Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

Most insanely aggressive openings

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Most insanely aggressive openings

    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!
    White
    - Danish Gambit
    - English Opening
    - Ruy Lopez
    - Smith-Morra Gambit

    Black
    - King's Indian Defence
    - Sicilian Defence: Najdorf Variation; Dragon Variation
    - Dutch Defence (surprise)

  • #2
    Have you tried the Danish Gambit?
    I float like a pawn island and sting like an ignored knight

    Comment


    • #3
      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

      "Don't be afraid of ghosts! Always play the moves you want to play unless you see a genuine tactical drawback." --Grandmaster Neil McDonald

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        White
        - Danish Gambit
        - English Opening
        - Ruy Lopez
        - Smith-Morra Gambit

        Black
        - King's Indian Defence
        - Sicilian Defence: Najdorf Variation; Dragon Variation
        - Dutch Defence (surprise)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by invictious View Post
          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.
          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

          "Don't be afraid of ghosts! Always play the moves you want to play unless you see a genuine tactical drawback." --Grandmaster Neil McDonald

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            White
            - Danish Gambit
            - English Opening
            - Ruy Lopez
            - Smith-Morra Gambit

            Black
            - King's Indian Defence
            - Sicilian Defence: Najdorf Variation; Dragon Variation
            - Dutch Defence (surprise)

            Comment


            • #7
              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 Hoppers

              Comment


              • #8
                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.
                White
                - Danish Gambit
                - English Opening
                - Ruy Lopez
                - Smith-Morra Gambit

                Black
                - King's Indian Defence
                - Sicilian Defence: Najdorf Variation; Dragon Variation
                - Dutch Defence (surprise)

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Aggressive to me is, like Fromper said, attacking early and possibly allowing for some eaknesses and loss of material.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Every opening can lead to aggressive play later on. This depends on you.

                      To play dubious openings right from the start, believing that this is aggressive just because a pawn is sacrificed, is not the right way to play proper chess.

                      I would advice to play sound openings to improve your chances in the long run and to play active chess in general like Kasparov.
                      He always played sound opening systems like Nimzo indian, Kings indian, Queens indian, Grünfeld indian etc. and is known as an "aggressive" player.

                      By the way, the Dutch is not a sound opening and for that reason not often played among grandmasters, just check your database. I would never spezialize on the Dutch.
                      Last edited by nobi; 05-19-2009, 08:40 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Something like the Grand Prix Attack, the Goring/Danish Gambit, or the Evans Gambit come to mind.
                        Brick walls hurt, but are effective for banging against repeatedly. For future reference, cardboard walls are fun too.

                        Being a professional player is something akin to being a prostitute. First I played because other people did it. Then I played because I liked to play. And finally I played just for the money. - Benko

                        Procrastination: due date = do date

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I play the Evans and I definitely consider it aggressive. Although it's a gambit, in Lasker's Defense the pawn is returned early on in the interest of defense.

                          I agree with Fromper's point that the most aggressive openings tend to be gambits as offering up a pawn is the most common way of gaining an edge in development to launch an early attack. Even when the gambit is declined white often has a very tenable game.
                          Tactics is what you do when there is something to do; strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do.

                          – Savielly Tartakower

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I would have said the Dutch too, just from your title. its quite playable, from what i've seen. There's a foxy chess video on it that i remember seeing awhile back that seemed to answer the major objections to it


                            "The thing about the Dutch is, either opponent dies brutally, or I die brutally."

                            that is pretty much what you're going to find with every aggressive opening, i would think. If you're looking for a super aggressive opening that doesn't leave you a decent chance of getting crushed, i think you're chasing a dream

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jason1138 View Post
                              I would have said the Dutch too, just from your title. its quite playable, from what i've seen. There's a foxy chess video on it that i remember seeing awhile back that seemed to answer the major objections to it


                              "The thing about the Dutch is, either opponent dies brutally, or I die brutally."

                              that is pretty much what you're going to find with every aggressive opening, i would think. If you're looking for a super aggressive opening that doesn't leave you a decent chance of getting crushed, i think you're chasing a dream
                              Such an opening simply does not exist, otherwise everyone from grandmaster to bum in the park would play it!

                              The Dutch defense definitely has a worse reputation than it should have. It requires precision for white, regardless of the variation chosen. If both sides play well, white will carry an average advantage into the middlegame. I like it anyway.
                              Have you read the Forum rules?

                              Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
                              Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
                              Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
                              Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
                              Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
                              Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
                              Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
                              --Red Dwarf

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X