@congruent saidAbout every trap has a refutation. Especially the Englund gambit is bad.
Instead of d4-and the E5 by white, why not Nd2 at move 9? The Stafford gambit isn't sound, can be a free pawn after Nxc6.
When the enemy knows what he is doing, then you end up in a bad position with the Englund.
But it is quite a while ago that that happened to me, and I play the Englund often.
But just coming out of the opening with a pawn less, is maybe a big deal on GM level, but not on my patzer level, so I don't worry about gambiteering one pawn.
@congruent saidBasically every gambit is unsound, but in only a minority of the cases the enemy knows the refutation.
Instead of d4-and the E5 by white, why not Nd2 at move 9? The Stafford gambit isn't sound, can be a free pawn after Nxc6.
And often they go horribly wrong with trappy gambits. It gives me many miniatures of 10 moves or less. 😆 😆 😆
https://tinyurl.com/dashing-gambit
@carnivorum saidHow about some games where the gambit backfires spectacularly. I'm interested in seeing those. 😁😂🤣
Of course white made mistakes, if not I wouldn't have won.
@congruent saidThat's a Carnivorum loss, but white was the one who played the gambit.
Against a 1600 player
[pgn][Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/8BxdzBRU"]
[Date "2022.04.17"]
[White "yyssookkttaarr"]
[Black "Carnivorum"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2022.04.17"]
[UTCTime "11:26:59"]
[WhiteElo "1607"]
[BlackElo "1815"]
[WhiteRatingDiff "+20"]
[BlackRatingDiff "-12"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "780+13"]
[ECO "C47"]
...[text shortened]... d4 e4 8. Ne5 d5 9. Bb5 Qd6 10. f3 exf3 11. Qxf3 f6 12. Bf4 Qe6 13. Rae1 Qf5 14. Nxc6+ Be7 1-0[/pgn]
?si=jj62Esk2RJULw1js
The Englund gambit relies on the Qb4 trick 🙂
Perhaps then do some tactics and middle game training? Here perhaps instead of trying to double on the FPawn, Rae8 then d4 push Bc4 etc. You ended up moving the black bishop twice, moving the important pawn around your King and losing the Queen.
White somehow managed to start badly then with a position he is pushing d5 with Black Queen on d6 while bishop and rook putting pressure on d5. Have you ever heard such a phrase “controlling the center is to control the game”?
@congruent saidThe Englund gambit sure relies on the Qb4 trick.
https://youtu.be/yDtpkkEjTU8?si=jj62Esk2RJULw1js
The Englund gambit relies on the Qb4 trick 🙂
Perhaps then do some tactics and middle game training? Here perhaps instead of trying to double on the FPawn, Rae8 then d4 push Bc4 etc. You ended up moving the black bishop twice, moving the important pawn around your King and losing the Queen.
White somehow managed to s ...[text shortened]... 1:08] } 36... Kxh6 { [%clk 0:10:07] } 37. Rxc7 { [%clk 0:11:20] } { Black resigns. } 1-0
[/pgn]
Playing a trappy gambit doesn't guarantee you a win, but it does give you a goodly amount of hilarious miniatures.
And the tactical motives you learn from the traps you can often apply in a totally different opening or position.
Traps make you a better player and let you win a fair amount of very short games.
And that is a lot of fun.
I don't believe in controlling the center, I believe in checkmate.
https://tinyurl.com/pity-no-traps
@Carnivorum
What do you think of my middlegame suggestions in the game you lost above?
Games can be won/lost
- opening
- middle
- ending
@congruent saidWhen I'm playing as blunderfull as I did in this game, then nothing helps.
@Carnivorum
What do you think of my middlegame suggestions in the game you lost above?
Games can be won/lost
- opening
- middle
- ending
I have those moments that I cannot see the difference between a bishop and a horse.
Maybe you didn't see it, but on move 6 I blundered away a bishop. But the opponent also didn't see it. I'm so used to having a horse on c6 that protects the bishop, that I just played my bishop without thinking, and thereby giving it away.
But I used to study a lot with CT-Art 3.0, I do some other tactic exercises, and sometimes I play not so very bad.
But chess has to stay play, and not work. I just wanna have fun, and trappy gambits sometimes deliver that.
Now this is an interesting Englund gambit.
No mate in 8, but clearly the enemy had no idea how to refute it.
Me who had sacced a pawn on move 1, came out of the opening with 2 more pawns than the enemy.
Look at the situation on move 15, the enemy was 2 pawns behind, and he had 3 totally isolated pawns, also positional he was lost.
So I decided to do something drastic to bring some excitement back in the game, and I gave him my queen. Just to make the game interesting again.
But even that was not enough, because 21 moves after my queen sac, I won anyway.
But it was an exciting game. A nice Englund gambit.
@carnivorum saidOn the flip side, White had a substantial lead in development that in a few moves translated to a strong attack. In fact, after 20.Ne4 (threatening 21.Bxd5 Qxd5 22.Nf6+), I'm not sure that Black had a fully satisfactory defense.
Now this is an interesting Englund gambit.
No mate in 8, but clearly the enemy had no idea how to refute it.
Me who had sacced a pawn on move 1, came out of the opening with 2 more pawns than the enemy.
Look at the situation on move 15, the enemy was 2 pawns behind, and he had 3 totally isolated pawns, also positional he was lost.