Refute the Englund gambit

4.Bd2 is the move I found

Black can equalize by taking back the pawn. White goes from +1.2 to +.2

I disagree.

I don’t think Black has equalized.

Also, your own statement doesn’t support your case that Black is Equal.

+ 0.20 would indicate White has Small Edge which I believe can be natured.

Welcome... to the "Beat the Englund Gambit like a red headed step child" party. lol

Been playing this variation for quite some time now, came across it years back... I'm a Center Counter Defense player. IMO... it's playing the Scandinavian/Center Counter defense as White with a move.

here is all the malarkey I usually encounter over at Lichess. (the main line is about the soundest line...

If Black plays d6, I would just take the pawn.

Than white would be up by 1 pawn

Going from 1.2 to .2 is a mistake in my opinion. Going from .5 to .2 is an inaccuracy in the opening for white and already starting the losing/draw process. .2 (less than half a tempo) is not an advantage a human can even appreciate. Game above is 100% accuracy for white, those are the best moves bottom line.

Yes, the main trap to watch out for is 6.Bc3?? which is a disastrous (but reasonable looking) blunder.

White might as well resign here.

But as long as White remembers to avoid that (playing the knight to c3, instead) - he should be golden.

I admit to forgetting about this and auto-piloting the Bc3 blunder on a few occasions ... It's no fun to fall prey to a trap that you already know about - so be vigilant.

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

Everyone is allowed to play chess in the way they feel is best.

It is through these differences and similarities that we discover our true Chess potential.

—————————

Have you ever watched the movie Matrix?

In the original movie, Their was an Oracle who had a sign which hung in her Kitchen.

The Sign said “To Know Yourself.”

Knowing your limits and Knowing what your able to handle vs. not able to handle can be a very important skill.

Not just in Chess, but also in Life!

——————————

If you feel the move 4.Bd2 is a mistake, Than I encourage you not to play it.

You should continue playing 4.Bf4 as it seems to be the move you enjoy.

For me, The move 4.Bf4 isn’t the best move.

To me, It isn’t 100% accurate.

To me, The move 4.Bf4 is very risky.

A Chess player playing the move 4.Bf4 would have to play very care.

I don’t think I would be able to play 4.Bf4.

I would be very nerves about the Queen check line.

The Queen on b2 would make me feel very unsettling.

The Queen on b2 would cause me to use up a lot of time.

Even if I could find my way through all the tricks and traps in the position, I would still end up losing due to time pressure.

The White pawn structure is ruined.

The White pieces feel very disjointed.

The White pieces don’t feel as if they are working in harmony.

According to you, The computer engine says White is winning +1.2.

Even with a +1.2 lead, I still think I would lose.

I would lose because Black has counter play and chaos in their favor.

At the end of the day, it’s not a computer engine playing this game.

It’s me and I have flaws which is what makes me a human.

Accepting my flaws and acknowledging this position would be unsettling for me isn’t a liability.

It’s a strength because it allows me to stir the game into a position which isn’t unsettling.

A position more in tuned to my strengths vs. weaknesses.

——————————————-

This is why the move 4.Bd2 is best move to me.

According to you, White position is +0.20

It’s not a massive advantage, but it still is a small advantage.

In addition, The move Bd2 prevents Queen check on b4.

What does Black do now?

Should they take the E pawn with Knight?

If they do, the above exchanges happen.

White gets to play Bc3 gaining a tempo on Queen + Slicing the Board in Half.

White gets long term pressure on Black g7 pawn.

Who is pressuring who in this position?

I think White position is amazing.

I think Black position is the one which is starting to feel unsettling.

White game plan would be extremely easy.

I could see myself playing half dozen moves here easy all with clear plan.

As White, I would try to fight for Dark Center Squares to compliment my Bishop on c3.

I would play helping moves

Here is a sample set up with Black playing same move to show what I mean:

- Knight on f3 hitting Dark Squares

- e3 pawn hitting Dark Squares

- Queen hitting Dark Squares

- Flexible Pawn Structure

No Isolated or Fragmented Pawns.

- Flexibility to Castle

I can Castle Queen side or King side

- Flexibility to move my Dark Bishop

I could play b3 and move my Dark Bishop to b2 if I feel it’s to exposed on c3.

- Flexibility with my Light Square Bishop

I could aim for e2, d3, or even c4.

A lot of great squares for my Light Square Bishop.

—————————————

All pieces Active

All pieces working in Harmony

Black Position isn’t losing, but the counter play they had in Qb4 line is gone.

Its a completely different position.

In Fact, I looked at this position through Chess engine several weeks or months ago.

The Chess engine doesn’t even take the E pawn.

In the above position, The engine I reviewed with played d6.

Image that - Engine didn’t like Knight takes line for Black.

I just responded by taking the d6 pawn.

Now, white is up 1 pawn.

@compadre_j

i don’t think you looked at the original position enough. Material is equal yet white is +2.5. Black is essentially lost in the opening with good play. There are too many different options to list as white but essentially black is set to at a minimum have his queen chased around and lose a pawn and probably a rook, and/or get mated.

The purpose of 1 e5 by black is to go for the classic Englund trap (s) in exchange for the pawn. With this line you retain your pawn and essentially just win the game in the opening thus refuting this gambit. Its unplayable, because someone who knows the traps thwarts them and wins the game, so black can’t go for the traps and just have to play the game down a center pawn for no reason.

trust me I’m all for playing chess how you want and am a proponent of the morra gambit, but the Englund has no purpose other than for mating sub 1300s in a hurry.

bro all you need to do is play bf4 and nc3

it gg for black

My main opening as White is 1.e4.

I’m not a huge 1.d4 player.

I have played 1.d4 to stop my opponents from prepping against me.

The 1.d4 lines I have played have been very simple.

- London

- Colle

Recently, I have been trying to learn the Catalon.

I have seen the Englund a total of 2 times in my entire life.

Clearly, I am in no position to thwart Black opening.

I would be 1 of those poor unfortunate souls who would fall victim to the Englund Players traps and home brewed lines.

The line I play gives White small edge with no risk of falling into a trap or some home brewed lines.

How many Englund players have seen the move 4.Bd2?

Some of them might not have ever seen that move which means they are out of their comfort zone.

Well then (1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7) 4.Nc3 is a good move (also no 4...Qb4 with check), after 4...Nxe5 5.e4 is also a good move, plus it's very 1.e4-like. Simple chess. Compare with the Nimzowitsch Defense 1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5 3.dxe5 Nxe5 4.Nf3 (a main move) 4...Qe7?! 5.Nc3 (the best move).

Your arguments for why not to play 4.Bf4 do not add up to arguments for why to play 4.Bd2. If you don't want to "refute" black's opening because by the time you get it on the board you will not remember the refutation, that's fine. But you should still try to control the center, knights before bishops, etc. The engine rates 4.Nc3 Nxe5 5.e4 as almost 1/2-pawn better than 4.Bd2 Nxe5 5.Nxe5 Qxe5 6.Bc3, and it's not any harder to remember.

Are you sure?

I don’t think anyone has asked me about my arguments for 4.Bd2.

Keep in mind, I am mainly a 1.e4 player which means I look at 1.d4 with a different line of thinking compared to more traditional 1.d4 players.

This difference of perspective could be a good or bad thing.

The reason I want to play Bd2 is because I feel it capitalizes on Black’s Opening weaknesses.

When White plays 1.d4, I believe White is trying to Claim Center space + gain control over Dark Squares.

The D pawn on d4 is occupying a Dark Square + It Attacks Dark center squares such as E5 Square.

When Black plays 1…e5, They challenge White for control over Dark Squares.

If White pushes forward to d5, Than Black would have won the fight for Dark Squares.

If White takes e5 pawn with d4 pawn, The Dark Squares have become weaker.

After 2 Knight moves, Both sides are still fighting over Dark Squares.

Black is attacking.

White is defending.

In the above position, Black Queen move simply increases the pressure on the Dark E5 Square.

White move 4.Bf4 simply adds another defender to the E5 Square, But it also carries some Risk.

I don’t like playing Risky if there is no reason to play Risky.

4.Bd2 doesn’t defend the E5 Square right away such as Bf4, But it does prepare to continue the Fight for Control over the Dark Squares.

——————————————

It seems to me the move 4.Nc3 isn’t fighting for Dark Squares.

It seems the logic behind 4.Nc3 is to switch to Light Squares Control.

Nc3 + e4 makes valid sense in terms of controlling Light Squares.

I suppose White would follow up with Bc4 type of move later to continue the Light Squares Control.

——————————

Sure, The line you’re suggesting sounds playable.

It wouldn’t be a “Refutation Line”.

It would just be an alternative way of playing the position.

I think for White to truly Refute Black.

They have to Fight Black for Dark Square Dominance.

This is how I interpret/read this position.

The Question is whether or not Bd2 is winning.

I think it is winning.

The OP said himself that it has Small Advantage.

Whether you win by inch or mile, Winning is still winning.

Players can win by being up 1 Queen.

Players can win by being up 1 Pawn.

Winning by being up 1 Queen might be easier vs. only being up 1 Pawn, but at the end of the day if you win why should it matter?

The only difference I see is the way I am playing might require a little more work vs. the way he is playing.

However, The way I am winning seems less risky and I don’t have to worry about traps or tricks.

I looked into the Englund sometime around 1996. I had been playing the Albin Counter Gambit since '88 but after being logically and inevitably crushed flat in that by Jana Bellin I was looking for something new. Not to mention I was getting fed up of people playing 1. d4, d5; 2. Nf3 to avoid my preparation. I had high hopes and put my all into trying to make it work. I was some good back then. But I found naff-all beyond some traps. @Compadre_J has elucidated one of the lines which led me to give the whole thing up as a bad job. Black might not be significantly worse "objectively" in that line, but for a human being the position seems to be utterly miserable to play as Black. It's akin to lines in the Elephant Gambit: if there's a refutation to that, it likely lies in 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, d5; 3. ed lines; but to give Black a loathsome time defending a structurally worse position one plays 3. Nxe5.

I want more than grovelling for a draw even as Black. So I gave up on the Englund. I wish it worked. I really do. I am the sort of chap who loves gambits. But I'm afraid there are too many lines in which it just doesn't come close to avoiding a grovel. The following is also miserable to play as Black thanks to a misplaced Qe7...

I speak as a repentant seeker after the chimaera here. I once wasted a whole summer trying to make the Muzio and Hanstein work (hint: with best play for Black they Just Don't). The best junior win I had was with the Latvian, but let's not go there either. Don't be like I was back in my callow youth: go for something less doomed.

It’s very interesting to hear my idea of playing Bd2 to Bc3 isn’t an original idea.

I was hoping my 4. Bd2 would be Novelty.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised other strong Chess players came up with similar logic as me.

It happens a lot in chess for sure.

Great Ideas help create other Great ideas.

@Compadre_J you can legitimately; and I think should; claim it as your novelty. I might have had it on an analysis board last century, but since I took heed and never played the Englund and thus never got it in a game, and never did anything at all with the analysis apart from file it away mentallyin the "don't play this dross as Black because..." compartment, I say 100% of the credit for...oh I don't know...should we maybe dub it, "The Compadre Bind?" should be yours.

Your to Kind, Ralph

It would be nice to claim it as a novelty.

However, I’m sure someone else has already done so.

I doubt my move 4.Bd2 is completely original.

I looked at the above position for hours.

I just didn’t like 4.Bf4.

It makes sense why White wants to play Bf4, but the issue is the move feels like a waste to me.

If we look at how the line actually plays out, it doesn’t look like Bf4 does anything.

Bishop goes to f4 and the Bishop is hanging.

Then Black Queen checks and Bishop retreats to d2.

White keeps the E pawn, but loses B pawn.

It is interesting trade.

———————

Yeah - I’m not an expert on the Englund.

I’m sure there is a reason they do what they do.

Once I lost a game like that in online blitz and my opponent expressed disappointment in me that I didn't know it, that it was a childish, beginner mistake to make, and while normally I don't listen such talk this one seemed believeable and I felt ashamed, like I had wasted both our time.

Later I find out it's one of the main hopes of this extremely dubious opening and part of the entire reason he was playing it was hoping for that exact thing to inflate his rating.

This pic is only including players rated over 1800 on lichess blitz (it's even higher if you take the filter off, like 25% play Bc3).

Notice that 13% of people still don't win even after Bc3.

There is endless hilarity in some lower level chess stuff.