Generally, I play a lot of Wing Gambits. Quite often I get my Bishop to a3/a6 which turns out to be a good diagonal because it disrupts central space and pins the opponents e-pawn. I don't have any examples because I lost one of my OTB notation sheets, but when I eventually find it i'll show you.
Central Outposts
Sort:
May 15, 2009
0
#3
Interesting! I have never played a wing gambit.
Your opening is the Sicilian Defense: Wing Gambit; Carlsbad Variation. You may be able to explore this opening here (if your membership allows):
http://www.chess.com/opening/eco/B20_Sicilian_Defense_Wing_Gambit_Carlsbad_Variation
I see in the games that I looked at, this opening is designed to totally disrupt blacks castling prospects. They keep the Black King in the middle through an endless flurry of threats!
I would dare say that you need to be an aggressive player in order to effectively play this opening. Below is a quick game between Gabor: 2200 Viatcheslav 2350. It is a good example of how someone caught off guard may fall victim to this gambit.
Thanks for the Opening!! I'll have to try it, maybe you can play it against me.
That was a very nice game. Here is Eric Shiller's commentary from his book Unorthodox Chess Openings. " The Sicilian Wing Gambit is a futile attempt to grab the initiative. Such a weakening of the queenside just gives Black extra targets, and White gets nothing in return but temporary custody of d4."
What Shiller is saying here is that in this gambit, as compares to other Sicilian variations, White actually gives up the center because he will not be able to permanently hold the central pawns and possibly not establish a White center. So White must initiate an attack where he can, and fast. Central control is debatable here. When Black plays 2.b4, he draws off the Black c pawn's control over d4, If we are talking only of the four central squares. Black's e pawn and d pawns still remain.
I like to play the Sokolsky Opening ( or Polish Opening 1.b4) and this Wing Gambit resembles it quite a bit in some ways (when Black does not answer 1...e5). If we are not debating central control of the board here, White's bishops look very menacing bearing down on the Black kingside. That is what often transpires in some Sokolsky variations, although White does not give up a pawn to get there. The difference is that Black can play 1...e5 in the Sokolsky, and sometimes 2...f3 to back it up and neutralise White's QB on the long diagonal. In the Wing Gambit the White queen Bishop goes to a3, while in the Sokolsky it is posted at b2. It is not usually an early tactical threat at b2, but it does aim at two of the four central squares and may get through to Black's kingside later on.
The good news is, in the Wing Gambit, White's queen rook now stands on an open file without having to make a move. Really after 9...dxe White will not have much of a center left. With 11.Nxe5 the game will stand or fall depending on what Black plays. e5 cannot be a permanent outpost for White's king knight, and White's backward c pawn is vulnerable on the half open c file where Black places a rook in the more orthodox Sicilian defenses. KBb5 maybe preferable so White can follow with an immediate c4, rather than having the KB blocking c4. Not having developed the QN moving the bishop in question again to b2 means a loss of time.
No positonal player is going to risk the Wing Gambit. So when we speak of central control it is like man and woman - two different animals. Tactical players care less about central control than positional players. I would wager that Vassily Smyslov never played a Wing Gambit after the age of 25, if ever he did. In positional terms the Wing Gambit just won't do. Being a follower of Mikhail Tal and Frank Marshall I prefer the tactical. In vote chess we quickly find out who the positional players in a group are. They don't take risks in Vote Chess and would endlessly debate "the correct move" if there were no time limit on games. The careful positional player defends first, looks for a the solid placement of a piece second and attacks last. They try to win the game with two or three move combinations (sometimes involving pawns). It is the tactical genius who actually sees farther into the position, while the technicians are bent on trying to force their opponents to make weakening moves. That is their tactic. The chess artist's tactic is to spin a web that will be, for the opponent, mate or the loss of his queen. He hopes the opponent will see the queen is threatened and miss the check mate. The positional player is good at weakening pawn structures. If he survives to the end of the game he will probably win. The positional player counts his pawns like a miser counts his gold coins, and will always trade your bishop for his knight (regardless of the position). The Wing Gambit may lose, and it may also be more fun.
The Sicilian Wing Gambit is not a very good example of central control.
Jun 4, 2009
0
#6
Wing gambits are most definitely dubious, but they are also enjoyable. Unorthodox Openings can be the most fun! I guess at club level against unsuspecting opponents they may do. Unfortunately it doesn't stop black's centre.
Well...I play d4 so I don't have to deal with annoying Sicilians
Here is a game, which I just finished:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=21241816
On the 20th move 20. - Ne5 black creates a central outpost for his knight on e5, while white is having an outpost on e6.
Jun 11, 2009
0
#8
hey jimthemagic, what a great game! 
I loved that outpost for your knight. A true advanced outpost. whites outpost is much less powerful than yours for at least two reasons. First, his is only on his third rank (yours is on your sixth rank), second yours can never be assaulted by a pawn (making it a true outpost), his can.
Another great aspect of this game is your passed pawn. Ahhhh the power of a passed pawn 
. I also have a game (currently on-going) that I will be using as an example of passed pawns sometime soon.
Again...Nice play in this game!!
Hey, here is another one of central outposts:
As you see above white is having a central outpost on e5 while black is capable of having one on e4, but actually at that point I was having something else in mind (no idea of how it would have worked though), but white timed out. The complete game of it, is available here:
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=21185466
... and just out of curiosity, how would you have played it as black, if it had continued from there?
(Sorry about this messing around with my notes.) 
Hello everyone!
This forum is for your games in which you have successfully created and utilized a central or advanced outpost for one of your pieces. This technique or tactic is very important to advancing in your knowledge of chess. However it can be tough to create an effective outpost as the pieces may be easy to chase away.
What are some important concepts to keep in mind when creting an outpost?
This is a game I just finished that has my King's Knight at a central outpost at e5. Black finds an outpost for his light Bishop on e4!
The battle to oust these pieces from their outposts by the opponant, as well as keeping them in place by their owner is a central theme of the game.
After my opponant gets my Knight out of the outpost the knight swings over to the Queenside and finds another beautiful outpost as well as performing the role as a blocker for an important pawn.
Please note that this is analyzed by the computer and those lines are also given for your learning benefit. Please comment on any flaws, especially where the analysis shows a mistake on my part. What would you have done different? Do you agree with the computer's suggestion?
Lastly, Everyone can have a game analyzed by the computer here. Let's use them. Once a week from everyone would be great. I for one would love to go over your games. If you need some help getting it analyzed and set up on this forum format please let me or someone else here know and we can help.