not to mention that "GM Fisher" should also be (sic) ...

The englund gambit is just garbage. While clearly 1...g5 takes the cake as black's worst response to d4, e5 is a strong contender for second place. Maybe h5 and Nh6 also have something to say about it, though.

Grobmeister wrote on 08/15/14 at 19:43:52:

It seems every Moody has their Alburt. 

This is quite a common area for debate and I can live on either side of the "fence".  I think that specialising in unorthodox (typically dubious but trappy) opening lines is a legitimate way to get enjoyment out of chess.  They can be interesting to analyse and have the merit of often leading to unusual positions which catch opponents out.  Even for more "serious" players, it can be useful to develop an understanding of why these openings are objectively bad, and also why some of them are often successful in practice (most lines following 1.d4 e5 fall into both categories).

But I quite often see discussions on unorthodox lines descend into chaos where fanatical supporters argue, "Yes, this line is dubious, but so what?  Practice!", implying that if one can score 80% with it in rapid games then it makes it an objectively "good" opening, and opponents argue that if it's dubious (and maybe even refuted outright) then it isn't worth analysing seriously.  Those who are interested in analysing these lines seriously can then be tarnished by association with either group. 

What concerns me about Grobmeister is a tone which suggests a "So what?  Practice!" mentality, though I hope I am wrong.

I would just let him go. I mean no disrespect by this, but judging by his post, he's just getting into the game more seriously. Everyone goes through "that phase".

Forgive me, I forget who said it, but I recall a GM once stating that "a gambit is just an excuse to give up a pawn." I had to chuckle when I heard that. Gambits appeal to "swashbucklers" who enjoy an exciting and daring game. And a gambit is a sacrifice which is an art form in chess. GM Tal for example, was a master of sacrifice and played a very risky, daring game. I was astonished by a game he played once where he gave up his entire queenside of pawns in favor for open lanes of mobility and attack and delivered a shocking defeat in under 30 moves. Although brave, he certainly wasn't a foolish man rushing blindly into battle. He understood and mastered sacrifice. But gambits, for the most part, do not appeal to more sensible, defensive, "prophalactic" styled players such as GM Fisher, whose approach was to sit back and defend while waiting for an opportunity to strike. And this is the beauty of Chess. It's complexity allows for varied approaches to the game.

Touché. 

Aziridine wrote on 08/15/14 at 00:08:19:

Some keen insights Jedi, and well received. Thank you. However, keep in mind that this is a blog addressing "Daring Defences" after all. 

SWJediknight wrote on 08/14/14 at 22:17:58: