If your strategy includes a a pawn sacrifice, don't do it in the opening.  That means the first six or eight moves -- although I've been told the number should go to eleven.   The reason I can speak on it is due to the pain I've felt from making the mistake.  I recently gave up a pawn for position in an opening against a young Russian GM on line.  True he gave up a chance to castle, but I still feel like he has a better position.  In addition I just lost to another highly rated player under the same circumstances.  Can anyone refute this argument and give me an example of making up this ground and gaining an advantage from an early pawn sacrifice?

Yes, it's called the Evan's Gambit.

Amazing!  Thanks for the display.  Leave it to Fisher to say, "here, have a few pawns  and then a few moments say, "how do you like me now."

Wow, brilliant and spectacular use of the Evans gambit! This is one of few gambits I haven't really spent a lot of time on...

The Gambit King

And this is why I won't play into the Giuoco Piano as black anymore. 

Evans Gambit was recently used by Nigel Short in Tournament Level! Radjabov used the Jänisch/Schliemann-Gambit and there ist something like Albins-Countergambit, which also has highest rated fans.

I'm of the opening that with the exception of a few gambits, (the evens is a great example) gambitting a pawn in the opening is only really all that great in blitz. In normal time controls all too often the pawn isn't ever given back. And for god sakes, don't play the smith-morra. Anyone with any sense can equalize with black.

depthshaman wrote: I'm of the opening that with the exception of a few gambits, (the evens is a great example) gambitting a pawn in the opening is only really all that great in blitz. In normal time controls all too often the pawn isn't ever given back. And for god sakes, don't play the smith-morra. Anyone with any sense can equalize with black.

---

I used to play the Benko Gambit in blitz with success but never was ale to get the same pressure in a slow game.

I agree with the 1st post, losing a pawn in the opening, either intentional or not, always, for me anyway, creates a psychological situation in which the player with the extra pawn is emboldend to be more agressive to capitalize.

depthshaman wrote: I'm of the opening that with the exception of a few gambits, (the evens is a great example) gambitting a pawn in the opening is only really all that great in blitz. In normal time controls all too often the pawn isn't ever given back. And for god sakes, don't play the smith-morra. Anyone with any sense can equalize with black.

---

Checkmate means never having to give the pawn back. 

Marshal_Dillon wrote: Checkmate means never having to give the pawn back. 

---

Good point, Marshall_Dillon! Also, if anything, the gambiteer should have the psychological edge, since he'll be the one playing the forcing moves, which, even when answered correctly don't totally dampen the attacking position he should receive. In many cases the opponent hasn't studied up on the opening or thinks that since he's a pawn up and better off. This type of attitude can easily be enough to lead to a spectacular loss!

The Gambit King

I gain positional advantages by using the smith morra, not even minding the traps. In the endgame this will get me much more than just a pawn back. I think development is the first concern in the initial phase, with a good head start you can easily take your advantage from it. At least that goes for me, Smith-morra is one of my favorite openings.

ps. I hardly ever lose by one pawn in the endgame, it's mostly position if the material is close. But this takes us to another discussion... 

traxler, king's gambit - some perfectly sound lines for both sides involve R+P, B/N+P sac resp.

I play gambits.  I need work on developing compensation in which I do not know theory or it is unavailable.

Here is a game I won playing the morra smith gambit

Not being a student of chess theory (In between working 70 hours a week and studying other things I just don't have the time at the moment) I can't be certain this is true of chess but I find it true in other things.

The only absolute rules that should be followed are the actual rules of the game... (provided there is no wiggle room of course) all other rules - don't move the same piece twice, don't bring out the queen too early, don't lose a pawn in the opening, are really all just guidelines. They should not be prefaced with you should never.  On that note these nuggets of wisdom are adherred to for good reason.  It is,however, in finding the exception to the rule that creative genius really starts to shine.

pvmike: nicely done -- I've not seen Legal's mate employed against the sicilian before.

I rarely follow my own rules.  I just completed a game with an opening pawn sacrifice.  White opened with d4 I countered with e5 (Froms's gambit) then d4xe5.  White could have transposed this offer into a Kings's gambit with more success.  The game ended in a draw.  I've still yet to win a game in an early pawn sacrifice.  I'll keep working on it

Thank you Dillion, I am always concerned about early pawn loss. I see it a little different now thanks to you, and of course Fischer.

Um...Take a look at the queen's gambit.  The pawn is made up for by the positional gain.

Hypermodern system by Nimzowitsch is a good example of giving up a pawn for position.