At what rating does the Evans gambit fall off?

#41
Nevertheless, in ICCF nobody plays Evans any more in say the World Championship, like Estrin did in his time. In over the board play Grandmasters venture an Evans Gambit from time to time for surprise value, but there is no surprise value in ICCF. Some may still play it in less important ICCF events for the fun of it.

You have moved your goalposts so far it is hilarious.  The Torre has only been played in 1 game in a WC match in the last 15 years (probably more, but that is enough to make the point).  Does that mean it is unsound?  The Colle hasn't been played in a WC match in that same time period.  Nor the KIA.  The London may have been in a single game or two (but none that I am seeing in my database).  Hell, even the Italian hasn't been played at the WC much in recent years.

What gets played in a WC match does not indicate other openings are unsound.  It is an indication the players have found something they think is interesting and may lead to a win.  The Berlin did not have a good reputation for almost 100 years before Kramnik brought it out against Kasparov.  Now everyone plays it.

And yes, if White doesn't make use of a dynamic advantage (either with an attack or converting it to a static one), it evaporates.  That is the very definition of a dynamic advantage.  Thus, White does get compensation and it is up to him to do something with it.

#43

"Torre", "Colle", "KIA", "London" ++ None of these sacrifice a pawn

 "Italian" Was played in Nepo-Carlsen and interesting enough Carlsen did not play 3...Bc5 allowing the Evans, but instead 3...Nf6, but Nepo did not grab the pawn with 4 Ng5, but played the tame 4 d3 is a must win situation.

"hasn't been played at the WC much in recent years."
++ We were discussing ICCF world championship, i.e. correspondence

"Berlin" ++ Yes, and Scotch too, but no loss of a pawn.

"White does get compensation and it is up to him to do something with it."
++ Yes, but can he after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 d6 7 Qb3 Qd7

You keep saying this like a pawn sacrifice ends the game.

The above position is reached from a sideline of the French Defense, Closed Tarrasch Variation.  Notice Black is up a pawn.  Your assertion is that this means the line is dubious - in fact, it is, for BLACK.  Black is worse here.  Saying "it sacrificed a pawn" as if that ends the discussion is asinine and ignorant.

1) I said it hadn't been played much, not at all.

2)  Comparing Centaur Chess to Human Chess is asinine.  Even in the former, the Evan's draws more often than anything else.  The original question asked when it became dubious for human games (i.e. it doesn't) and you start making the case using centaur chess.  As @pfren already pointed out, you are wrong there as well.

As already stated, material is not everything.

Yes, this was a rapid game, but it was a rapid game between 2 members of the 2800-club.  White didn't seem to fall apart after sacrificing the pawn.

So what about at classical time controls?

Seems those players are well above 2500.

And here is an interesting example where a lower rated GM beat a GM with a rating almost 100 points higher than him in the Evan's:

I'm not saying White is better after Black accepts the gambit, but he certainly is not worse (which is your implication).  And the results at the master level and in recent ICCF games coincide with that.

Pretty nice game, Donnsteinz. Thanks for sharing.

The Evans gambit is an amazing opening for all chess players strong and weak and even though the engine thinks it's equal, screw it. It's literally 4000 elo and most of you are 10x worse than it. All in all, I think it's a great opening and for black it is really hard to win.