To all you Queen's Gambit players

Actually I kind of feel sorry for you, because your life is probably as boring as the boring-crap opening you play. Same crap every time. Is this honestly fun for you?

You are everything normal people find wrong with chess. You're the reason they wonder why we push around pieces in silence all day, because you play an opening where your best hope possible is maybe getting up a pawn that you can maybe queen way later. Forget kingside attacks. In fact, forget any kind of fun whatsoever. That's right. You traded all the fun anyone ever has with chess for a 1.5% greater chance of winning. If you weren't such a brainlet boring no-life piece of crap you would choose an opening that was actually more fun than watching paint dry and would win with that.

"My favorite chess opening is the queen's gambit. Also my favorite movie is Citizen Kane, my favorite band is the Beatles, and my favorite TV show is the Sopranos. Look at my refined taste, plebeians."

Go crap yourself you insubordinate little crap.

Probably this post is going to be erased soon, anyway, I dont like queens gambit either, I always play e4, and going for the attack with kings gambit but lately I like the ruy lopez, I hate playing d4, it leads to boring positions, but thats just my style, there are guys that are crazy good with d4, like Kasparov, Carlsen, Karpov, etc... and its a respectable opening, some machines play that actually so is not a bad opening at all, just develop a good system to crush the opening that you hate so much

 I used to play 1.e4 with games like the Scotch Game, when I first encountered the Queen's Gambit I knew it was a respected opening, but I did not understand why anyone would use it. Ironically, the best way to learn an opening that you know little about is to use it; therefore, I began to play the Queen's Gambit (of course, I looked at a little theory before my play too). However, after a while of play I fell in love with this opening. Perhaps it is not abundant with immediate tactics at the start, but there is a good positional element here. Honestly, I think most people know this is a solid opening used through GM level - here it is questioning the "fun" value of this opening. I enjoy this opening, play it a lot, and get many "fun" games as many people respond differently. Regardless of the response: I know that I can get a positionally solid game, furthermore some games are filled with tactics. 

I am not going to critcize an opening as "boring", but some lines of the Ruy Lopez are dry. Furthermore, the Four Knights game is often boring in simplicity to me and quite draw-ish. Even slow positional openings like the Giuoco Piano games are often seen as boring (although I do not mind playing Giuoco Piano games from either side). 

Openings are simply a matter of taste. Queen's Gambit I must disagree with the forum author - I find it fun, and never boring. Perhaps the author is referring to a specific line? In fact this opening offers more diversity than most "conventional" openings because it can be either declined, or accepted: doubling the game diversity, without a "wrong" option as with many "true gambit" openings. 

I find openings with a high draw margin usually more "boring" or dry, of course the Queen's Gambit has some real winning chances for each side. Black does not need to get a boring declined position that favors white, but instead could play the frenzy of the Slav/Semi Slav lines, or even transpose to an Indian Game such as the intruiging Nimzo-Indian if they really must avoid the Queen's Gambit. Take these words as you will, but I would like to hear the opinions from other chess.com members as well regarding this forum observation/questioning.

I have no idea why you are so angry. Maybe you got crushed by a Queen's Gambit or something.

I play the Queen's Gambit myself so maybe I'm a little bit biased but I think that White can get great positions out of many lines. There are several plans White can commit to such as, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 cx5 5.Bg5 playing Nge2 and f3 with the aim of e4, taking the control of the centre. If you wish, you can also go for the minority attack, creating a weakness in Black's structure. That's only a few plans out of one variation!

An opening is what you make it. The London seems pretty meek at first glance but it has been proven that there are some amazing attacking possibilities. Sicillians can be slow, Berlins can be excit- actually, I wouldn't go that far.

At the end of the day, chess is a battle, which means it is about winning. You can criticise the winner all you like about how they executed it but the fact is they have won. In short, just because you don't like a person's playing style doesn't mean they aren't good players.

Capablanca and Alekhine would be very sad to read that...

I play QG over and over, but my favourite TV show is Regular show. Also, I f*** more and better than OP.

I agree that the Queen's Gambit is terrible, especially if black plays d5 against it.

But come on, you really don't have to be that insulting. Very childish behaviour.

Magnus Carlsen is one of the most boring world champions of all time. sure, he had some fantastic victories, but most of his games are incredibly dull. He is obviously exceptionally good, but that says nothing about his games being exciting or not.

 Obviously a troll post, but this was actually pretty funny.

The Queen's Gambit isn't that boring though, is it? At least there are plenty of playable and interesting replies when White follows up with c4. It's not like we're talking about the Colle or the London or the Four Knights or whatever.

Good is exciting 😀

different strokes for different folks, I guess. personally, I can't stand Carlsen's playing style

I think he prefers clear play, avoid risks, knowing that he can outplay most opponents. He is able to squeeze everything from a position, a small advantage, for example in endgames where everybody would say is a draw. You see in his games unnatural-looking but good moves, as for example 28. Na6! and next 29. b4!, a pawn sac, and white completely ties down the black pieces ( Carlsen-Onischuk, Biel 2007). Kind of chess that is difficult to understand if nobody is commenting the game for you. How many of the players here would even consider these two moves? Not many, I guess.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1467756

When Tal played, people would probably not  see the tactics he saw (and by far not all combinations were sound, as you probably know). But even weak players like me would see that he sac material for the attack, or to win material, or to make the defence difficult. If you see the end position of Carlsen vs Onishuk, only there  you see what Carlsen was doing: he got his pawn back, the white knights were completely dominating the black rook, and Black had problems to find the best moves, so  Black lost on time. Not boring, exciting, but in another way than Tal or the incredible Nezhmetdinov.

Another example from the same tournament (which he won) is Carlsen vs Radjabov 2007, Biel.

Three interesting moves are: 

14. Re3! (he wants to  double the rooks on e3, difficult to see that something like this is possible here), 

22. e6! and

23. e7! (the pawn is poisoned, if Black take it, it is mate in four after piece exchanges on e7 and after 25...Rad8 26. Qd4 Rf6 27. Qh4 mate). 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1468279

My guess is that the OP doesn't really like chess at all. If you're unable appreciate the subtleties in a slow manouevring middlegame or a fine endgame display, maybe chess isn't a game for you ...

Mikhail Tal, one of the greatest attacking players of all time, twice went undefeated for nearly 100 games in the 1970s. He didn't do that because he was crushing all his opponents inside 25 moves, he did that because he was perfectly capable of playing swashbuckling attacks when the position on the board merited such methods, while being equably able to adjust to quieter situations and outplay his opponents in the middlegame or exploit tiny advantages in the endgame.