Answers.Body: <p>This is an incredibly general question, because obviously white is allowed to make some moves as well … there is no one fits all aggressive defence. 
  But to give an equally general answer: If you like to play aggressively playing gambits makes a lot of sense. So everything with "gambit" in its name is a valid choice. </p>
  
  <p>I'll give a few examples and will assume that you didn't specify whites opening because all your opponents play 1.e4. ;-)</p>
  
  <p>This would be the Latvian Gambit against the Italian Game:
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Gambit" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Gambit</a></p>
  
  <pre><code>rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>This is the Schliemann-Jaenisch-Gambit against the Ruy Lopez:</p>
  
  <pre><code>rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Generally the idea of these gambits is to speed up the development of your pieces at the cost of a pawn and to gain greater central control by diverting your opponents central pawns. 
  If you play well, central control and active pieces will lead to an attack. 
  If you play badly, you're just down a pawn ...</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T20:13:33.710Z
Answers.Text: "Just" down a pawn?
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T20:29:18.313Z
Answers.Text: "Just" in the sense of "without getting anything for it". Though it is "just" a pawn as well … ;-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T20:31:05.507Z
Answers.Text: How dare you underestimate the use of a pawn! Lol
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T18:41:03.483Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-06T19:37:33.310Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-12-06T19:37:33.310Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.Body: <p>My kind of man! I love playing aggressive as black and I have found that the Sicilian works well. Its many variations can lead to passive or aggressive games. Until recently I favoured the dragon variation which fianchettoes you bishop in front of your king-side castled king. Now I have found a new line that I enjoy more. e4 c5, Nf3 e6, and if white plays d4 go d5. I love this counter attack because it can go badly for white either way he takes. It is called Marshall counter attack. e5 follows the develop Nc6. This will not happen all the time but it sets you up for a strong central positions with lots of modes of attack.</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/4p3/2pp4/3PP3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq d6 0 4"]
  </code></pre>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T17:39:38.430Z
Answers.Text: Could you provide a visual?
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T17:57:27.347Z
Answers.Text: i will try but im on a school computer and it blocks typical diagraming sites
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T18:03:22.753Z
Answers.Text: I can wait a few hours :P
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-08T01:59:06.023Z
Answers.Text: No visual yet? I'm still waiting...
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-08T15:51:48.433Z
Answers.Text: Sry i dont have access to a computer at home only at school. Im still looking :P
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-08T18:50:10.720Z
Answers.Text: don't this site have one?
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-09T18:11:17.480Z
Answers.Text: I cant figure out how to put a diagram in... sry
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-09T18:56:08.793Z
Answers.Text: Try rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-09T18:57:01.200Z
Answers.Text: Then place the moves under it like the other answer did with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5
Answers.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-23T16:19:25.050Z
Answers.Text: How is this a gambit?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Keba
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-03T16:32:59.673Z
Answers.Text: @Keba you can either take the pawn or not
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-04T19:19:57.653Z
Answers.Text: @theeppright: But all the pawns are defended? Doesn‘t Black intend to recapture on e5 or d5?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Keba
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-05T18:07:58.640Z
Answers.Text: @Keba It doesnt matter if they are protected or not really. The "gambit" is wheher or not one should take it. For example The Queens Gambit. 1. d4 d5 2. c4... if 2... dxc4 that is the accepted gambit. Black cannot effectively defen the c4 pawn now without sacrificing pawn structure. Whit recaptures 3. Nc3 "anymove" 4. e3 or 34 (depending on blacks previous move). There are plenty of studies on this opening so i wont go into detail. But the idea of a gambit is making your opponent choose whether it would be good to take or not.
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-05T23:59:01.300Z
Answers.Text: Actually you *can* try to hang on to your extra pawn in the QG accepted. (Although there might be better ideas.) However, that is not the point. The c4 pawn in the QG is not defended at all, it hangs, White scarifies that pawn, ergo it is a gambit. I don‘t see which pawn to you want to sacrifice here.
  What is your definition of "gambit"?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Keba
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-06T18:59:44.440Z
Answers.Text: @Keba I see you point. Gambits do sacrifice material (a pawn usually) to gain an advantage. (momentum, developement, pawn structure) I will have to conceed the fact that by definition it is not a gambit. I was more refering to the similar apearence and problem it displays. In a gambit there are 2 pawns that are attacking eachother and one must decide to take or not take. A gambit accepted doesnt have to accepted right awat. Meaning that it might take a while for the acceptor to finally concretely secure his prize. If white wanted to he could try and win a pawn after some careful play.
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-06T19:02:01.957Z
Answers.Text: @Keba In the game i played in this position i was Black. He chose to push e5 and eventually i took both center pawns. If he took one of the pawns initially then he could have taken at least one of my center pawns if not both leaving us with a weak middle. Does that help you understand my choice of language?
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-06T20:25:58.860Z
Answers.Text: @Keba Upon doing further research i found that it is a Counter attaack, more specifically, The Sicilian Defence: Marshal Counter attack.  http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=7&n=6319&ms=e4.c5.Nf3.e6.d4.d5&ns=3.3.4.75.131.6319
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-06T22:00:54.380Z
Answers.Text: I totally agree that this is a counter attack. :) Maybe it is a good idea to edit your answer then.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Keba
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-06T22:22:05.290Z
Answers.Text: @Keba lol i guess you right XD i guess my definition was flawed :P thx for discussing it with me :D
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T17:38:04.227Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-01-06T22:24:12.123Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-01-06T22:24:12.123Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Answers.Body: <p>Against e4, I like c5 (Sicilian Defense). Against d4, I like f5, (Dutch Defense), as suggested by another answerer.</p>
  
  <p>These openings aren't totally offensive, because White has the offense. But they are <strong>counter</strong>-offensive.</p>
  
  <p>Basically, they are as offensive as one can get while having the second move. It is a fight from the "get go" for the initiative.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-07T23:22:37.983Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-07T23:22:37.983Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.Body: <p>If you want a recklessly aggressive defense, try the Saint George's defense (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Defense" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Defense</a>). On a more serious note, the Sicilian Dragon or the Najdorf are solid aggressive defenses. Another aggressive defense that is overlooked is the Scandinavian. However, those are only good against e4 openings. Against d4 openings, the Dutch Leningrad is a very open, aggressive opening.</p>
  
  <p>These are just opinions. My personal preferences differ from these though.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-23T01:42:10.747Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-23T01:42:10.747Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BarocliniCplusplus
Answers.Body: <p>One resource you can try is looking up famous attacking chess masters, and checking out their favorite openings, for instance on the Most Played Openings section of their chessgames.com page. For instance, both Tal and Kasparov liked to play the Sicilian against 1. e4 and it shows up as their most-played opening as black.</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.chessgames.com/player/mikhail_tal.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chessgames.com/player/mikhail_tal.html</a> <a href="http://www.chessgames.com/player/garry_kasparov.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.chessgames.com/player/garry_kasparov.html</a></p>
  
  <p>You can see that a more all-round player like Spassky often played the Ruy Lopez, and that Karpov, who preferred closed positions and positional struggles, often played the Caro-Kann.</p>
  
  <p>In general, though, even the attacking masters have to first equalize as black, then attack. If you get reckless you might fluster some opponents, especially in blitz, but you will also often be severely punished! Seeing how the attacking masters make that transition and go on the offensive is crucial if you want your attacks to really mean something and not just be superficially menacing-looking.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-06T22:40:49.903Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-01-06T22:40:49.903Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: R.T.
Answers.Body: <p>Sicilian Najdorf or dragon, if you like sharp theoretical lines. Otherwise, Such stonewall for counter offensive attacks. </p>
  
  <p>Also, don't forget the French, as it can easily transition into A Dutch-like position with f5 or even h5 early on.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-12-09T05:52:54.953Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-12-09T05:52:54.953Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: CodeSammich
Body: <p>I'm black a lot and I really like being offensive, but turning it around on white can be really hard, so what's a good opening?</p>
  
  <p><em>Please don't say fools mate or scholar's mate etc.</em></p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T18:14:31.127Z
Comments.Text: @Rauan Sagit and http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/7932/which-opening-is-most-defensive-as-black never?
Comments.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T19:18:31.487Z
Comments.Text: by offensive, do you mean aggressive?
Comments.UserDisplayName: CognisMantis
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-12-06T20:14:39.970Z
Comments.Text: @CognisMantis I suppose, I don't want anything super rapid aggressiveness, but I want offensive lines to put me ahead.
Comments.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-12-09T20:49:55.650Z
Comments.Text: After White's first move (whatever it is), leap to your feet, shouting profanities, and violently overturn the Chess board. This will maximize the offensiveness of your opening. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Comments.UserDisplayName: Henry Keiter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-12-10T00:23:36.743Z
Comments.Text: @Henry Keiter Genius.
Comments.UserDisplayName: warspyking
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-07T01:40:17.153Z
Comments.Text: The most offensive opening in chess is Von Goom's Gambit, which can be played by White or Black.
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Tags: <opening><attack>
Title: What's the most offensive opening for Black?
ThreadText: # What's the most offensive opening for Black?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-12-06)
  
  I'm black a lot and I really like being offensive, but turning it around on white can be really hard, so what's a good opening?
  
  *Please don't say fools mate or scholar's mate etc.*
  
  **Tags:** opening, attack
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: @Rauan Sagit and http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/7932/which-opening-is-most-defensive-as-black never?  
  > **username_1**: by offensive, do you mean aggressive?  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 I suppose, I don't want anything super rapid aggressiveness, but I want offensive lines to put me ahead.  
  > **username_2**: After White's first move (whatever it is), leap to your feet, shouting profanities, and violently overturn the Chess board. This will maximize the offensiveness of your opening. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 Genius.  
  > **username_3**: The most offensive opening in chess is Von Goom's Gambit, which can be played by White or Black.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-12-06. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  This is an incredibly general question, because obviously white is allowed to make some moves as well … there is no one fits all aggressive defence.
  But to give an equally general answer: If you like to play aggressively playing gambits makes a lot of sense. So everything with "gambit" in its name is a valid choice.
  
  I'll give a few examples and will assume that you didn't specify whites opening because all your opponents play 1.e4. ;-)
  
  This would be the Latvian Gambit against the Italian Game:
  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Gambit>
  
  ```
  rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
  
  ```
  
  This is the Schliemann-Jaenisch-Gambit against the Ruy Lopez:
  
  ```
  rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5
  
  ```
  
  Generally the idea of these gambits is to speed up the development of your pieces at the cost of a pawn and to gain greater central control by diverting your opponents central pawns.
  If you play well, central control and active pieces will lead to an attack.
  If you play badly, you're just down a pawn ...
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: "Just" down a pawn?  
  > **username_4**: "Just" in the sense of "without getting anything for it". Though it is "just" a pawn as well … ;-)  
  > **username_0**: How dare you underestimate the use of a pawn! Lol  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2014-12-06. Score: 2
  
  My kind of man! I love playing aggressive as black and I have found that the Sicilian works well. Its many variations can lead to passive or aggressive games. Until recently I favoured the dragon variation which fianchettoes you bishop in front of your king-side castled king. Now I have found a new line that I enjoy more. e4 c5, Nf3 e6, and if white plays d4 go d5. I love this counter attack because it can go badly for white either way he takes. It is called Marshall counter attack. e5 follows the develop Nc6. This will not happen all the time but it sets you up for a strong central positions with lots of modes of attack.
  
  ```
  [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/4p3/2pp4/3PP3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq d6 0 4"]
  
  ```
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Could you provide a visual?  
  > **username_5**: i will try but im on a school computer and it blocks typical diagraming sites  
  > **username_0**: I can wait a few hours :P  
  > **username_0**: No visual yet? I'm still waiting...  
  > **username_5**: Sry i dont have access to a computer at home only at school. Im still looking :P  
  > **username_0**: don't this site have one?  
  > **username_5**: I cant figure out how to put a diagram in... sry  
  > **username_0**: Try rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1  
  > **username_0**: Then place the moves under it like the other answer did with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5  
  > **username_6**: How is this a gambit?  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 you can either take the pawn or not  
  > **username_6**: @username_5: But all the pawns are defended? Doesn‘t Black intend to recapture on e5 or d5?  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 It doesnt matter if they are protected or not really. The "gambit" is wheher or not one should take it. For example The Queens Gambit. 1. d4 d5 2. c4... if 2... dxc4 that is the accepted gambit. Black cannot effectively defen the c4 pawn now without sacrificing pawn structure. Whit recaptures 3. Nc3 "anymove" 4. e3 or 34 (depending on blacks previous move). There are plenty of studies on this opening so i wont go into detail. But the idea of a gambit is making your opponent choose whether it would be good to take or not.  
  > **username_6**: Actually you *can* try to hang on to your extra pawn in the QG accepted. (Although there might be better ideas.) However, that is not the point. The c4 pawn in the QG is not defended at all, it hangs, White scarifies that pawn, ergo it is a gambit. I don‘t see which pawn to you want to sacrifice here. What is your definition of "gambit"?  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 I see you point. Gambits do sacrifice material (a pawn usually) to gain an advantage. (momentum, developement, pawn structure) I will have to conceed the fact that by definition it is not a gambit. I was more refering to the similar apearence and problem it displays. In a gambit there are 2 pawns that are attacking eachother and one must decide to take or not take. A gambit accepted doesnt have to accepted right awat. Meaning that it might take a while for the acceptor to finally concretely secure his prize. If white wanted to he could try and win a pawn after some careful play.  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 In the game i played in this position i was Black. He chose to push e5 and eventually i took both center pawns. If he took one of the pawns initially then he could have taken at least one of my center pawns if not both leaving us with a weak middle. Does that help you understand my choice of language?  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 Upon doing further research i found that it is a Counter attaack, more specifically, The Sicilian Defence: Marshal Counter attack.  http://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=7&n=6319&ms=e4.c5.Nf3.e6.d4.d5&ns=3.3.4.75.131.6319  
  > **username_6**: I totally agree that this is a counter attack. :) Maybe it is a good idea to edit your answer then.  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 lol i guess you right XD i guess my definition was flawed :P thx for discussing it with me :D  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2014-12-07. Score: 1
  
  Against e4, I like c5 (Sicilian Defense). Against d4, I like f5, (Dutch Defense), as suggested by another answerer.
  
  These openings aren't totally offensive, because White has the offense. But they are **counter**-offensive.
  
  Basically, they are as offensive as one can get while having the second move. It is a fight from the "get go" for the initiative.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2014-12-23. Score: 1
  
  If you want a recklessly aggressive defense, try the Saint George's defense (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George_Defense>). On a more serious note, the Sicilian Dragon or the Najdorf are solid aggressive defenses. Another aggressive defense that is overlooked is the Scandinavian. However, those are only good against e4 openings. Against d4 openings, the Dutch Leningrad is a very open, aggressive opening.
  
  These are just opinions. My personal preferences differ from these though.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2015-01-06. Score: 1
  
  One resource you can try is looking up famous attacking chess masters, and checking out their favorite openings, for instance on the Most Played Openings section of their chessgames.com page. For instance, both Tal and Kasparov liked to play the Sicilian against 1. e4 and it shows up as their most-played opening as black.
  
  <http://www.chessgames.com/player/mikhail_tal.html> <http://www.chessgames.com/player/garry_kasparov.html>
  
  You can see that a more all-round player like Spassky often played the Ruy Lopez, and that Karpov, who preferred closed positions and positional struggles, often played the Caro-Kann.
  
  In general, though, even the attacking masters have to first equalize as black, then attack. If you get reckless you might fluster some opponents, especially in blitz, but you will also often be severely punished! Seeing how the attacking masters make that transition and go on the offensive is crucial if you want your attacks to really mean something and not just be superficially menacing-looking.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2014-12-09. Score: 0
  
  Sicilian Najdorf or dragon, if you like sharp theoretical lines. Otherwise, Such stonewall for counter offensive attacks.
  
  Also, don't forget the French, as it can easily transition into A Dutch-like position with f5 or even h5 early on.
  
  
  ---
  
  