Never head of this madness before, black ends a pawn up but without any form of development, white has acitve pieces and a natural attack but I don't think this is really a sound opening for white. The Kingside if black manages to develop would be precarious.
Amar Gambit
Sort:
Jun 21, 2018
0
#3
Aleksandr_Medved wrote:
Never head of this madness before, black ends a pawn up but without any form of development, white has acitve pieces and a natural attack but I don't think this is really a sound opening for white. The Kingside if black manages to develop would be precarious.
I love it when people use the term 'sound' in relationship to proper gambits, even playable ones.
However your assessment is quite correct.
Aug 13, 2019
0
#4
Well, 5 0-0 is the correct move, and I kinda like it. Open f file, strong bishop, while black's king is stranded. See, I feel as if its like the four pawn gambit, without black having development, and with less of a material deficit.
White will be crushed. Black, though behind in development, will catch up quickly. Bd6 (with tempo), Qe7, Nd7, 0-0-0, Nf6, and White is down a pawn with a ruined kingside.
Aug 15, 2019
0
#6
I don't like Black's 3..Bxh3. There was no point exchanging his good bishop with White's bad knight that was not achieving much in h3.
Black has the center and the better minor piece. Correct play would have been cementing his central control while developing his pieces to ideal squares (Nf6, Nc6, Bc5, castle)
Forget the h3 knight. Black's massive lead in space and development will crush white.
Black has the center and the better minor piece. Correct play would have been cementing his central control while developing his pieces to ideal squares (Nf6, Nc6, Bc5, castle)
Forget the h3 knight. Black's massive lead in space and development will crush white.
Aug 15, 2019
0
#7
Well...I can certainly see why this isn't played at the elite level. But for the rest of us? Why not.
Aug 15, 2019
0
#8
EiXen wrote:
I don't like Black's 3..Bxh3. There was no point exchanging his good bishop with White's bad knight that was not achieving much in h3.
Black has the center and the better minor piece. Correct play would have been cementing his central control while developing his pieces to ideal squares (Nf6, Nc6, Bc5, castle)
Forget the h3 knight. Black's massive lead in space and development will crush white.
Black has the center and the better minor piece. Correct play would have been cementing his central control while developing his pieces to ideal squares (Nf6, Nc6, Bc5, castle)
Forget the h3 knight. Black's massive lead in space and development will crush white.
Well, it wins a pawn...
Aug 15, 2019
0
#10
EiXen wrote:
I don't like Black's 3..Bxh3. There was no point exchanging his good bishop with White's bad knight that was not achieving much in h3.
Black has the center and the better minor piece. Correct play would have been cementing his central control while developing his pieces to ideal squares (Nf6, Nc6, Bc5, castle)
Forget the h3 knight. Black's massive lead in space and development will crush white.
Black has the center and the better minor piece. Correct play would have been cementing his central control while developing his pieces to ideal squares (Nf6, Nc6, Bc5, castle)
Forget the h3 knight. Black's massive lead in space and development will crush white.
And that is the crux of the matter, Amar's Gambit has much in common with it's left handed cousin, Durkin's Attack in that it is predicated upon the erroneous assumption that Bishop taking the out facing Knight actually provides Black a substantial advantage.
I used to play Amar's gambit decades a go but quickly came to the conclusion that if Black avoids sucking up pawns willy nilly, he (or she) is simply better. This lead one to try a sort of reversed Gurgendize Caro system with 1.Nh3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 and c3 but even this seem to lack if Black again avoided BxNh3 straight up and instead played in the middle while building up threats against Whites cramped development.
I then took up 1.Na3 but really I have discovered the same thing applies. If Black avoids Bxa3 Whites finds it hard to reasonably development.
As the saying goes, Knights on the rim are dim but they are even more so if you don't waste a bishop and move to take them off.
Regards
Hadron
(oh.....and yes, I realize both 1.Nh3 and 1.Na3 are junk but I am quite sure there will be some troglodyte who will take 5 minutes out of their mundane existence to repeat exactly that.
It is their time to waste, I guess
But it will not stop anyone playing said junk thought, will it?)
Aug 18, 2019
0
#11
@Attack_AlwaysAttack's comment on black winning a pawn...it may be true, but as Hadron explained, it's not worth it.
The extra pawn will only prove to be an advantage in the endgame. In the opening and middle game though, i'd take development and space over an extra pawn (or two).
The extra pawn will only prove to be an advantage in the endgame. In the opening and middle game though, i'd take development and space over an extra pawn (or two).
Aug 18, 2019
0
#12
EiXen wrote:
@Attack_AlwaysAttack's comment on black winning a pawn...it may be true, but as Hadron explained, it's not worth it.
The extra pawn will only prove to be an advantage in the endgame. In the opening and middle game though, i'd take development and space over an extra pawn (or two).
The extra pawn will only prove to be an advantage in the endgame. In the opening and middle game though, i'd take development and space over an extra pawn (or two).
I completely disagree on it not being worth it. You have nothing if you don't take. its equal.
Aug 18, 2019
0
#13
I think that as far as Gambits go, there are lots out there that does not compromise White's development or that will still work positionally if black declines the gambit.
King's gambit, scotch, Evans, blackmar-diemer, Danish, etc
King's gambit, scotch, Evans, blackmar-diemer, Danish, etc
Aug 18, 2019
0
#14
Attack_AlwaysAttack wrote:
EiXen wrote:
@Attack_AlwaysAttack's comment on black winning a pawn...it may be true, but as Hadron explained, it's not worth it.
The extra pawn will only prove to be an advantage in the endgame. In the opening and middle game though, i'd take development and space over an extra pawn (or two).
The extra pawn will only prove to be an advantage in the endgame. In the opening and middle game though, i'd take development and space over an extra pawn (or two).
I completely disagree on it not being worth it. You have nothing if you don't take. its equal.
Well, yes, you can disagree and that is fine.
If you examine Amar Gambit theory (and yes, some does exist), its playability for White lives or dies on Black sucking pawns ( many) and not just procrastinating over a single pawn.
Then again, you are playing a gambit to attack so why is one, as white, happy to surrender an equal position (according to you that is) if Black choses to avoid all of the tactical nonsense involved?
I don't know about you but if I am more than happy to enter the middle game as Black with an equal position.
Would you mind giving your opinion on the following gambit.
Where white gets open h and f files, the bishop pair and the central pawns.