Well this kind of stuff is almost never seen OTB...
2.dxe5 and play with care. If your opponent plays f6 or d6, then take it. Tell the gambiteer that you aren't afraid...
And then proceed with caution, taking time on every move and not letting the gambiteer get any tactical opportunities...
Do you have a sample game where you lost?
the englund gambit is crap. this is a horrible opening with no compensation for black unless white falls for a very silly trap. take the pawn
Karpov had the White pieces and lost to another GM after 1.e4 a6 . He was so insulted and irritated by his opponents first move, that he couldn't get his head back into the game. I wouldn't discount any opening where humans are involved. Computers don't get mad over dubious moves.
A40: Englund Gambit - 1.d4 e5
it is a good opening if you are playing against players with the rating 1600
In the game above, (see post #5), White goes astray already with 4 Bf4, which leads to a loss of time. 4 exd6 is a simple pawn up and very flexible, or 4 Bg5 can disrupt Black's idea. But at the master level and up, a 200 point rating difference is huge.
Here's an Englund Gambit game where Black is rated about 200 points lower and wins. The play looks sensible from both sides. It does take White away from familiar openings. I'm not saying that 1...e5 is a good move. I just find it interesting.
A more principled off-beat reply to 1.d4 would be 1..c5, A43: The Old Benoni Defense. And absolutely nothing wrong with A43: Benoni Defense - Modern Variation with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5, which could lead to a fun gambit, The Benko Gambit after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5.
It isn't so unsound Black is immediately losing from the opening, yet I doubt he has enough compensation for the pawn. If White, with correct play, steers the battle into the endgame, the pawn deficit will come back to haunt Black.
The Englund gambit was played successfully by Korchnoi. However I think 2.dxe5 is toooooooooo risky to my taste.
You have me intrigued. Do you happen to have the PGN, by chance?
Having played against it a couple of times now, I find 4. Qd5 to be quite effective. It pretty much forces black to give back the pawn, and if you look in game explorer, white pretty much always wins.
A couple of notes - First, 7. Bf4 is not the move for white, 7. Bg5 is. Second, white does not need to play a3, c3 at some point works just as well and then the b1 knight can develop to d2 instead. And finally, there is no reason to take the b7 pawn after Bd7, white is already up one pawn, so being greedy does not make sense. Essentially, black ends up down a pawn without any substantive compensation unless white just makes bad moves.
Here are all of the games in Game Explorer with white playing 7. Bg5 in the line under discussion. You will note that all of the players playing black are only in the 2200 range - this also gives a good hint as to how viable this opening is against decent opposition.
Haha i like the refuters vs. Gambiteers idea
I'd join with the refuters =p
A vote chess game i guess?
That's correct...after 8...Na5! the queen is sure in a pickle.
I agree with LavaRook that a vote chess game would both be entertaining and settle the debate in this thead.
Yet how are we going to hold it? I suppose we'll have two make seperate groups (i.e: Englund Gambit Refutors vs. Englund Gambit Supporters) and go from there?
Although I'm sure there is a Englund Gambit Enthusiast group here, so we can just make one group, but then the other players on that group may not accept the challange...
I'm rambling, aren't I?
EDIT: I found a group dedicated to the Englund and the gambit-sidlines in the Scandinavian the refutors could play against (I can't tell if it's active, though) :http://www.chess.com/groups/view/englund-amp-scandinavian-gambits
Here are all of the games in Game Explorer with white playing 7. Bg5 in the line under discussion. You will note that all of the players playing black are only in the 2200 range - this also gives a good hint as to how viable this opening is against decent opposition.
I can't understand why everyone plays Qd5 instead going directly for Bg5, can u tell my why?
Essentially, there are two ways of playing that:
1) You are hoping for the opponent to fall for a trap. As in 1. d4 e5?? 2. Nc6 Nf3 3. Qe7 Bg5 4. Qb4+ or the "Derek trap". If the first doesn't work out, you are dead lost, and if the second doesn't work out, you just gave your opponent a pawn for nothing.
2) You are trying to make a point that it is "playable" and go for lines that involve normal development. You can find the odd example of competent players going for that, and occasionally they might even win. But why would you make your life hard when there are so many better ways to answer d4? It doesn't make sense to me.
I've on occasion reported player who played it (even though they lost).
Hi. I play a queen's Gambit as white. I watched Sam Shanklans videos on the opening with some interest. When addressing the move order d4 e5 Sam basically says, "I'm not even gonna bother with this terrible move."
Ever since, I am always happy when someone plays this move. Then I usually go on screw up my game and get into a bad position.
In short: what is the correct response to 1. d4, e5?
Thanks