Why is 1. d4 e5 considered a blunder for black by stockfish if it fights for the center and opens up the diagonals for the bishop and queen? It's a very playable opening and I've won a number of games with it in the past as black. Further, there are a bunch of nasty traps that you can do with it. I can see it being an inaccuracy, but a blunder?
maybe because if white avoids all the blunders he just hangs onto a free pawn?
Black doesn't get any compensation for the lack of space, pawn deficit, or anything. Black just hands White a pawn hoping to play for tricks. Computers don't fall for tricks because they see everything. Continue to follow through the computer line and feel free to draw your own conclusions about it, but notice how unharmonious the position becomes for Black; it's very dubious. If you want to play a gambit, you need to have compensation for the pawn deficit with a nice lead in development/piece activity/a clear way to gain the material. The best examples are the Evans Gambit and the Benko Gambit, where the implementer gets great piece activity for the cost of a pawn.
The englund gambit bascially gives up a pawn for no good reason. Unlike the Scandinavian, you don't even recapture the pawn. Sure, there are some traps, but even a somewhat prepared opponent can easily avoid them.
I wouldn't worry about it. The engine does not generally look at openings the same way that humans do. It considers the King's Indian Defense to be an inaccuracy. That being said, I believe that the Englund Gambit has been refuted and generally will not work against players who have studied it.
Makes sense. You guys have explained your points well.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.