|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-15-09 | | blacksburg: oh ok. is this one of those things where white shouldn't try to hold the pawn at all, just develop? like maybe 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.e4 Nxe5 4.f4 etc...? |
|
| May-15-09 | | acirce: Well no need to give the pawn back just like that, but it can be done under more favourable conditions. 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 and now 4.Bf4 is good although not the only good move. White just needs to know not to meet 4..Qb4+ with 5.Qd2?? Qxb2 6.Qc3 Bb4 or 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3?? Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1#. Couple of cute traps that are basically the Englund player's only hope. Slight exaggeration. 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 is great for White of course though. 5.Nc3!? is the same after 5..Qxb2 6.Bd2 and on 5..Qxf4 there's 6.Nd5. Anyway, most reasonable 4th moves for White in that line keep an edge even when it means returning the pawn. Of course, Black has other silly tries that don't involve even trying to get it back but those are just umm, ok, thanks for the pawn. |
|
| May-15-09 | | blacksburg: ok thanks |
|
| May-15-09 | | whiskeyrebel: Most gambit's are more or less effective against the level of opposition. A 900 player would likely fair better against a 1300 using one of the more sound gambits than a 1700 against a 2100. That's just my opinion of course. What do you stronger players think? |
|
| May-15-09 | | whiskeyrebel: For instance, as a 1900 or so player, I wouldn't consider gambiting material to a player of Acirce's higher rating level. I'd try to play sound chess and hope he over-extends and plays too aggressively. On the other hand, if a 1400 rated friend was facing a 1700 I'd say go ahead and play a gambit you have studied the priciples of and played in some blitz games for practice. |
|
Jun-15-09
 | | GrahamClayton: <Captain Scumbag>I play the Englund occasionally and have enjoyed a fair bit of success.
An interesting variation is 01.d4 e5 02.dxe5 Nc6 03.Nf3 Qe7 04.Bf4 Qb4+ 05.Nc3?! This database has one example of it following this line and none that follow 05..Qxf4. This is unfortunate because I think it leads to interesting play. Here's a game I played about three years ago. My opponent was a Class A player, which is quite amusing given the conclusion 01. 01.d4 e5 02.dxe5 Nc6 03.Nf3 Qe7 04.Bf4 Qb4+ 05.Nc3?! Qxf4?! 06. Nd5 Qe4 07.Nxc7+ Kd8 08.Nxa8 Qb4+ 09.c3 Qxb2 10.Rc1 Qxa2 11.e4 Bc5 12. Ra1?? Qxf2# 0-1 I welcome any comments on the above game. I would especially like people's thoughts on the position after 09..Qxb2. I'd be genuinely interested to know who people thought stood better. Captain Scumbag,
I think White was correct to sacrifice the a-pawn in order to save the c-pawn.
I looked at 10.♖b1, but after 10...♕c3+ 11.♘d2 ♕e5 I think Black is doing well, with the obvious threat being 12...♕b8 picking up the errant Knight. After 10.♖b1 ♕c3+ 11.♕d2 ♕d2+ 12.♔d2 Black can play 12...♘ge7 & 13...♘g6 putting pressure on the White e5 pawn. |
|
| Jul-31-09 | | parisattack: Anyone have experience (as black) with the Polish Defense? I have Kapitaniak's Polish and Zimmer's Polnische - but seeking feedback from someone who has played it (and the St. George) with some regularity. I like that black can get play on both sides of the board and how many variations transpose into structures similar to the French, the ...e6 Sicilians - even the Benoni and Dutch. Thanks! |
|
| Jul-31-09 | | MaxxLange: <whiskeyrebel> I can see the value of your approach to playing someone with a good rating - sound and careful. But, think about this: according to the strong players I have worked with, players under 2000 overestimate the value of material all the time. We don't sac pawns that give us great chances. We cash out and win the exchange when it is better to keep up the pressure. All the time. |
|
| Jul-31-09 | | MaxxLange: strong = expects to win against 2200 player |
|
| Jun-29-10 | | jahhaj: I faced an obscure sideline of the Englund gambit recently 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nge7. Unfortunately I didn't find the refutation over the board and got nothing from the opening, but 4.Nc3 Neg6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nd5 Qd8 8.Qd2! now 8...Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 fails to 10.Qc3 and white is much better. I agree with <acirce>, the Englund is just awful. |
|
Jun-29-10
 | | Eric Schiller: Not obscure at all. The Zilbermints
Gambit is probably the most playable line of this rubbish opening. |
|
| Oct-23-11 | | jbtigerwolf: Yes it's a rubbish opening, but if you haven't seen it, it can be 0-1. In my experience playing off-beat openings, a player of 1500+ will usually sit back and look at the board and go over the idea. I wouldn't like to face the Englund Gambit or other obscure openings like the Latvian Gambit, without knowing the theory. From watching better players than me, I know how to deal with the foreign: sit back and study otb. This is one of those gambits where if your opponent knows it (or works it out) you drop the point yourself. |
|
| Oct-23-11 | | jbtigerwolf: But this is really about 1.d4. I got here trying to work out what was meant by 'Queen's pawn game'. I was looking at the repertoire of Akobian and I noted that he's a d4 player, with 379 d4's in this database (approx half wins, a third draws, a sixth losses) and only 14 other first moves (over e4,c4,Nf3 and b4).. which shows he's experimented. His results with other moves are awful. Interestingly, he has only tried c4 3 times! Unsuccessfully. What grabbed me was that he plays 'Queen's pawn game' (whatever that is?) as Black to 1.d4... though he faces the Nimzo, KID, Dutch and the QG defenses to his QG that he plays... strange that he doesn't play any of the defenses he faces. |
|
| Oct-23-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: @<jbtigerwolf>
I have always understood Queen's Pawn Game to mean a d4 opening where white doesn't play 2. c4 - so that includes: Veresov (1.d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5); Colle/Zukertort (1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 with either c3 or b3 coming); Trompowsky (1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5); London (1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6/e6/d5 3. Bf4); Torre Attack (1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6/g6 3. Bg5). |
|
Dec-08-11
 | | Penguincw: Opening of the Day
Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit
1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6
click for larger view |
|
Jan-26-12
| | Penguincw: Opening of the Day
Englund Gambit
1.d4 e5
click for larger viewLooks like "England" gambit. :-\ |
|
Jan-27-12
| | Penguincw: Opening of the Day
Bogoljubov Defense
1.d4 ♘c6
click for larger view |
|
| Dec-25-12 | | Kikoman: <Opening of the Day> <<<Blackburne-Hartlaub Gambit>>> 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 d6
click for larger viewSo, this is the first game of this opening in the database H W Apperly vs H Charlick, 1894, a brilliant ♕ sac. :)x |
|
Aug-14-13
| | Penguincw: Opening of the Day
Englund Gambit
1.d4 e5 |
|
Aug-15-13
| | Penguincw: Opening of the Day
Bogoljubov Defense
1.d4 ♘c6
click for larger view |
|
Feb-24-14
 | | WannaBe: 1. d4 Nc6 2. d5 Ne5 is just like reversed Alekhine's Defence... Never tried this playing against d4, always used ...Nf6 |
|
| Mar-19-14 | | goommba88: this comment for mr.schiller/ or acirce
has anyone taken a serious look at the line 5..Qc5!? after (1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2) ?
my engine seems to think that it is playable although white still keeps an advantage ( a couple of sample lines would be 6.Be3 [to try and trick black into the Qxb2 lines with tempo]6..Qa5 7.Qd2 d5 8. Qxa5 (8.Exd6 e.p. Bxd6 9.Nd4 Qh5 is fine for white) Nxa5 10.Nc3 Be6 0.80  I think blacks game is playable as white will have to move the e3 bishop again :line 2
6.Bc3 NGe7 7. e4 (in order to stop Nd5 freeing blacks game)7..Ng6 8.Qd5 too force the queens off and black can trade and give white the center or play Nf4 with a complex position (.75) any thoughts?
just checking to see if its been tried by reasonable strong players +1900 or above.. thanks for your time. |
|
Nov-24-20
| | Penguincw: Recently a trap has emerged in this opening, best used in online blitz/bullet with pre-moving: 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.exd6 Ne7 5.dxe7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Qxd1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oks...
(bullet game vs. Naroditsky, 2:33) |
|
Nov-07-21
 | | Ron: I faced the "Kangaroo Defense" for the first time, it was against a computer. The opening: 1. d4 e6 2. c4 Bb4+
The game continued: 3. Bd2 a5 4. a3 Bxd2+ 5. Qxd2 f5 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. Nc3 d6 8. e3 Sort of turned into a Dutch Defense.
Post game I had another chess program, Stockfish 021021 evaluate the game. After White's 8th move it evaluates: + (0.79--) Depth=37/46 0:05:09 144 MN |
|
| Oct-09-24 | | ColdSong: Just checked the Englund gambit with Stockfish17.It simply looks perfectly playable after all,with its own Englund-like typical and original traps, and of course the most promising variations for white cannot be found by humans. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
