John, down a piece but lots of activity: "this is just beautiful, opponent is not developed at all, Stockfish thinks they are fine but whatever" John, not developed at all but the opponent is down a pawn: "everything is great, this is a fantastic version for us, Stockfish agrees" ( 18:40 )
This is a genius idea for a new line of videos! I love playing unusual responses to my opponents opening. Even if it's not optimal, I will understand the position and my opponent might not.
thanks so much for showing the line i found! hopefully many more people can get inspired to play more dubious and pointless lines if we just keep adding to the stockpile lol
These lines feels like: I want to suc a pawn, I will play queens gambit. No I want to suc a pawn, I will play albin contergambit. No I want to, I'll play Nc3. No I insist, I'll play exd4, Qxd4, Nc6.
That's all insane and seems plenty of fun for white, but it's quite a lot of prep to learn for an unforced sideline of an already very uncommon opening.
Great fun!!! Love your exploration of 'alternative chess openings' for those of us having fun opening Pandora's Box....curious to see our opponent's next move!!😇
Mental exhaustion vs the best possible move. That's an important lesson. If every single move for 10 moves is a chess problem with only one solution, your opponent is not only going to lose time, he's going to lose his mind.
The Albin was my favourite response to the QG for a while back in the day, and gave me my most crushing win. Ngl, I still feel like it's mine in some way. So I kinda end up rooting for black here. 😂
It would be interesting to know why Stockfish likes 7...Qd6 but not 7...Qd4, which looks like the more obvious human move and has similar ideas. Seeing the differences might also be quite educational in understanding the position on a deeper level.
Is there a "fun line" searching tool which takes normal openings and introduces unusual moves, let's the engine crunch to say depth 50, and then checks if it leads to near "only move" situations or rarely played moves in the master or lichess database (suggesting full of traps), long lines of near only moves, etc. Some simple heuristics, yes the tool would take time, but checking all 1000 openings or so couldn't be that hard. I've often wondered if thus has been done already, or why not. I suspect GMs might have programmers develop such tools for typical GM lines to create new prep. As far as openings if we trust modern engines at a certain depth, then computationally every scenario should have been solved by now, using heuristics based on human databases, and only move ideas. Just a thought.
I was sitting here thinking "well what about c2 threatening Qd1#" but didn't see the obvious interference move Bd2. And this is why I'm not to be trusted on chess theory.
I was wrong. My opponent gambited the other pawn. For a moment I thought Someone had appreciated a game of mine. Which of course will never happen. I should know better.
After 7. Qb3 in the main line ( 4:05 ) i came up with pawn to c2 for black (played twice on lichess, black won both). One possible line for illustration: 7. Qb3, c2 ; Bd2, Qd6 ; Bxg8, Rxg8 ; Qxg8, Be6 ; Qxh7 , Nc6 ... computer claims +1 but i'm not so sure i'd want the white pieces. In these lines after 7. ... , c2 seems it's white who needs to be extremely accurate
Sorry, Jonathan - I'm a huge fan of our channel, but this is remarkably stupid: Black ISN'T going to play 3 ... dxc4 (unless he's playing the Albin at random!), because 3 ... exd4 is so Good For Black! Just look at Karu - Keres (1931) - this line you toss off as "just play something like this..." is the ONLY line through this maze, that doesn't leave Black with a big initiative! At 17:25, If White doesn't get in Nf3, he gets squashed with ... Nd4. Whatever this is, it's not the way to beat the Albin.
What other openings need to be pointlessly refuted?
the englund?
Englund Gambit has already been pointlessly refuted: th-cam.com/video/JVBIVe_jcNk/w-d-xo.html
Danish?
@@tusharjamwal Danish is a playable gambit
Stafford can after 4.Nc3?? transpose to the Halloween gambit
Do I play 1.d4? No.
Do I play 1.c4? No.
Do I totally wanna play this now, probably ruining my rating, just to try out this crazy opening? Yes, sir!
John, down a piece but lots of activity: "this is just beautiful, opponent is not developed at all, Stockfish thinks they are fine but whatever"
John, not developed at all but the opponent is down a pawn: "everything is great, this is a fantastic version for us, Stockfish agrees"
( 18:40 )
Excellent presentation! the tactics were sharp and fabulous!
This is a genius idea for a new line of videos! I love playing unusual responses to my opponents opening. Even if it's not optimal, I will understand the position and my opponent might not.
thanks so much for showing the line i found! hopefully many more people can get inspired to play more dubious and pointless lines if we just keep adding to the stockpile lol
Lol noice I found this line a year ago btw but I didn’t share it oof.
These lines feels like: I want to suc a pawn, I will play queens gambit. No I want to suc a pawn, I will play albin contergambit. No I want to, I'll play Nc3. No I insist, I'll play exd4, Qxd4, Nc6.
Great opening idea! My main problem with this is Qxd4 instead of exd4 :(
As soon as I saw the words 'd4 Nakhmanson' in the discord I knew content was abrewin and you didn't disappoint
That's all insane and seems plenty of fun for white, but it's quite a lot of prep to learn for an unforced sideline of an already very uncommon opening.
Great fun!!! Love your exploration of 'alternative chess openings' for those of us having fun opening Pandora's Box....curious to see our opponent's next move!!😇
Finally, a practical way to deal with the Albin countergambit.
This title and series are the best possible title and series
That sad one person in the database who didn't take the free Queen 3:35
Mental exhaustion vs the best possible move. That's an important lesson. If every single move for 10 moves is a chess problem with only one solution, your opponent is not only going to lose time, he's going to lose his mind.
The Albin was my favourite response to the QG for a while back in the day, and gave me my most crushing win. Ngl, I still feel like it's mine in some way. So I kinda end up rooting for black here. 😂
A very interesting exploration. A danish refutation could be spectacular.
Oh, No, my security coutergambit
It would be interesting to know why Stockfish likes 7...Qd6 but not 7...Qd4, which looks like the more obvious human move and has similar ideas. Seeing the differences might also be quite educational in understanding the position on a deeper level.
Is there a "fun line" searching tool which takes normal openings and introduces unusual moves, let's the engine crunch to say depth 50, and then checks if it leads to near "only move" situations or rarely played moves in the master or lichess database (suggesting full of traps), long lines of near only moves, etc. Some simple heuristics, yes the tool would take time, but checking all 1000 openings or so couldn't be that hard. I've often wondered if thus has been done already, or why not. I suspect GMs might have programmers develop such tools for typical GM lines to create new prep. As far as openings if we trust modern engines at a certain depth, then computationally every scenario should have been solved by now, using heuristics based on human databases, and only move ideas. Just a thought.
Yes I got something of this. I am at a lost with the Albin game, this is a start!
"pointless" until you know it and your opponent doesn't and there are single minutes on the clock
11:05 That was my first thought Queen d6 to seems natural to protect the King and give him a space to retreat to
I was sitting here thinking "well what about c2 threatening Qd1#" but didn't see the obvious interference move Bd2. And this is why I'm not to be trusted on chess theory.
I just played this. Have to check. Brb.
I was wrong. My opponent gambited the other pawn. For a moment I thought Someone had appreciated a game of mine. Which of course will never happen. I should know better.
After 7. Qb3 in the main line ( 4:05 ) i came up with pawn to c2 for black (played twice on lichess, black won both). One possible line for illustration: 7. Qb3, c2 ; Bd2, Qd6 ; Bxg8, Rxg8 ; Qxg8, Be6 ; Qxh7 , Nc6 ... computer claims +1 but i'm not so sure i'd want the white pieces. In these lines after 7. ... , c2 seems it's white who needs to be extremely accurate
Countercountergambit
Could you have a look at this proposal : 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. Nc3 dxc4 4. e4 exd4 5. Bxc4 if ....5 dxc3 then 6.Bxf7
XD let’s call it the watcher’s counter counter gambit
Playing albin requires sharp memory
Thank you
What about D4 D5 C4 E5 NC3 DxC4 E4 QD4
Woo
Interesting
Sorry, Jonathan - I'm a huge fan of our channel, but this is remarkably stupid: Black ISN'T going to play 3 ... dxc4 (unless he's playing the Albin at random!), because 3 ... exd4 is so Good For Black! Just look at Karu - Keres (1931) - this line you toss off as "just play something like this..." is the ONLY line through this maze, that doesn't leave Black with a big initiative! At 17:25, If White doesn't get in Nf3, he gets squashed with ... Nd4.
Whatever this is, it's not the way to beat the Albin.
imaginary is your concept of reality
isn't this a really bad QGA?