Evan's Gambit Sound?

Is the Evans gambit sound? It seems like a pretty good deal. c3 gains a tempo on the bishop and prepares d4.

It's as sound as any gambit that's been around for 150 years. As long as you keep your momentum, it's playable.

Sure, but it's not the bowling ball it was in the 19th century.

Here's a quote from Tarrasch:

"What is the object of playing a gambit opening?... To acquire a reputation of being a dashing player at the cost of losing a game."

Does Tarrasch include the King's Gambit

as well as the Evans Gambit?

FM Galofre, who we hadn't heard anything from since he sold his book collection, made an interesting point the other day.  Beginner/beginning intermediates should play a lot of gambits regardless of their soundness simply because exposure to sharp tactics will help them improve.  Kind of puts a different spin on things, eh?

Well, Kasparov thinks it's sound:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018648

Speaking of Kasparov on gambits, he had this to say about 4.b5 in the following game:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018910

"When I was forced to play Black in this position, in a thematic exhibition game with Short (London 1993), I thought for some 10-15 minutes and wanted to resign immediately. I simply did not understand: for what has the pawn been given up?"

 

It is probably a lot more sound then the kingsgambit as white gets decent compensation for the pawn. 

However do not expect advantage against a prepared player

i honestly don't understand what's the point of giving up a pawn for a bit of activity.

Generally, that "bit of activity' is enough to, at the least, require the return of the pawn, but more hopefully to allow the gambiteer the ability to call the shots and use the proffered pawn (or Knight or whatever) as a wedge, then a lever, to gain even bigger advantages.  Properly defended, gambits seem no better or worse than other openings (at least to me), but proper defense can sometimes turn into a minefield that hard to tread. Besides, some people just like the excitement of sharp play.

I think the comment about learning sharp tactics is a good one, and I think the rough and tumble nature of these openings apeals to the disposition of certain players. Certainly at club level, and i include chess.com in that, there are players who don't mind too much mind losing if they can get an interesting or wild game.

Sometimes that bit activity is enough to win the game, or at least to have equal material, but the opponent won't be able to castle. The good thing about the GOOD gambits (because just some gambit is good, there are bad gambits as well) (good for example the scotch gambit) is that you can get back the pawn if you want, if the things not goes well. The bad about almost every gambit is that, it will be open position. So you can't play positionally anymore. And the bad about almost every gambit is that, YOU TAKE RISK FOR NOTHING! It means that, you can have a better game, if your opponent does not know how to play against that, but if he does, than you will have worse game. (or at least equal, but as a gambit player you don't want that) Grandmasters in the highest level never play gambits, they do not play dubious openings. (And GM smirnov told as well, you should not play dubious openings, you should play normal openings)
I think the scotch gambit is a good gambit, and the benko is well, but the benko is a positional gambit.

Here is a game that I played in last year's World Youth that where my opponent went for the Goring and I liked how I refuted it (although in general, playing d5 is better than accepting it, but then the phrase popped into my head "the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it!")

Material is meaningless when your opponent doesn't have the opportunity to use it.

There is no better way to learn the importance of initiative, development and piece activity than opening with a gambit. Anyone that doesn't spend time playing gambits will find it difficult to ever truly understand any of those concepts.  You can feel precisely when the game turns -- either for or against -- and it can almost always be attributed to a precipitous change in one of those key areas.

Recognition leads to understanding and understanding leads to improvement.

Thanks everyone.

The Evans is certainly sound enough at any level. As mentioned, Kasparov surprised Anand with it, and IM Mackenzie Molner loves to play it, anyone see his USCL game vs. IM Jonathon Schroer? Molner sacced the exchange as well as the pawn, right in the opening, purely for a bit more central control and piece activity! Schroer was defending the whole game, adequately, but then he made one or two bad moves and Molner dismantled him, it was awesome.

The Evan's Gambit is a sound opening that is played by all levels of players. It works especially well at lower levels. If you play it against higher rated players you really need to have to have a strong knowledge of the lines that can arise. Simply knowing at least three variations to Black's forth move, after 4.b4, isn't enough. If you want to play it as a mainstay in your opening repertoire, you need to study as many Evan's Gambit games as possible. I would recommend Andrew Martin's "ABC of the Evan's Gambit" as well as going through Chessbase's Opening Encyclopedia Evan's Gambit section. "Play the Evan's Gambit" by Harding and Cafferty (Cadogan Chess 1997) is an excellent book on this gambit. Kasparov has used this gambit successfully but I suspect he could play well with any gambit system.

I teach the Evan's Gambit to my chess classes with great success because the lines are less tricky than some of the other gambit systems. I would think you could do well with it based on your rating as long as you really work through your responses to Black's moves after 4.b4 and through the middle game. Message me if you need any help with it. Nigel Short was also a big fan of this gambit as well.

padman played it against me in an interesting game not too long ago here.  Nearly got my head handed to me too. 

I've found that the worst thing to face as an Evans player is the declined. Pure uphill struggle to generate activity.

[where's Pfren?]

Interesting enough, according to my calculations, Paul Morphy played 59 recorded Evans Gambits from both sides, some at odds, some blindfolded, winning 52, losing 3 (plus one more in consultation) and drawing 4.  In annotating the Labourdonnais-M'Donnell match, he called it "that most beautiful of openings."  However Frederick Edge wrote about Morphy's loss of the Evans Gambit to Anderssen: "Morphy was charmed with Anderssen's defence throughout, and has frequently cited it as an admirably conducted strategy. It proved to him that the Evans' is indubitably a lost game for the first player, if the defence be carefully played; inasmuch the former can never recover the gambit pawn, and the position supposed to be acquired at the outset cannot be maintained."