Tony, I think you misunderstood my references to GM Tal and GM Fischer. I was drawing a distinction between two very different players. One being radically offensive and sacrificial with the other having a conservative, defensive style of play. This in no way undermines, as you put it, my respect or understanding of the game. You seem to suggest that by choosing to play more obscure unorthodox openings somehow displays disrespect and ignorance. That is ludicrous and actually more a reflection of your level of understanding of the game.

IM Michael Basman for example, was ridiculed and still is to this day for playing the Grob Attack at top level tournaments. But you can't dispute his winning record with it. An opening that was once considered dubious like so many other unorthodox openings. I read that GM Nakamura recently played it at a tournament and won with it as well. Games are not determined by opening play anyway. It all comes down to the endgame. If you understood the game, you would know that.

Further, I have respect for anyone that sponsors a chess tournament, despite their rating. I don't have deep pockets, I sacrificed alot to sponsor my Edgewater tournaments out of sheer love for the game and as a contribution to my hometown. And not to boast, but my rating is significantly higher than 1600, thank you.

God, I hate trolls. Especially ones dressed in sheeps clothing. 

TonyRo wrote on 08/17/14 at 17:51:59:

motörhead wrote on 08/27/14 at 19:36:00:



4. e4 fe 5. Bc4  +/- 

Black is nowhere close to equality.

A nice suicide by White in a 3-minute game.
I noticed that after one possibility I thought of, 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. c3 d5 8. e3 (a reversed-color version of an old book line, and surely better for White), you had another case of White doing himself in, this time by e-mail ...

A natural possibility is for White to play for a quick c4, which I didn't see mentioned.

SWJediknight wrote on 08/27/14 at 15:22:14:


I'm bit surprized by that. 
I think that after 4.e4 fxe5 Black is closer to equality than after 4.exf6 Nxf6 and now very modestly but surprizingling effectful 5.e3. It's simply a reversed Euwe-Defence from the BDG. Now Black has problems how to continue. If he plays d7-d5 he is simply a move down to the Euwe. And I feel that is a nearly decisive loss of time... 
But what then? How to handle the Bf8? On c5 he is biting on granite, e7 is useless, so where...

All to often White instead plays a bit into Black's hands with the proud, "active" and typical (in the usual sense of QP-openings) 5.Bg5 which is a reversed Teichmann-Defence and after 5... h6 they retreat with 6.Bh4 (while I think 6.Bxf6 is better keeping a quite clear advantage), when 6... g5 leads to a somehow quite playable game given the fact that Black has deliberately sacced a pure pawn.

On the same database Black is scoring 47% with 1...Nf6 but only 43% with 1...d5 and 45% with 1...e6. 

The stats don't tell the whole story of course because they can be affected by players being tempted into sub-optimal lines later in the opening.   After 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ Black is scoring 51%, and in the old main line 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Rb3 Black is scoring 42%.  But after 8.Nd5, Black's score is a dismal 24%, and Black doesn't have any convincing deviations between moves 4 and 8.  I think these stats underline the status of the line as "theoretically bad but offering practical chances at relatively low levels of play", and although I haven't done a similarly systematic check on the other lines, I would expect most, if not all, other approaches for Black following 1.d4 e5 to have a similar issue.

Edit:  I've found one particularly glaring one already:  1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 f6 scores 53% for Black, but after 4.e4 (instead of 4.exf6) Black scores only 25%.

The weakness is that it is terrible. The strength is that white might never have seen it before, so he might let you off with only getting a large disadvantage.

I've updated my own coverage of the Englund Gambit very recently:
http://tws27.weebly.com/englund-gambit.html
http://tws27.weebly.com/englund-gambit-d6-and-f6-lines.html
http://tws27.weebly.com/englund-gambit-qe7-and-nge7-lines.html

I've tried to be balanced in my coverage, highlighting the key lines that Black needs to crack in order to make the Englund Gambit theoretically in good standing, but also highlighting the practical chances that Black gets if White doesn't follow the most critical lines.   

According to the Chesslive.de database Black is scoring a healthy 44% after 1.d4 e5, but I am reminded of comments by Mark Nieuweboer (relating to the Albin Counter-Gambit) relating to how one can have many fine attacking wins in a gambit system, but be put off by a few depressing games where you get a worse position out of the opening (where the opening is largely responsible) and never get any real positive chances.  I haven't had such experiences in the Albin so far, but it certainly happened to me in the Englund.  Interestingly, it wasn't the most theoretically critical lines that did this, but rather quiet responses that let Black regain the pawn and give White a positional edge- I'm thinking of a few depressing online games in the line 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.e4, and some games with 3...Nge7 at the local chess club where I kept ending up in dull and slightly inferior positions where I regained the e5-pawn and White had a positional advantage, and I felt I was basically playing an inferior relative of the Albin Counter-Gambit with ...Nge7.  For players who get a lot of fun out of these unorthodox lines it's a question of whether it is worth the risk.