DoubledPawns wrote on 03/15/08 at 01:32:14:


You've probably figured it out by now, but that post above was not to be taken seriously. Just sarcastically mocking the Englund Gambit .

However, I don't have anything against 1.e4 e5 as Black - solid and sensible.

Markovich wrote on 03/15/08 at 17:16:46:


1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 will not generally prevent the Chigorin - at least not if you intend to soon follow up with c2-c4. 

If you don't follow up with c2-c4, we are in the world of "d-pawn special" with in general prevent all the "normal" Black responses to 1. d4.

If you follow up with c2-c4 soon after 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6, the positions arising will mostly be very "Chigorinish" and will most often be discussed in the Chigorin books. 

It's different with the Budapest and the Albin. After 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 you can be quite confident not to face the Budapest or the Albin, even if you play 3. c4.

DoubledPawns wrote on 03/15/08 at 01:32:14:

Not that revolutionary anymore - the corr. player Halasz already played it 40 years ago, also against the Sicilian.
3...Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.Bd3 Nge7 and 6...d5 looks like a decent reply. Where is White's Attack?

1.d4 e5 2.e4 ed4 3.f4!? looks like another gambit worth investigating, with the simple idea of Nf3 with an attack, while ...c5?! is met by c3! with an edge. Any takers for this revolutionary gambit, which looks like a serious threat to 1.e4 e5?

The Englund seems to polarise chessplayers into two camps, a bit like the BDG, Elephant, Latvian etc, in that you have a set of supporters determined to prove that it's sound despite overwhelming evidence on the contrary, and the masters' scornful dismissal of it (1 d4 e5?? 2 dxe5!! and White wins)

The reality lies somewhere in between.  It's not sound, but it can be a good practical weapon for players below master level who enjoy the kinds of positions that result.  Particularly at mortal levels, for many, it's more important to play openings you enjoy than to play ones that are objectively "good"- and it doesn't matter how unsound an opening is, if you usually come out of it with a decent middlegame.  I admit I play the Englund quite a bit myself and usually come out of the opening with a good position.  That doesn't mean the opening is good (objectively speaking it clearly isn't), but it means that it works for me at my level.  Thus, in a sense, both the masters and Zilbermints are "right" in their own ways. 

The standard advice of ditching unsound openings for mainline stuff is good for players who aspire to reach master level, but for those who play mainly for fun, it's not necessarily relevant.

Btw, after 1 d4 e5 2 Nf3?! black should respond 2...e4 with at least equality.  I personally think the clearest way to advantage against Zilbermints's line is 4 Nc3, which should be at least a strong += if White plays accurately.

In the 3...Qe7 lines I doubt that Craig's 4 Qd5 f6 5 exf6 Nxf6 6 Qb3 d5 7 Bg5 Bd7 8 Nbd2 is a refutation, as Black can improve with an early ...h6.  Sure, Black doesn't have enough for the pawn with accurate play, but +- is a bit strong, += would be nearer the mark.  If there is an outright refutation it is more likely to begin with 4 Bf4.

DoubledPawns wrote on 02/16/08 at 23:50:24:


Interesting gambit, one that is worth investigating, I think. The only problem is that none will play 3 e4!? after 2...ed4 . For the pawn, White gets 2 open files and a lead in development. Is it any good?
Only future games can render a fair verdict on this. 

You still haven't refuted 2.Nf3 ed4 3.e4! yet. But to be honest, I think "refuted" is a bit too ambitious after 3.e4, don't you think?

Gambit wrote on 02/16/08 at 18:47:11:

3.g4 takes black into unknown territory; second prepares to fianchetto the Bf1; third offers a gambit pawn. Abmittedly it is a bit more stupid than 3.b4, but really both moves are quite poor.