many strong players did play gambits, I doubt many class players could handle morphy's evans for example.
Their are not many lines in the naj that have black sacrificing as at least to me seems to not be in the spirit of the opening. White does have many good sac's against the sicilian however.
nothing in chess is worth learning persay but you do need to know how to face gambits and may as well play them yourself at your level, look at the kings gambit, danish gambit, and evans gambit.
At the level you are at I would just suggest trying them out and seeing where they lead rather than trying to get an in depth knowledge of any opening. I play various gambits, most often the King's Gambit, but I've never learned any of them as such. Sometimes they lead to a devastating attack, sometimes they go horribly wrong, sometimes I just win my pawn back with a nice position and away we go!
You can confuse things by using gambits. Low rated players can easily fall into traps or lose control. But unsound gambits have beer refuted by really good players, so against them use only sound ones.
You can download for free a DVD about how to refute gambits until the 16th of December. Find the link on this site https://chesslessonsfree.wordpress.com/.
If you play the sicilian then you should be aware of the Smith-Morra gambit.
White can surprise their opponent who don't know about it.
And of course you can play dynamic lines for Black against all of the anti-Sicilian systems which are not necessarily gambits.
I doubt your knowledge of gambits need be all that deep to play them in blitz or even in standard with class players. Nor must the gambits be all that sound.
There's one player here who did well as Black in blitz with 1.e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 Nxc6. It's called the Blackburne Gambit and it's not sound, but try proving that over the board while the clock is ticking.
The real question is whether you like playing gambits. If you do, go for it. Just about everything with a name is worth a shot. And if you want to study, so much the better.
But there is the question of your long-term goals in chess.
The time you spend studying gambits is time you don't spend studying more mainstream openings which could serve you well for decades.
I'd say opening gambits are not worth the effort at our level, we'd probably be undone by a miscalculation or tactic too often.
But there is the question of your long-term goals in chess.
The time you spend studying gambits is time you don't spend studying more mainstream openings which could serve you well for decades.
Gambit play bestows tactical vision.
If you wanna be a one trick pony and play the same lines over and over, go for it. It won't help you improve though. Most gambits are junk.
I'm looking for some more aggressive openings especially for blitz games, which I lose on time more often than I'd like to. Would it be worth it to gain a fairly deep understanding of some gambits? If so, which ones?
Albin and Benko I've heard of and seem legitimate, though I don't know much about them. I also play a lot of Sicilian (always Najdorf variation)--are there any gambits within the Sicilian worth learning?
A few suggestions:
Instead of learning gambits/aggressive openings, learn the following:
How to not hang pieces
How not to make bad sacrifices
Opening Principles
Formulate a middlegame plan
Work on tactics...tactics...tactics.
As a class player, your level of professionalism and your understanding of chess will rapidly increase if you learn a gambit of some sort. It will force you to become a better tactician. And it will always be a surprise weapon or a blitz weapon you can trot out. Even if you find it loses its usefulness past a certain level in slow chess.
Gambit play bestows tactical vision...
It will force you to become a better tactician...
That's one theory. Others say hit the Ruy and QGD hard. Are there studies to back up such claims? I doubt it.
Surely if one plays and studies long enough, one sorts out tactics. I imagine there are many high-rated players who never or hardly ever played gambits. There are plenty of sharp positions and "opportunities" to play a pawn down without gambits.
Personally I like the theory of playing gambits to develop my tactics. But I just don't believe gambits are a necessary box to check on the way to chess mastery or a means to supercharge your development.
I don't see the support for the dogmatism I constantly find in these discussions.
Thanks for the responses. I have been having fun with King's Gambit, Vienna Gambit, Rousseau Gambit, and more. The play quickly gets wild, and, usually, full of mistakes. Above is a game in which I play the Calabrese counter-gambit against Bishop's Opening and squeak out a win. Could I have capitalized on my early lead in development better than I did?
Not surprisingly, my ratings have seen a slight dip as I experiment with all-out aggression. However, when my opponent fails to respond precisely, as in the game above, I can slip away with an easy win.
The King's Gambit is definitely a fun opening to play. Very rarely does it lead to a staid and boring game.
In your above game though I think you tried a little too hard to hunt for a wild game at all costs! It turned out fine in the end, but I don't think the f7 Bishop sacrifice was sound. It is in keeping with the King's Gambit style, however when you play a gambit you don't have to follow through irrespective of the position.
In the King's Gambit if your opponent simply allows you to play d4 and recapture the gambit pawn on f4 (as at your move 6) then you have got far more out of the opening than you could expect and could very happily just continue development with a clear advantage. Sacs on f7 often come about more when Black does not allow you to achieve that wonderful centre and even material and instead makes efforts to hang onto the pawn or fight back against your centre or bring his Queen out too early.
Still, it can't be argued a speculative sacrifice on f7 is always fun and always has a chance of leading to a sharp win if your opponent doesn't respond correctly. Not being an expert analyser (or player) by any means I would say that if Black simply played 8...Kf8 or 8...Ke8 (to avoid any tricks down the open f-file) you would have a hard time claiming enough compensation for being a Bishop for a pawn down.
Not being an expert analyser (or player) by any means I would say that if Black simply played 8...Kf8 or 8...Ke8 (to avoid any tricks down the open f-file) you would have a hard time claiming enough compensation for being a Bishop for a pawn down.
You are correct! The computer prefers 7. e5 over my bishop sac. The other "blunder" I make is 10. Qh5+, Qd5+ being the better choice. Thanks for the reply!
I'm looking for some more aggressive openings especially for blitz games, which I lose on time more often than I'd like to. Would it be worth it to gain a fairly deep understanding of some gambits? If so, which ones?
Albin and Benko I've heard of and seem legitimate, though I don't know much about them. I also play a lot of Sicilian (always Najdorf variation)--are there any gambits within the Sicilian worth learning?