Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Gambits or No Gambits


  • 6 months ago · Quote · #21

    Ziryab

    richie_and_oprah wrote:

    gambits should be taught right out of the gate as soon as people are ready to play in real otb tournaments regardless of rating

    I agree, at least insofar as openings should be taught at all to beginners. 

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #22

    learningthemoves

    royalbishop wrote:

    How do you (or Bronstein) figure (suggests) that Bc4 will (give you good practical chances) always win?

    it's not that 3.Bc4 will always win, but if the bishop is on c4, what key square is it eyeing? *Hint, The f file and black's weakest square. (f7).

    Okay and if white castles kingside, what file does that put white's rook on naturally? *Hint, The f file.

    And if white's queen starts off on d1, what square can it attack diagonally to add even more pressure against black's king if it moves along the d1-h5 diagonal to h5? *Hint, The weak f7 square again on the f file.

    And if what makes it the "King's Gambit" is the 2.f4, what file is opened if black accepts the gambit and white recaptures with the dsb, or if white either exchanges the f4 pawn or otherwise captures? *Hint: The f file.

    And instead of Qh5 attacking the f7 square, what will happen if white chooses to form a battery with the f1 rook after castling king side?

    *Hint: More pressure on black's weakest square f7 with doubled heavy pieces attacking on the, you guessed it, f file.

    I like it because the "idea" and basic "plan" is pretty straight forward.

    You can also get that position pretty frequently with other openings like the white side of the closed sicilian, but of course, I'm pretty sure you already knew that. Still it was fun to talk about some openings that can lead to some fireworks.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #23

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Queen's "Gambit" most certainly.  I used to like the regular Wing Gambit (as opposed to my personal invention the Bird Wing where white has some grip over e5 with f4 and black doesn't bop at an e4 pawn with d5, though 1.f4,c5 2.b4,cxb4 3.a3,d5! is still a great move but isn't a refutation here) but the problem is 3.d5! So white obtains problems that don't involve queenside pressure, trading off darksquared bishops (leaving black weak on the a3-f8 diagonal), and dominating the center.  It's still somewhat playable for white so it isn't a refutation in the forced loss sense, but 3...d5! is difficult to play against. 

    The Manhattan Gambit is somewhat of a mirror image of the wing:

    1.d4,f5 2.Qd3,d5 (2...g6 3.h4! instead here) 3.g4!?,fxg4 4.h3,g3! is probably black's best as white doesn't get the open lines he seeks and white's forced continuation 5.fxg3 closes the g-file, but even this is fine for white. If 4...gxh3 5.Bxh3 then lightsquared bishops can be traded off, and the e6 square looks particularly weak (seasoned Dutch players such as myself are used to weak e6 squares however so keep that in mind)

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #24

    LongIslandMark

    waffllemaster wrote:

    [...]
    Oh come on.  Their opponents who are also new players / kids don't have technical / endgame skills.  I wouldn't worry about 1 pawn.  I mean don't force them play gambits, maybe they don't like them, but don't ban gambits.

    I bet being down a minor ususally doesn't matter too much either, let alone a pawn.

    One advantage of introducing gambits early is to teach that just because a piece is offered, it doesn't mean you should automatically accept it. Similarly, just because it looks like your opponent has left a piece hanging, it doesn't necessarily mean your opponent overlooked it - maybe something else is going on.

    In some of the unrated games I've played with beginners, they will attack an irrelevant minor with a pawn while I'm in the middle of a mate-in-n sequence. I ignore the attacked minor, they take it next turn, and then are surprised when they get mated.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #25

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    waffllemaster wrote:

    Yeah, not letting kids / new players play gambits is silly IMO.  That's usually when you learn there's more to chess than counting the pieces, not to mention initiative and attacking are fun.

    "But what if they don't have the attacking skills and lose in the endgame?"

    Oh come on.  Their opponents who are also new players / kids don't have technical / endgame skills.  I wouldn't worry about 1 pawn.  I mean don't force them play gambits, maybe they don't like them, but don't ban gambits.

    I don't care what rating range you are in, endgame and technical skill is the most important in chess.  Tactics are important, but you aren't always going to have a winning shot whereas if you're winning but the win isn't obvious you need to know how to properly convert it.  I watched two "beginners" play and was stunned when one didn't seize the opposition for the clear win.  Even if you need to figure it out OTB one should know that you don't want the opponent to control the square in front of your pawn.  I also had a 1350 practice an endgame against me.  It was won for white but I drew him even after I told him the correct move from Fine's endgame book.  Then again a class A later said of the same position (but a little later) "Why not move the king here?"  I said because white needs black to have move in that position to force zugzwang so a3+ wins, so Kd2, not Kd3 was needed.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #26

    waffllemaster

    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

    I don't care what rating range you are in, endgame and technical skill is the most important in chess.

    I wish that were true, because it's my favorite thing to study.  Unfortunately, other than being completely off topic and unrelated to my post you quoted, you can't separate tactics from strategy or middlegames from endgames or quiet play from attacking play.  Real games always mix these elements, often many in a single position.

    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
    I watched two "beginners" play and was stunned when one didn't seize the opposition for the clear win.
    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

    Then again a class A later said of the same position (but a little later) "Why not move the king here?"

    You started off with what seemed to be a disagreeing tone, but then proved my point for me.  Well what can I say except I agree lol.  As I said, don't worry about the pawn investment because players aren't little Smyslovs and Karpovs.  Especially considering that reasonable gambits give you compensation so you shouldn't be losing in any case.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #27

    waffllemaster

    LongIslandMark wrote:

    One advantage of introducing gambits early is to teach that just because a piece is offered, it doesn't mean you should automatically accept it. Similarly, just because it looks like your opponent has left a piece hanging, it doesn't necessarily mean your opponent overlooked it - maybe something else is going on.

    Good point.  I remember leaving some pieces hanging against a new player once.  The second time I did it he asked if I was mocking him... I had to explain that after he took the pieces I was winning!

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #28

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    waffllemaster wrote:
    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

    I don't care what rating range you are in, endgame and technical skill is the most important in chess.

    I wish that were true, because it's my favorite thing to study.  Unfortunately, other than being completely off topic and unrelated to my post you quoted, you can't separate tactics from strategy or middlegames from endgames or quiet play from attacking play.  Real games always mix these elements, often many in a single position.

    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
    I watched two "beginners" play and was stunned when one didn't seize the opposition for the clear win.
    TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

    Then again a class A later said of the same position (but a little later) "Why not move the king here?"

    You started off with what seemed to be a disagreeing tone, but then proved my point for me.  Well what can I say except I agree lol.  As I said, don't worry about the pawn investment because players aren't little Smyslovs and Karpovs.  Especially considering that reasonable gambits give you compensation so you shouldn't be losing in any case.

    Gambits can be quite good (I even recommended the Manhattan) but one should really know what they're doing and the ideas behind them.  Still, many tactics and sacrifices are to obtain a clearly better endgame, but that would be drawn or even lost if one doesn't have sufficient technical skill to convert it.  The majority of chess moves involve improving the position, converting a win, or holding the draw whereas only a few moves in a given game are tactical in nature.  Agree though that all aspects are important and related.  What stays on the board matters much more than what leaves, if exchanging an active rook for a passive rook (usually bad) gives you a clearly winning pawn endgame why not do it?  Some triangulation there, a little zugzwang there, and you break through and win those pawns, keeping the rooks could improve the other guy's drawing chances. 

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #29

    magnetplayer

    ha

  • 3 weeks ago · Quote · #30

    Ziryab

    yep


Back to Top

Post your reply: