World #5 GM Hikaru Nakamura and Rybka take on Stockfish! Live on Chess/TV and Open to ALL MEMBERS! Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

The Chicago Gambit


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #1

    scandinaviandefense

    Hi Everyone,

     This is a little known opening called the Chicago Gambit, which I have analysed a lot recently. What do you think? Please post comments/questions.:


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #2

    Nalikill

    Very, very interesting.
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #3

    Unbeliever

    Interesting.

     


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #4

    KillaBeez

    This is a terrible opening.  Why sac a piece for a pawn for only 2 tempos of development?  That center will be countered rather easily.  Never play it!
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #5

    Lions

    I don't see the point of it either.  It's not like it's going to give white time to launch an attack because he'll be stuck defending his center
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #6

    kushtyman

    I think this opening would be useful in Blitz games to gain quick advantage, tempo and auprise element but I would never play it in longer games.
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #7

    Ajfonty

    That seems like a fun opening to mess around with. Granted, I have to scrimmage with it first to see if I should devote any time to it, but it looks rather interresting.


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #8

    fischer

    Why do people search for gimmicks to win games instead of relying on good old-fashioned hard work (playing decent lines)? This opening is a joke, and White will lose if Black plays properly. At least in other gambits, such as the Morra gambit in the Sicilian, White still has an even game if Black plays correctly. Giving up an entire piece without justification is just plain silly. (BTW, how can White be ahead in development in this gambit when the only piece he moved has been captured?)


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #9

    scandinaviandefense

    fisher,

      I did not say that after those moves, that White had a lead in development. I said that in many of the lines I analysed, White gets a lead in development.


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #10

    matzleeach

    Fisher is right!!! The is a joke! sac a knight for a pawn just to have two pawns in the center. You're not leading in development, so the sac doen't make sense. Beside, The only advantages is you have two pawn in the center...

     

    Why did you name this crazy gamit Chicago Gamit? heheheh

    PLEASE change the name. I live in Chicago and I don't want anyone to think that Chi-town chess players plays such opening.

     

    I have an idea. rename it Michigan Gambit 


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #11

    MM78

    matzleeach wrote:

    Fisher is right!!! The is a joke! sac a knight for a pawn just to have two pawns in the center. You're not leading in development, so the sac doen't make sense. Beside, The only advantages is you have two pawn in the center...

     

    Why did you name this crazy gamit Chicago Gamit? heheheh

    PLEASE change the name. I live in Chicago and I don't want anyone to think that Chi-town chess players plays such opening.

     

    I have an idea. rename it Michigan Gambit 


    I don't think he's claiming to have invented it or naming it matz.  It's called the Chicago gambit because a guy managed to beat Pillsbury with it in a tournament in Chicago. I can only think Pillsbury had drunk more Guinness than me on St. Patrick's day.  Fun for blitz as someone said but not for longer games.  Chesslover I'd be happy to have a game against you with it if you fancy it.


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #12

    350mde

    a gambit is to sac a pawn to gain time space or open lines etc, but to sac a piece after 2 moves is simply suicide, and most half decent players would rejoice if their opponent played it . I suggest you rename it the hari kari !
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #13

    Smartattack

    I wouldn t go by there,white has too few compensation for the lost knight
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #14

    batgirl

    "a gambit is to sac a pawn to gain time space or open lines etc, but to sac a piece after 2 moves is simply suicide, and most half decent players would rejoice if their opponent played it . I suggest you rename it the hari kari !"

     

    Hmmm . . . . . then would you call sacking 2 pieces in the opening hari hari kari kari?


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #15

    EnGliSHCheSsPlAy

    I think it is not a good opening..but you can try it in a blitz game..!
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #16

    Ned63

  • 7 years ago · Quote · #17

    MM78

    Lol Ned63,  I'm definitely voting for Chicago Gambit not Irish gambit although I'd confess to having played a few such inadvertent gambits over the years...
  • 7 years ago · Quote · #19

    Ned63

    fischer wrote:

    Why do people search for gimmicks to win games instead of relying on good old-fashioned hard work (playing decent lines)?


    I don't understand how a perfectly legitimate move can be considered a gimmick.  I'll agree with the assertions of much better players than me that it is theoretically unsound, but a move like this can take people out of their comfort zone i.e. opening lines played a million times. IMHO - that's no bad thing. 


  • 7 years ago · Quote · #20

    KillaBeez

    batgirl wrote:

    "a gambit is to sac a pawn to gain time space or open lines etc, but to sac a piece after 2 moves is simply suicide, and most half decent players would rejoice if their opponent played it . I suggest you rename it the hari kari !"

     

    Hmmm . . . . . then would you call sacking 2 pieces in the opening hari hari kari kari?

     


    That is the highly complex and theoretical Muzio Gambit.  Those are fun and almost sound piece sacrifices while White loses a piece for virtually nothing in the Chicago Gambit



Back to Top

Post your reply: