeat opening. Thats a good point, but here comes the argument, which brings me more to common openings with sidelines choosen, then obviously offbeat openings. If you play common openings , and use sidelines, you always have something to build on. And as you get better as a Mid-Endgame player, you will start optimize your openings as well. So you can slowly decide to try to get more opening advantage. I have a little example from my own history of chessopenings. I was still learning my openings as black as i choosed to go, for the london system as white. The advantage was, i could use all my openinglearning-time into the black openings (french,KID). After I got comfortable with the black openings, I tried to get more out of my white opening. and expanded to the 1.d4 2.Nf3 QG (3.c4). The beauty i found in this move order was, that I could always play c3 instead of c4 if things got unknown to me. So I could learn the c4 lines one after another. now i usually always push c4 instead of c3. 

Whats the downside? maybe that i cant go for the Ne2 and f3 setups, which are more promosing but have alot of theory.

This journey wouldnt have happend if I would have choosen to go for a xyz-Gambit.

And the pure argument to catch your opponent offguard with thoose uncommon openings is in the long run making your chess worse. Since your advantages shouldnt come from tricking your opponent, but to outplay him in the game itself. 

Well, I see your point, and I agree. Perhaps I should play more open, direct and sound. I recall something I read in Tal's book - my life and games, that he was playing all these sacrificial stuff, and winning, and his chess teacher told him to play more sound, and then he did that, and lost. We all know that it was in Tal's style to play the wild unpredictable stuff. He was gifted by an uncanny sense of combination and was said to have complete sight of the board (taking one glance at it, and instantly knowing what to do), and he was for some reason more able to win wildly than in any slow calculated manner. Sometimes our tastes and likes and what works for us and what doesn't isn't very logical, but it seems to work for us anyway. Perhaps the logic is simply of a higher order, experience, intuition. Why do a newcomer move their queen out early or try to mate the opponent in a few moves even when the teacher tells that it is unsound and may lead to loss? It's just where they are in their development. Also I've come to have quite a nuanced opinion on chess, that the slain path is not always the only path. As you say, some sidelines are safer than their objectively stronger mainlines, maybe that is why I like to slow down games and try to win by small advantages (sometimes). Sounds like you got a good strategy there, which you also discovered and developed through countless hours of hard work. There are few shortcuts in chess, except what you gain through diligence and hard work.

rocking with albin