It should be noted that there are other variations of the Englund Gambit besides 3. ... Qe7. I've played 3. ... f6, as well. There's also 3. ... Bc5, which is clearly worse, but maybe playable in blitz against weak opponents. I forget what the other options are, but there are at least 4 or 5 known moves on the third move.
what do to against 1.d4 e5?
Sort:
1d4 e5 2 de is what you play. the trap you want to avoid is 2...Nc6 3 Nf3 Qe7 4 Bf4? Qb4. If you avoid this then you are doing fine.
There is no need to avoid this. White is much better after 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3! (and not 6.Bc3??).
Nonsense. The normal line now is 6. .. Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 8.Rb3 Qa5. Deep analysis by Buecker shows that this keyposition of the Englunds Grob variance is perfect playable with chances for both sides.
Ok so I just looked at this with Fritz 10. I know that computer evaluations aren't the be-all-end-all of chess, but they tend to do good in these tactical situations. First of all, it seems white can just sac the bishop on f4 in the mainline with 5.Nc3 Qxf4 6.Nd5! and the rook on a8 will fall. This isn't totally clear cut as the knight may be trapped there, but Fritz thinks white is completely winning, and since no one mentioned this line I thought I would. In the mainline with 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.Rb1 Qa3 instead of 8.Rb3 which is still good, 8.Nd5! puts the c7 square in trouble again and questions black's whole set-up.
Of course white could also just play 4.e4 and give back the pawn, when the Queen on e7 looks stupid. I really don't see why anyone would want to play this as black. It breaks the basic principles of chess by moving the same piece multiple times in the opening, bringing the queen out early, neglecting king safety, etc. Black doesn't seem to have any real plans either, just a cheap bag of tricks that are unlikely to work on anyone above 1600 strength. Worst of all, white can get a clear advantage in more than one way. As far as gambits go, this is the worst of the worst.
I see, your chess is limited by basic rules, and you are guided by evaluations made by a mathematic counting machine. Then you are missing a whole world of beauty, intellectual productiveness and satisfaction in this game. It's a pity, but it's your choice.
But don't say incorrect things. "Just a cheap bag of tricks" ?? I know only 1 in the whole Englund gambit and that's overlooking that the Bishop is attacked in the Grobs variance on move 4.
About the 8.Nd5 line, Grobs analyse has summarized it as unclear. His opinion has more value to me than your dogmatic rules or your computer program.
Well, you could say I am limiting myself, but I am not afraid to break basic principles when the concrete variations show that it works. Like in the Sveshnikov, for example, white's knight maneuver from f3-d4-b5-a3-c2-e3-d5 takes a lot of time, but has proven to be a good plan because of the d5 hole. In other openings, like the Englund in my opinion, black's early pawn grab on b2 doesn't seem justified with his lack of development and king safety. I don't normally use computers when trying to assess whether an opening is good or not, but in this case I was convinced that black's play is dubious. Being an amateur player, I feel I don't have the right to criticize openings based on my own analysis, so the computer was basically used to back me up. Of course, I still don't trust its evaluations completely, but I bet if you were to force grandmasters to play the Englund in a tournament, most of the wins would be white's, and before long, a concrete refutation would probably be established. Now this is all speculation of course, and I doubt we will ever see this line played between very strong players, probably for good reason.
Of course, if you can show me some high level games where black survives in this opening with at least a draw, I may change my mind slightly.