Am I missing something? The declined isn't something to be feared.
Evan's Gambit Sound?
Sort:
Dec 24, 2012
0
#23
Why is it that whenever an opening is discussed, someone
1. takes the conversation out of context; and
2. posts some ridiculous continuation showing how there is just no problem?
First, no one was saying that the declined Evans was something to be "feared." It mainly poses a problem for continuing the momentum of the gambit that flows so easily from the accepted lines.
Second, the continuation line given is hardly typical and not particularly helpful.
Dec 24, 2012
0
#24
Why is it that whenever an opening is dicussed, someone
1. Tries to put some actual analysis into the discussion instead of being general
2. Puts a continuation where people say it is ridiculous without showing why
OK, I agree it is not that easy for White to keep his momentum, but I just wanted to show a tactical line that can result from it.
And you are not explaining why the continuation line is not useful.
I know b5 is not typical, but until it is refuted, it is not bad. That's how you further chess theory, and advance opening knowledge for the better: by considering all reasonable moves.
DaBigOne wrote:
Why is it that whenever an opening is dicussed, someone
1. Tries to put some actual analysis into the discussion instead of being general
2. Puts a continuation where people say it is ridiculous without showing why
OK, I agree it is not that easy for White to keep his momentum, but I just wanted to show a tactical line that can result from it.
And you are not explaining why the continuation line is not useful.
I know b5 is not typical, but until it is refuted, it is not bad. That's how you further chess theory, and advance opening knowledge for the better: by considering all reasonable moves.
Posting just one strange line, without any explanation of the moves, and saying "if I haven't missed anything, the Evans Declined is not to be feared", is missing the point of the thread a bit, sorry dude. You say b5 isn't bad - but why would it be played? In your haste to string together one 12 move sequence, you forgot to actually write why you played it.
I would agree that the Declined, whilst not leading to the normal aggressive lines of the Evans, is not an idea that puts me including the gambit in my repertoire. I just continue 5.a4 with a comfortable space advantage. It puts me out of book, but I'm not a great believer in the value of opening analysis in a game situation anyway. In fact I think too much of it hurts your chess in the long run.
Not that I play 1...e5 often, but if I were to meet the Evan's as Black, I would accept, and play this line:
Accepting the gambit but not trying to be too greedy, and playing actively. It gives me the most trouble as White anyway.
Dec 24, 2012
0
#26
-waller- wrote:
DaBigOne wrote:
Why is it that whenever an opening is dicussed, someone
1. Tries to put some actual analysis into the discussion instead of being general
2. Puts a continuation where people say it is ridiculous without showing why
OK, I agree it is not that easy for White to keep his momentum, but I just wanted to show a tactical line that can result from it.
And you are not explaining why the continuation line is not useful.
I know b5 is not typical, but until it is refuted, it is not bad. That's how you further chess theory, and advance opening knowledge for the better: by considering all reasonable moves.
Posting just one strange line, without any explanation of the moves, and saying "if I haven't missed anything, the Evans Declined is not to be feared", is missing the point of the thread a bit, sorry dude. You say b5 isn't bad - but why would it be played? In your haste to string together one 12 move sequence, you forgot to actually write why you played it.
I would agree that the Declined, whilst not leading to the normal aggressive lines of the Evans, is not an idea that puts me including the gambit in my repertoire. I just continue 5.a4 with a comfortable space advantage. It puts me out of book, but I'm not a great believer in the value of opening analysis in a game situation anyway. In fact I think too much of it hurts your chess in the long run.
Not that I play 1...e5 often, but if I were to meet the Evan's as Black, I would accept, and play this line:
Accepting the gambit but not trying to be too greedy, and playing actively. It gives me the most trouble as White anyway.
I didn't actually know it was strange until today: I always played it whenever I met the Evans Gambit Declined. I just thought I'd share a line that happened to me before, and yeah.
Jan 24, 2022
0
#27
xxvalakixx wrote:
The bad about almost every gambit is that, it will be open position. So you can't play positionally anymore.
I think, in general, that's true - but I think there are some positional gambits. In my opinion, the Benko Gambit is positional. Black gives up a pawn for no immediate attack. By accepting the gambit, white doesn't particularly feel any kind of immediate pressure and can pretty much go about his business of development. In the long run, however, black often has a better pawn structure should it get to the endgame. Middlegame-wise, black can oftentimes use the the open a and b files to apply some pressure. But, it's certainly no gambit in the spirit of the King's Gambit or Evans Gambit.
Jan 24, 2022
0
#28
Chess engines like to accept gambits because it has already looked deep into the position and can find all the right defensive moves to maintain the material. The problem is that there is often just ONE right move throughout the defensive line. Of course, the chess engine can walk that tightrope and "remembers" all the moves. A human usually doesn't fair as well. Dubious gambits don't work against chess engines but they often work great against humans, not that the Evans Gambit is dubious. It's actually one of the more solid gambits.
Jan 24, 2022
0
#29
It's absolutely fine, but it's nothing special. It's 52%/44% (win/loss) for white in non-master games, which is about the same as any other opening you can pick at random. If you like it, play it. It's neither good nor bad.
Jan 24, 2022
0
#30
It's one of the few gambits I like to play, but only OTB. People use the opening resources here and play what they could never figure out.
You mean in daily?
the 5... Be7 line is very good for Black, the attack is neutralized and he has the better pawn structure but it's probably balanced
Jan 24, 2022
0
#33
Jenium wrote:
You mean in daily?
Yes. The gambits I use OTB are almost impossible when the computer crowd get enough time to use their spare brain.
Yes DrSpudnik, you pointed out the biggest problem with the Evan's Gambit. Although, if you play gambits you have to be able to play against the gambit declined with equal skill. Where Black places the Bishop after declining the gambit is a key factor. Is your opponent going to play an older line to the gambit declined or a newer line. If playing an older line, it's pretty straight forward. However, if playing against a newer line in the gambit declined, you have to play very carefully as White. Kasparov played some amazing games employing the Evan's Gambit, dealing with both old school and new school decline responses to 4.b4. Batgirl, my hat's off to you and your excellent knowledge of chess history. Wow, I wish I knew as much! Happy holidays everyone!