Aggressive openings?

@crtex said in #7:

Stafford isn't sound but it leads to a lot of tactical chances for black, and someone who is bad at defending can mess up.
This is a typical position after 11 moves in Stafford gambit when white does not fall for any of the tricks:

https://lichess.org/analysis/fromPosition/r3k2r/pppn1pp1/1bpqb3/7p/3PP3/2P2N1P/PP2BPP1/R1BQK2R_b_KQkq_-_0_11

White is a pawn up, has solid development, more space and complete control of the center. Black is pushed back and two of the minor pieces are kind of useless. Stockfish evaluation: +2.3. Is this what you would want to play (as black) against a stronger opponent?

Playing an aggressive opening against a stronger opponent, hoping to get him/her under pressure, is a valid strategy. (I had a nice game of Austrian Attack in Pirc two weeks ago and it worked.) But Stafford Gambit, that's rather gambling the game on the hope that your opponent falls into a (well known) trap and giving the game away if he/she does not.

Well a noticeably stronger opponent for me would be 2100-2200+ so definitely not, but many players at a lower level will not.

I ran the database for 1600-2000 rated classical games, and after 4...Nc6 black scores 52%. This is 50k lichess games with average classical rating ~1800 which is much above the OP. So many decently rated white players don't know the theory. For example 7.c3 is played less than a third of the time. I think many opponents won't play this idea.

Also from personal experience I did not know how to refute the Stafford, or figure it out during the game. I would not play c3 for example, and the games were much tougher, until I specifically learned the refutation.

From the way they described the opponent, if they play something normal it seems almost certain they will lose anyways, so I figured might as well try something trappy as black. If they will lose 80% of the time in a regular opening, but 95% of the time in a Stafford refutation, might as well try the Stafford tricks. Maybe I am overestimating this, but it still seems logical

Aggressive openings aren't really that good at higher levels

@forsoothplays Danish gambit can easily turn into a theoretical middlegame at higher levels

Now @chess_enjoyer00 since you're 1300 you can play these openings since you're a lower level

But you should look for other openings once you become higher leveled

For now I would recommend the Danish and scotch for white.

And Stafford and Sicilian for black. (Be warned sicilian is super complex tho)

@hotel_security said in #13:

Aggressive openings aren't really that good at higher levels

What do you mean by higher levels? Is 1600 FIDE Elo a high level for you?

Now @chess_enjoyer00 since you're 1300 you can play these openings since you're a lower level

As it is a rapid tournament, I am around 1630 while writing this comment :), but I assume these openings are still good for me.

@crtex said in #12:

I ran the database for 1600-2000 rated classical games, and after 4...Nc6 black scores 52%. This is 50k lichess games with average classical rating ~1800 which is much above the OP.

Thanks for your efforts! My opponent is actually around 1800-1900, so if Stafford Gambit works out in classical games, it'll should work out in rapid.

From the way they described the opponent, if they play something normal it seems almost certain they will lose anyways, so I figured might as well try something trappy as black. If they will lose 80% of the time in a regular opening, but 95% of the time in a Stafford refutation, might as well try the Stafford tricks. Maybe I am overestimating this, but it still seems logical

I said that I will lose if I'll play something like Caro-Kann or QGD, because it'll lead to positional game where my opponent can squeeze me, but if I play something like Bird or Evans Gambit, chances of me winning will rise. I definitely will watch some videos about Stafford, and if I'll feel comfortable with it, I'll definitely play it!
Also, thank you all for your advices! I'll look forward to keep in mind all of suggestions!

I was under the impression it was OTB. If it's online, then you can literally research your opponent openings. If they've never faced the Stafford before, or have not responded properly to it, then you have a good chance to get an opening advantage/win. If they know how to respond then you should choose something else though.

@crtex said in #15:

I was under the impression it was OTB. If it's online, then you can literally research your opponent openings. If they've never faced the Stafford before, or have not responded properly to it, then you have a good chance to get an opening advantage/win. If they know how to respond then you should choose something else though.

It is actually an OTB tournament, so you were right!
I'll try to play Stafford online and see where it goes, but probably I'll choose to pick it.

@crtex said in #15:

If they know how to respond then you should choose something else though.

Amen.

@petri999 said in #2:

... Whites extra move means that white has better chance to dictate style of game in the early phases. againts e4 e5 is most aggressive. and there are black gambit from this but usually not very good
like Schliemann Defence, e4 e5, nf3 nc6, Bb5, f5 againt spanish
or Rousseau Gambit with only difference is place of the bishop in c4 instead b5
Both have traps and can lead horrid tactics. but W is clearly better in both

Wrong. White may have the early initiative, but it is Black who has more control over "style of game", i.e. positional or tactical.

1...d6 is pretty troublesome. :)

@Sarg0n said in #19:

1...d6 is pretty troublesome. :)
Indeed... opening explorer says my stats for 1. e4 d6 are 5-0-0. :-)