<Comment deleted by user>
I was wondering why strong players play silly openings... sometimes I feel they see my low rating and want some fun. Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?
@OctoPinky said in #2:
> Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?
..........
Well..... Magnus and Hikaru play all kinds of crazy I think Jobava and Rapport do also.
Hey, if they go through their moves without thinking and the f pawn is there......
> Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?
..........
Well..... Magnus and Hikaru play all kinds of crazy I think Jobava and Rapport do also.
Hey, if they go through their moves without thinking and the f pawn is there......
Sidesteps opening theory maybe
It's because they don't study theory and just play it like the Italian
@OctoPinky said in #2:
> Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?
It wouldn't hurt to do so, actually.
> Would these people play Englund or Wing Gambit against another 2000?
It wouldn't hurt to do so, actually.
@Cs1xlly
Whilst I agree on the subject of questioning or even reproaching unambitious play in the opening (even amongst amateurs), at least one of the examples you mention is hardly appropriate.
2.f4 is not refuted by 2...d5 which is not met by 3.e5. The line you quote is almost never found in serious play.
Similarly, 2.f4 is not an inaccurate attempt to reach the Grand Prix Attack, but a partly independent move which can lead to sharp and sometimes quite original positions.
GM McShane, amongst others, has employed this line several times with interesting results. Also, Sicilian expert GM Sveshnikov has analysed this option extensively and considers 2.f4 a valid alternative to 2.Nc3.
Elsewhere in the thread, I also see someone making a crude statement about the Wing Gambit. I will not even reply to that.
I just think that (following the example of many strong OTB players) a cautious approach towards supposedly "refuted" lines is probably advisable.
Whilst I agree on the subject of questioning or even reproaching unambitious play in the opening (even amongst amateurs), at least one of the examples you mention is hardly appropriate.
2.f4 is not refuted by 2...d5 which is not met by 3.e5. The line you quote is almost never found in serious play.
Similarly, 2.f4 is not an inaccurate attempt to reach the Grand Prix Attack, but a partly independent move which can lead to sharp and sometimes quite original positions.
GM McShane, amongst others, has employed this line several times with interesting results. Also, Sicilian expert GM Sveshnikov has analysed this option extensively and considers 2.f4 a valid alternative to 2.Nc3.
Elsewhere in the thread, I also see someone making a crude statement about the Wing Gambit. I will not even reply to that.
I just think that (following the example of many strong OTB players) a cautious approach towards supposedly "refuted" lines is probably advisable.
@Raptor-5 said in #6:
> It wouldn't hurt to do so, actually.
To my surprise, I just found they play it against same rating players.
To my further surprise, it doesn't hurt too much... even if it seems not to do any well, either. Maybe is a bet on finding some early mistake in opponent, otherwise playing with some bearable disadvantage.
> It wouldn't hurt to do so, actually.
To my surprise, I just found they play it against same rating players.
To my further surprise, it doesn't hurt too much... even if it seems not to do any well, either. Maybe is a bet on finding some early mistake in opponent, otherwise playing with some bearable disadvantage.
@ThePurpleBenOni said in #7:
> Elsewhere in the thread, I also see someone making a crude statement about the Wing Gambit. I will not even reply to that.
If you are "not even replying", you could as well not even mentioning the subject.
As you choose to do it, please take the time to write the extra characters in the name of that "someone". Maybe it is just a cultural thing, but I find unpolite using "someone" to name a person which actually is here.
> Elsewhere in the thread, I also see someone making a crude statement about the Wing Gambit. I will not even reply to that.
If you are "not even replying", you could as well not even mentioning the subject.
As you choose to do it, please take the time to write the extra characters in the name of that "someone". Maybe it is just a cultural thing, but I find unpolite using "someone" to name a person which actually is here.
<Comment deleted by user>
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.