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:
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: 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

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Well, it'd be BxN and then de, right?
    Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

    An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

    My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale


    • #47
      Does anyone know of a more "insanely aggressive opening" than the Danish as White, and the BDG?

      Today has not been my best-ever day of chess--I lost something like four in a row.

      Throwing caution to the wind, as my blood-sugar was obviously hopeless, I opted for the Danish Gambit as White, twice..won both times.

      Not saying this is good chess, but it's illustrative of how utterly vicious the Danish Gambit can be in those games where it gets traction and doesn't go down in flames: "insanely aggressive".

      Here's the better game from today, names changed appropriately, which featured a KILLER Windmill, a detail that doesn't always occur in a game:

      [Event "unrated standard match"]
      [Site "Free Internet Chess Server"]
      [Date "2015.05.30"]
      [Round "?"]
      [White "Cel"]
      [Black "Other Guy"]
      [Result "1-0"]
      [WhiteElo "-"]
      [BlackElo "-"]
      [ECO "C21"]
      [TimeControl "900"]

      1. e4 {[%clk 0:15:00]} e5 {[%clk 0:15:00]} 2. d4 {[%clk 0:14:58]} exd4 {[%clk
      0:14:58]} 3. c3 {[%clk 0:14:57]} dxc3 {[%clk 0:14:50]} 4. Nxc3 {[%clk
      0:14:56]} Nf6 {[%clk 0:14:43]} 5. Be2 {[%clk 0:14:48]} Bb4 {[%clk 0:14:36]}
      6. e5 {[%clk 0:14:45]} Ne4 {[%clk 0:14:29]} 7. Bd2 {[%clk 0:14:35]} Bxc3
      {[%clk 0:14:05]} 8. bxc3 {[%clk 0:14:23]} O-O {[%clk 0:13:36]} 9. Bd3 {[%clk
      0:14:13]} Nc5 {[%clk 0:13:31]} 10. Qc2 {[%clk 0:14:07]} Qh4 {[%clk 0:13:19]}
      11. Nf3 {[%clk 0:13:59]} Nxd3+ {[%clk 0:13:02]} 12. Qxd3 {[%clk 0:13:56]} Qh5
      {[%clk 0:12:54]} 13. Ng5 {[%clk 0:13:33]} g6 {[%clk 0:12:36]} 14. Qf3 {[%clk
      0:13:13]} f6 {[%clk 0:12:29]} 15. Qxh5 {[%clk 0:13:10]} gxh5 {[%clk 0:12:26]}
      16. exf6 {[%clk 0:13:09]} Rxf6 {[%clk 0:12:22]} 17. O-O {[%clk 0:12:54]} d5
      {[%clk 0:12:20]} 18. Rae1 {[%clk 0:12:46]} Bf5 {[%clk 0:12:08]} 19. Re7
      {[%clk 0:12:31]} Nd7 {[%clk 0:12:01]} 20. Nf3 {[%clk 0:12:22]} Raf8 {[%clk
      0:11:48]} 21. Be3 {[%clk 0:12:17]} Be4 {[%clk 0:11:36]} 22. Bd4 {[%clk
      0:12:07]} Bxf3 {[%clk 0:11:28]} 23. gxf3 {[%clk 0:12:02]} Rxf3 {[%clk
      0:11:23]} 24. Rxd7 {[%clk 0:12:01]} R8f7 {[%clk 0:10:13]} 25. Rd8+ {[%clk
      0:11:56]} Rf8 {[%clk 0:10:05]} 26. Rd7 {[%clk 0:11:52]} h4 {[%clk 0:09:52]}
      27. Rg7+ {[%clk 0:11:50]} Kh8 {[%clk 0:09:45]} 28. Rxc7+ {[%clk 0:11:49]} Kg8
      {[%clk 0:09:41]} 29. Rg7+ {[%clk 0:11:48]} Kh8 {[%clk 0:09:34]} 30. Rxb7+
      {[%clk 0:11:47]} Kg8 {[%clk 0:09:20]} 31. Rg7+ {[%clk 0:11:45]} Kh8 {[%clk
      0:09:16]} 32. Rxa7+ {[%clk 0:11:44]} Kg8 {[%clk 0:09:12]} 33. Rg7+ {[%clk
      0:11:31]} Kh8 {[%clk 0:09:09]} 34. Rd7+ {[%clk 0:11:30]} Kg8 {[%clk 0:08:59]}
      35. Rxd5 {[%clk 0:11:28]} h6 {[%clk 0:08:45]} 36. Rh5 {[%clk 0:11:23]} Kh7
      {[%clk 0:08:43]} 37. Rxh4 {[%clk 0:11:20]} Rg8+ {[%clk 0:08:35]} 38. Kh1
      {[%clk 0:11:15]} Kg6 {[%clk 0:08:24]} 39. Be3 {[%clk 0:11:10]} Kh7 {[%clk
      0:08:16]} 40. Rxh6+ {[%clk 0:11:08]} Kg7 {[%clk 0:08:07]} 41. Rg1+ {[%clk
      0:10:57]} Kf8 {[%clk 0:07:59]} 42. Bc5+ {[%clk 0:10:50]} Ke8 {[%clk 0:07:57]}
      43. Rxg8+ {[%clk 0:10:46]} {Other Guy resigns} 1-0
      Last edited by Celadonite; 05-30-2015, 07:37 PM.
      "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch


      • #48
        Unlike the King's Gambit, I could never score points with the Danish or the Evans. I had difficulty if my opponent didn't lose within the first 12 moves and was left with more pawns in the center.

        More aggressive? There's a myriad of aggressive ingratiations in the King's Gambit:
        Allgaier Gambit (I trust this a bit more than the Cochrane): 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ng5 h6 6 Nxf7
        Muzio: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 O-O (good luck finding a black player to play into this).
        Keres: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nc3 Qh4+ 4 Ke2 begs black to over-extend himself.

        Speaking of over-extending, sometimes it's aggressive to ask your opponent to sac on f7. I remember in the Olympiads recently someone played the Fried Liver with Black against Shirov (what a dumb idea) and unsurprisingly lost. But this is not a bad idea in principal. Lasker used to willingly enter worse positions because he knew he could outplay his opponent in them. If it's okay for an attacker to sacrifice unsoundly but create tight-rope of defense for their opponents, why not force your opponent into a tight-rope of offensive where any misstep in conducting the initiative leaves them down material? Defense is an art too.

        Or what about the Botvinnik Semi-Slav?
        1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 e6 5 Bg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Nxg5 hxg5 10 Bxg5 Nbd7

        Early g4s, popularized by Shirov, get played in the Slav all the time:
        1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 e6 5 e3 Nbd7 6 Qc2 Bd6 7 g4
        Just this month Alexander Grischuk vs Fabiano Caruana (2015) is similar.

        This is in the Philidor too:
        1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nf6 4 Nc3 Nbd7 5 g4

        Anything with the phrase "poisoned pawn" is probably "aggressive."

        We should also discern between what is actually aggressive and what is just impulsive.

        I don't really believe in "aggressive" openings. It's typically illogical to think you can attack from move 4 unless your opponent makes some unusual mistake. 1 g3 can be played and an exchange can be sacrificed on move 20 that creates wild complications.

        Carlsen isn't Kasparov aggressive, but he does have similarities to Nakamura: he finds constant ways to ask his opponents difficult questions. Carlsen's questions are more positional and subtle, but this is certainly aggressive chess.

        Finallly to conclude, to say "I'm an attacking player" is silly. Everyone should attack if the position demands it. Everyone should defend if the position demands it. Steinitz knew this. (I recall an old forum member, Ronaldinho, who used to say something along the lines of "If you call yourself an attacking player that just means you need to learn how to defend; if you're a defending player you need to learn how to attack." Wise fellow.)