As thread title, any idea?

I only play moderately aggressive openings, never to such crazy levels however.

As white, I usually start off with
c4
g3/Nf3 (depends on whether if the opponent plays e5)
g3/Nf3 (as above, both moves are interchangeable)
Bf2
0-0

and develop queenside, and attack (attempt to decimate) the opponent from both flanks.

When I am playing black, however, depending on what the opponent plays:

If he plays e5
I usually play the Sicilian Najdorf.

If he plays d5
then I play King's Indian Defence, quite an aggressive opening.

I am looking for REALLY aggressive openings that are playable at professional level (so no Dutch please), mainly because I am just curious, as people describe me as an 'aggressive player'.

Also, is my English playable at a professional level? Or does it require revising?

Thanks!

Have you tried the Danish Gambit?

A couple of points.

First, why do you mention the Dutch as if you don't think it's playable at the professional level? Just a quick check in a database shows several of the top grandmasters have used it recently - Kamsky, Ivanchuk, Radjabov, and Bareev, among others. I even see a game where current world champion Anand lost to it in 2000.

Secondly, why are you worried about what's playable professionally? If you're asking this question, then you're obviously not a professional player. You'd be amazed how many "garbage" openings are playable even against masters, although no grandmaster would ever touch them. By the time you reach the level where those openings aren't good enough, you'll be good enough to form your own opinions of openings without having to ask anyone, especially not us patzers.

Third, I'm not sure I understand your definition of aggressive. I play gambits that are far more aggressive than anything you mentioned here. I guess the Najdorf is somewhat aggressive, but I've never considered any variation of the English to be all that aggressive. I don't know that much about it, but it's always struck me as a positional opening. I don't know much about the KID.

My definition of an aggressive opening is anything where the mating attack starts so early that you don't have time to worry about being down a pawn. That's why gambits work. Try some unsound gambits and see what you can learn! Personally, I play the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as white and the Englund Gambit (sometimes main line and sometimes Soller variation) against 1. d4 as black. Against 1. e4, I actually play the French most of the time, which is oddly unaggressive compared to most of what I play, but I occasionally go for normal 1. ... e5 lines and/or pull out weird stuff like the Elephant Gambit for kicks.

--Fromper

When I have played it, I have always found it painful to develop my pieces. The pushing of a pawn on the kingside does nothing much to help me develop my pieces, and leaves my kingside somewhat exposed.

When I mean playable at professional level, I basically just mean that it is playable, and not something that 'sounds cool but doesn't work'. The thing about the Dutch is, either opponent dies brutally, or I die brutally. When I play against better rated players, my attempt to play the Dutch never pays off, I was better off sticking with Najdorf or KID.

As I have said about the English, I try to attack from both flanks, rather than running into each other likes bulls in the center. I never liked gambits, no matter how respected or many grandmasters use them. Even the King's Gambit or the Queen's Gambit, or whatever gambit you think of, I tend to decline them and move on with the game. I am no gambiteer.

Aggressive in the general sense that, you are constantly pressing on your opponent, always attacking, 'going all out', heavily pressuring your opponent etc., you get the idea.

Of course, I know the e4 as white playing an open game is also 'aggressive', but I am looking for something 'heavier' than that.

Thanks Fromper.

I never played those particular openings, but your whole post sounds like the type of thing I'd have said 4-5 years ago. After playing too quiet and defensively and never improving much as a player, I eventually got frustrated with my lack of improvement over the period of more than a year and quit chess for a while. There were other things going on in my life at the time, too, but that was one of the main reasons I stopped playing. Since returning to the game this year, my whole approach has changed, and I'm learning a lot more because of it.

So you never win against higher rated players with the Dutch. When you say you're "better off" with the Najdorf or KID, do you mean that you win more often, or is just that you hang around longer before losing?

This was the mistake in thinking that I used to have. I used to think that if I survived to the endgame against a higher rated opponent that I'd "done well", even though I lost. That simply isn't true - a loss is a loss.

The fact is that it's easier to learn from fast losses than slow losses. I'm talking number of moves there, not time limit of the games. In quick losses, the mistakes are bigger and more obvious, so you're more likely to understand and learn from them immediately. With quiet games where I lost in the endgame, I often found myself wondering exactly where I'd gone wrong to get myself into an inferior endgame, so I was far less likely to learn from the minor, subtle mistakes.

By going against my nature as a player and adopting an opening repertoire based on classical attacking gambits, I've learned a LOT about how to attack. In the short term, I lost more games - there's a learning curve whenever you learn anything new. But I'm on the up swing now as what I've learned is kicking in, and I'm starting to win more often against tougher opponents.

I really think that if you're looking for more aggressive openings, then you need to understand why people play gambits. If you don't understand the concept of gambiting, then you'll never be much more aggressive than you are now.

One more thing - you mentioned the Queen's Gambit when talking about gambits in general. The Queen's Gambit isn't really a gambit. In fact, it's the quiet, positional opening of choice for most unaggressive players.

--Fromper

When I play KID or Najdorf, I win more frequently (relatively speaking, at least) against higher rated players than using the Dutch, or accepting any form of gambits when I am trying something new.

I have always aimed to play sharp positions, rough, uncivil, chaotic, requiring immense amounts of concentration (ie first mistake loses), because I love those kinds of games, rather than the quiet civil types.

That is also part of the reason I want to explore more aggressive openings as white. I do realize that White always has the initiative (duh), so as Black, I usually aim for the counter attack later in the middle game.

Of course as White, I tend to go avoid gambits for my abovesaid reasons. I have taken a look at the Danish Gambit. Obviously at the price of having very active and developed pieces, you have three pawns gone. When the endgame arrives, it tends to be shortlived, depending on how the middlegame is played (again like the Dutch gambit, but this time, the death is bloodier and more brutal).

I have occasionally played gambits for a change instead of the English Opening (Fianchetto Variation), particularly against newer players. Perhaps it's due to my unfamiliarity with gambits,, but occasionally the games tend to be more difficult to play then against higher-rated players with me using KID/Najdorf.


There are some obscenely insane attacks adopted by white, one example which has slipped my name. I think it's something like an Alekhine Variation of King's Indian Defence for White, where all four pawns are just....
wow.. (that's just insane, not aggressive. Is it even playable?)

Thanks for your reply Fromper, they helped a lot.

I’m going to make an observation here that may sound foolish to some, but I think it makes sense. When I lose to a higher rated player it has nothing to do with the opening I play. I get beaten because, well, they are better players. So the only way to beat them is to get better myself, not play a different opening.

GM Alex Yermolinsky made the observation many players have what they like to call an “attacking” style. He went on to say that means they like to sac a P or 2 in the opening then spend the rest of the game trying to justify the sac and eventually resign. He said he loves it when opponents play offbeat and second rate junk against him. His advice: Play solid mainline openings and stay current on their theory because those openings will serve you for years to come. When money, rating points and prestige are on the line GM’s don’t play junk. I once witnessed a 1900 who was booked up on the Ruy Lopez playing an IM. He caught the IM in a well prepared trap, won a N and the game. When asked about it the IM simply said, “He was better prepared.” The point is the 1900 wasn’t playing “junk”; he was playing a mainline opening and he knew it very well.

The point of the opening is to reach a playable middlegame. If your opponent is already bashing you up, or you are reaching a middlegame in which you are uncomfortable playing with, then I think that defeats the purpose.

I just cannot handle the imbalance of material so early in the game. When the endgame arrives, small advantages like a pawn can really stack up!

I know that I cannot just say 'I like barbaric positions so I go for really sharp games', and then totally avoid quiet and civil games, but I still prefer having the game in my style, as it gives me a slight advantage after all.

Personally, getting back to the original topic, I tend to play the Belgrade Gambit. It is an extremely obscure opening, but I find that I generally either get my pawn back, or have such an imposing attack that it doesn't matter. Belgrade Main Line is as follows: 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nd5 Nxe4 6. Qe2. From here black is forced to give up one of the pawns in the next 3 moves, and white will still have an imposing attack. There are of course many line where the gambit is not accepted. I suggest the excellent book on the Belgrade by Bruce Monson.

Aggressive to me is, like Fromper said, attacking early and possibly allowing for some eaknesses and loss of material.