The Englund Gambit is officially unsound isn't it? If that is the case then why do I keep winning with it?
I just finished playing 10 games straight against an apponent of similar strength to myself. At least 6 of the games were begun with the Englund and I won all but one of those 6 (that loss was due to a stupid blunder on my part-after I had already gained a massive advantage in the opening)
Every opening book etc says that this gambit shouldn't be as effective as it is- but the wins keep coming.
Has anyone else had similar experiences? Do masters or grandmasters ever play this opening nowadays and get away with it?
What 'refutation' is there for the Englund?- because it would be nice to know what to do when I finally have to play against it myself!
Any comments, games and shocking experiences welcome!
While I wait I will keep playing this gambit....

What is your and your rivals rating? I've played 2...e6 but I can't recall the results. 2.d5 I guess is a refutation.

A lot of unsound gambits are very good if your opponent doesn't respond properly. This is why you see them so often in the play of weaker players ... if your opponent didn't respond properly you probably had excellent positions out of the opening.

That doesn't make the gambit sound.

I used to play this gambit. In slow, USCF tournament games, I never lost with it against opponents rated below 1600. I never won with it against opponents rated over 1800, though I should have won one of those games, until I blew the endgame. I don't think I ever actually played it against anyone between 1600 and 1800. My local club just doesn't have as many regular players in that range as over 1800 or lower rateds.

The refutation depends on what variation you're playing. I tried both the main line (1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7) and the Soller variation (1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 f6). There are several other named variations that I never played.

Against the main line (3. ... Qe7), the "book" refutation is 4. Qd5. This allows white to hold on to the gambit pawn without giving black the immediate attack he's looking for.

None of my opponents ever found that move, though. They beat me by simply ignoring my attack on the e5 pawn, letting me have it back while they continue with natural development. Simple development with e4, Nc3, Bc4, etc. leads to a good lead in development for white, with material equality once black plays Nxe5.

The same goes for the Soller line - white's best is to just develop normally instead of playing 4. exf6. After black plays fxe5, white might even get an attack on the king side, because of the hole at f7.

--Fromper

That 3. ... Qe7 variation reminds me of the Main-line reti gambit, except a tempo down: 1. e4 e6 2. b3! d5 3. Bb2 dxe4 4. Nc3 4. Nf6 Qe7. I personally prefer 4. d3, and meting 4. ... exd3 with 5. Bxd3, when my bishops reign supreme, and my opponent is crying because he has no d-pawn to smash out with c7-c5.