a bad openig is:
Sort:
pedro823
Feb 17, 2008
0
#1
In the second game, (1.d4 e5 2.dxe5) that opening is called the Englund Gambit. Whilst slightly unsound maybe, it is not a bad opening. Only the poor continuation by black in your example is bad.
in the Englund Gambit, after 4...Qg5, why not 5.Bxg5?
dutchdefense wrote: in the Englund Gambit, after 4...Qg5, why not 5.Bxg5?
Because pedro823 isn't that good at chess.
I think it was very good for you to show us these Pedro. It may help people to not walk into fools mate. :)
Pedro, while I admire your ardent posts and your enthusiasm, I believe that you should study chess for an amount of time such as would make you more proficient at the sport.
I'm not trying to be mean pedro, but I can make a billion posts about what NOT to do in chess. I can see you aspire to become a good player so my advice to you would be to look up openings for white, especially the first moves "1. E4" and "1. D4" as knowing these two starting moves and their continuations will drastically improve your gameplay!
keep studying and playing and good luck!
Shruikon wrote: dutchdefense wrote: in the Englund Gambit, after 4...Qg5, why not 5.Bxg5?
He is however good at trying to contribute something helpful to the site, as opposed to making needlessly mean critical comments for no reason what so ever.
Because pedro823 isn't that good at chess.
He is however good at trying to contribute something helpful to the site, as opposed to making needlessly mean critical comments for no reason what so ever.
pedro823> 1. e4 d5 2. e5 d4 3. Bc4 c6 4. e6 fxe6 5. Bxe6 Bxe6
1.e4 d5 - "The Scandinavian Defense"
2.e5?! - A sideline, common at the amateur level, that cedes White's advantage.
2...d4?! - A sideline of a sideline. Better are 2...c5! or 2...Bf5! which usually transpose into a French Defence where Black's light-squared bishop is outside the pawn chain.
3.Bc4 - Reasonable!
3...c6? - Bizarre. What is the point of this pawn move??
4.e6? - Also strange.
4...fxe6? - Sigh.
5.Bxe6?? - Ugh!!
Pedro, I'm not sure why you are studying such crazy openings? When studying openings, it's probably more efficient to look at the moves that you've played and that have been played against you, especially in your losses. Alternatively, any annotated games you can get your hands on. There are quite a few here on chess.com. :)
hinmanhouse wrote: Shruikon wrote: dutchdefense wrote: in the Englund Gambit, after 4...Qg5, why not 5.Bxg5?
He is however good at trying to contribute something helpful to the site, as opposed to making needlessly mean critical comments for no reason what so ever.
Because pedro823 isn't that good at chess.
He is however good at trying to contribute something helpful to the site, as opposed to making needlessly mean critical comments for no reason what so ever.
Maybe, but when it's fact...
I wouldn't use the word 'good' when describing his contributions here either. By all means, I hope he continues to study the game and improve, but this is helping no one.
Pedro, if you study at home you may want to accept other's advice and look at good openings. Two of the basics that you may want to start with are the Scotch for White and the French Defense for Black. These two are well-known, pretty versatile, and adaptable as well.
