I also just recently played the cochrane gambit and won, In fact it is my highest rated win on chess com. The opponent even accused me of cheating. Very good practical chances with the cochrane.
I am starting to think more highly of gambits the better I get
Smith-morra and Benkos are worth It in otb if you've studied. But, Danish gambit, Latvian, Halloween, albin aren't. As much as I like albins in bullet, it is easily refuted in under 20 moves giving a 2.0+ advantage to white by simple developing play, even as black plays by the book I.e quickly castling queenside.
There's plenty and plenty of sound gambits, just generally they don't occur in the first 5 moves. The reason for this is, generally speaking, the earlier you are in the game the more flexibility your opponent has in their setup, and so are better placed to play against your compensation.
I wish people at my club played such lines..it would be interesting to how their games would turn out. Only gambits I played against there were the benko and smith morra, although I know someone who plays the albin too.
. As much as I like albins in bullet, it is easily refuted in under 20 moves giving a 2.0+ advantage to white by simple developing play, even as black plays by the book I.e quickly castling queenside.
Would love to see this line.
agreed...what a bullshit...there is not a single line which gaves white + 2 in a computer analysis...so where is the proof?!?
I dont think, that GM´s like Morozevich would play an opening, were they get a lost position by force.
That's not fair, 5...Bg4 is an inferior move. Best is 5...Nge7. In the 600+ page book The Complete Albin Counter Gambit that came out in 2013 the author says after 5 g3 5...Be6 or 5...Bg4 white's attack is stronger. He says after 5 g3 5...Nge7, as used by Gm Morozevich, white is having trouble proving an advantage. I've got Houdini looking at the position after 5 g3 and so far at depth 23 it considers 5...Nge7 the best move by a significant margin and has white only 0.18 better. 5... Bg4 isn't even in it's top 8 choices (that's the number of lines I have showing). Stockfish didn't indicate to you 5...Nge7 is the best move?
It did I was just trying to show why the queenside idea is losing. I play the 5...nge7 6...ng6 idea myself, but it feels more dubious for black at times after about 15-20 moves under slow time controls.
I'm a solid positional type player but decided recently to explore playing a gambit repetoire just to see how it goes. I know I'm not a natural gambiteer, and therefore this may prove to be a mistake, but my thinking is most club players hate to defend and don't defend well, so perhaps I can do better than it would seem.
In the Albin I've indeed had trouble feeling like black is getting anything going, and 5...Nge7 was my choice against all of white's main 5th moves. So the Albin was a no go for me.
I've recently began using Alterman's Gambit Guide repertoire (three books), but I did replace a couple of Alterman's white openings with a couple of Davies' white openings from Davies' Gambiteer repertoire (two books). I also rejected Alterman's usage of the Trexler Counterattack (4...Bc5 after 4 Ng5 in the Two Knights Defense, extremely wild) and instead bought a book on the Two Knights that mainly covers 4...d5 against 4 Ng5.
Included in Alterman's repertoire for white is the Smith Morra Gambit. Alterman does a good job in limited space, but because the 360 page book Mayhem In The Morra has received such rave reviews I felt compelled to get it too, it's a very engaging and insightful book.
Playing gambit openings doesn't make one an attacking player. Talk didn't play trash but he found amazing combinations during games.
lolurspammed wrote:
Hello, I was wondering if it was a good idea to experiment with some gambit openings, and possibly make them part of my repertoire. I'm 1776 USCF at the moment, so I'm not really a great player, but I decided to play the Cochrane gambit against a 1900 rated player a couple days ago in a 15 minute game OTB and won with it, and after the game I said to myself.."Wow, that was really cool!" I'm wondering if there are other gambits that I should try out as well in tourney play, like 30 min games or longer with delay. I know there are sounder gambits like the Smith Morra, Benko Gambit and Kings Gambit, but looking over the forum the past couple days there are all these wacky gambits I never heard of that look like they could possibly be interesting to try. Any suggestions?
I'm pretty sure Black started deviating from the path from move 5 there and never stopped. Black not only deployed the bishop to the wrong square but put himself in a situation where a Queen trade could be forced, while he was down a pawn.
Ah, but this does illustrate something about engines. You can't just plug in an engine's top choices for both sides to evaluate a line. Unless you're leaving it running for... y'know... days. Very often when considering two 'good' moves, an engine will pick the solid but strategically conciliatory move over the dynamic, optimistic, but 'looser' move. If you gambit material, you really should play more of the latter than the former.
I feel it was a very important point in my "career" when I started playing gambits. I was playing solidly, and had no problems winning drawn rook endgames (alot of adults just traded down because I was a "junior", and those adults went home with a 80-move long 0 in their bag.
Then I played some gambits, and trading queens was obviously slightly worse when you are just down a pawn :D. So I had to learn the initiative and how to put pressure on my opponent. I played the SMG with white and benko with black. Two gambits where you get positional compensation (well, the SMG can become pretty wild, but often you are just down a pawn with not-so-clear compensation). Then I changed back, but I kept sacrificing a pawn sometimes. The most important thing when you learn a gambit is not to learn the lines, but to learn that a pawn is a positional advantage in same manner as a space advantage or development advantage. An extra pawn doesn't mean that you have a winning position. It means that you would have a nice pawn endgame.
So: If you want to improve and you don't like being down a pawn: play gambits! Sacrifice something if you have the feeling: "I guess it's the best move to sac a pawn, but I would probably just make a mistake and be down a pawn". I prefer sacrificing against stronger players, because they understand why I sacrifice, and often gives back the pawn. Weaker players just think that I blundered, and then I get no compensation.
Those are sound gambits, I'm talking about playing gambits that are questionable and looked down upon by many. The Benko and Morra are fine for both sides and although the Benko is still slightly better for white, white needs to prove that he's better. There's gambits like the Danish, Latvian, Halloween, Fred, Colorado, Jaenisch etc. that aren't considered as sound. Would you play those in a long time control game, against a Class B or higher player?
Those are sound gambits, I'm talking about playing gambits that are questionable and looked down upon by many. The Benko and Morra are fine for both sides and although the Benko is still slightly better for white, white needs to prove that he's better. There's gambits like the Danish, Latvian, Halloween, Fred, Colorado, Jaenisch etc. that aren't considered as sound. Would you play those in a long time control game, against a Class B or higher player?
Well, last time I checked most books recommended 3... d5 against the danish gambit. Maybe they are afraid of 3... dxc3 4. Nxc3? (But 3... d5 is perfectly playable, and fine for black)
Jaenisch gambit (3.. f5 against the ruy lopez) is probably acceptable if Radjabov played it alot of times with a nice score (against strong players, not just "the average grandmaster" :D ), though probably best on grandmaster level if you can accept a draw.
But of course, alot of gambits are just senseless. Why give up a pawn for the sake of giving up a pawn? But learning to give up pawns when it is good is very important skill for a chess player.
Isn't the latvian like one of the worst gambits out there along with the Halloween gambit and the fried liver with black (you gambit your king)
The latvian Gambit might be a bit unsound, but the Halloween and Fried Liver are completely sound and make sense . The former is to get a huge space advantage while gambiting off your knight for a pawn while in the latter you do the same (gambit off your knight for a pawn) and put your opponents kings will lost the castle-rite and will be out in the centre, easy for attacking. If black plays wrong then you can get b ack the material or even checkmate black.
Sorry to say that, but the Halloween Gambit is refuted....you will find the refutation in this forum.
Although its a real fascinating opening, when Black doesnt know how to respond.