I don't know if people ever wondered,but why Tal didn't played gambits(or at least not often)?After all,he is the greatest attacker of all time!

Is it because they lack flexibility and force you to attack?Is it because they are uneffective? Because he searched sacrifices without purposes known by any man before(for example,it's clear why you sacrifice a pawn in the king's gambit and every professional player knows it)?

I am waiting for your thoughts on this subject

Finally a reply.Maybe this group isn't as dead as I thought.

Come on,wake up everybody!Tal was the greatest attacker of all times and one of the most interesting personalities in chess,this group should reflect that !!!

Actually I have never thought about why Tal didnt play any gambit. Nice question really! maybe you are right in your theory. Tal like surprises, and attacking after a gambit isnt a surprise, it is a well known strategy.. Opponent can be well prepared against a gambit, and I think it is what Tal doesnt like..

often the most tactical skilled players dont have the need to "pose" in the opening. gambits are mostly a strategical thing.

Interesting theory. Maybe Tal didn't need to sac a pawn to get a nice attack necessarily

You could ask the same question about Fischer, Kasparov etc. but the answer would be the same I guess. Strong GMs usually don't play gambits because they know that gambits are inferior to the main lines of Ruy Lopez, Sicilian, etc. They don't want to give away any advantage in the opening to well prepared opponents who know the antidote against most gambits. If you sacrifice a pawn and your opponent knows the best theoretical way to defend, then you're just a pawn down or even worse with a bad position as well. On a lower level gambits can be much more effective.