Talk:Englund Gambit

Incorrect annotation

At the end of the third paragraph, it reads: "White must avoid the notorious trap 6.Bc3?? Bb4!, which wins for Black after 7.Bxb4 Nxb4 or 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1#" These moves are not possible as far as I can tell. The reference is attributed to Avrukh, Boris (2010). 1.d4 Volume Two. Quality Chess. ISBN 978-1-906552-33-6, though I don't have this book and can't correct this. I don't want to delete in case there is a simple fix, but I can't see how.

The moves are correct, you must be missing something. Here's the line without the annotations: 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4 Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3?? Bb4! 7.Bxb4 Nxb4; or 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 Qc1#. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Englund Gambit article

I've added quite a lot to the article- sourced info etc, and tried to make sure that I used sources that give a reasonably objective account of the opening. Haven't made any modifications to Krakatoa's contributions- they were all good. I've actually played the opening quite a bit myself with excellent results, but of course that doesn't mean that it's objectively good.

Is the article still down at Start-Class standard, given the minor status of the opening? Tws45 (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've played the opening hundreds of times myself in Internet blitz games, and once, long ago, in an OTB tournament against an opponent I was sure I could beat with almost anything.

I wouldn't normally rate an article that I've worked on quite a bit myself, but since I think that it is clearly at least C-class I will upgrade it to that. Good job! I think my fellow members of WikiProject Chess wouldn't rate it B-class as yet, since it doesn't have a proper lead that summarizes the rest of the article and doesn't have material that doesn't appear elsewhere in the article. (See WP:LEAD.) Krakatoa (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the bits about Avrukh's book, and added more of Stefan Bücker's analysis from his subsequent 48th column of "Over the Horizons". In short, it's looking pretty grim for Black at the moment after 8.Nd5 (which I revised to "!" rather than "!?" as all analysts seem to agree that it's the critical test of the Englund Gambit proper). However I think Avrukh's statement about 1...e5 being the worst reply to 1.d4 is over the top- I find it hard to believe that it's worse than 1...g5 2.Bxg5. Tws45 (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't verifiable in any sources so I can't post this into the article itself, but I don't think Avrukh's line after 8.Nd5 Ba5 9.Rb5 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Kd8 11.Ng5 Nh6 (11.e4 a6 +=) 12.f4!? is all that convincing- after the line given, 16...Ke8 is probably +=. In my opinion, paradoxically, 9.e4!? is even stronger than 9.Rb5 and I agree with Stefan Bücker that it probably gives White a +/-.Tws45 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Englund Gambit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211135122/http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/A40_Englund_Gambit_Complex to http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/A40_Englund_Gambit_Complex

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)