Gambits-always better to decline?
Sort:
Some gambits are better decined. Others, like the Smith-Morra are better accepted.
A good gentleman always accepts a gambit!
Unless they don't know that it's a gambit. :P
Jul 13, 2008
0
#25
Haha I was reading something on wikipedia that was kind of funny about the ridiculous Irish gambit. 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nxe5...Asked what inspired the gambit, the answer was "I hadn't seen the King pawn was defended"
Jul 13, 2008
0
#26
Marshal_Dillon wrote: Nimzo33 wrote: Marshal_Dillon wrote: Not taking the gambit pawn here creates a little problem for black. If he doesn't do something to break up the pawn chain that is forming, he will be completely stonewalled on that side of the board. The loss of time from advancing the pawn a second time is worth tying up blacks pieces so they can't move.
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. c5? is horrible. White has zero play following that move, and he is even down in development!
3...e5 I believe would easily equalize (4.dxe5 Nd7) but black doesn't even have to do that! black's development is restricted in no way as Nf6, Bf5, e6, Be7, Nd7 can all be played with good position. Now, if it in fact does not restrict black's pieces, than what wonderful thing does 3. c5? actually do?
Not taking the pawn against the Queen's gambit is VERY common.
How does white have zero play? The queen side knight and bishop are free to develop, the stonewall can be further solidified with b4. Being able to develop does not constitute "play" I do not see any active plan for white after 3. c5? as b4 by white merely waste more time in protecting white's queenside investment, which doesn't seem to do a whole lot. Did I mention 3. c5 also creates a weakness for white, which could be easily exploited by black by means of ...b6 and/or ...e5?
As for black, his queen knights best development square has a pawn sitting on it Time out! The slav defense is played at the highest levels, and I'm sure they don't mind that their knight cannot be be played to c6. Case Closed.
when he moves his king pawn, his bishop has no place to go,
What in the world are you talking about? The queen's bishop goes to f5, and the king's bishop goes to e7. At least equality there.
the queen's movements are limited.
Oh yes, because limiting the movement of the opponent's queen determines whether an opening is good or not. Scholar mate scarred, are we? (jk)
The only piece black can realistically develop is the queen bishop.
What is it with you and not believing a piece to be developed if its not on the farthest possible square it can go? A knight is developed on both c6 AND d7, while the king's bishop is developed on both b4 AND e7.
"When in doubt, take the pawn." - Wilhelm Steinetz
C5 is horrible it cramps black on the queenside but does not prevent development in any way and white is severly undeveloped!
Just a sidenote, in the recent Futurity international c5 was played twice, both times by an IM.
Jul 14, 2008
0
#30
Kingfisher wrote: Just a sidenote, in the recent Futurity international c5 was played twice, both times by an IM.
And Nakamura has played 2. Qh5 before... guess more theoretical must be put into it, it HAS to be good.
Jul 14, 2008
0
#31
I just like how a 1500 player refuted the Slav Defense. The most popular GM response to the Queen's Gambit! (a least according to the chess openings explorer database.)
futuregm23 wrote: I hate it when people decline my gambits!
And this, above all else, is the reason that it's usually better to decline most gambits.
Accepting the gambit may be objectively better, but you're playing into your opponent's line that they want to play, while you probably don't know it as well. Of course, if you know the gambit well enough to accept it and defend it properly, then go for it. But when in doubt, why give your opponent what they want?
Of course, I'm not counting the Queen's Gambit here, only real gambits.
--Fromper
I think accepting is usually the way to go, but I also don't think there are any hard-and-fast 'rules' in chess except 'don't get checkmated.'
Declining a gambit sometimes loses a tempo, as here:
Jul 14, 2008
0
#36
Where are the games where the IM played c5 against the slav? This thread is useless without games!
Acoording to chess games no one has ever played the c5 line,so there must be a good reason,(NB although the semi slav(and the a6 slav for that matter) looks pointless(and stupid) but are very popualar(and good) so there must be a solid reason not to play 3.c5)
king gambits is the best attact for me .because i experience to use this attact.
redblack_redemption wrote:
Marshal_Dillon: the position you have posted (1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. c5) indeed looks like it gives white a large advantage. Although I cannot see any faults with c5, chess.com's opening explorer gives it 17% wins for white, and 58% for black. There must be something wrong with that move.
Just at a glance it looks like it opens the kingside to very severe checks from the queen.
Re: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.c5?
The reason that White plays 2.c4 is to put pressure on Black's center. Eventually cxd5 may be on the agenda, or if Black plays dxc4 then that has deflected one of his pawns from the center.
It's not very consistent to immediately remove that pressure again on the next move.
The move does gain space on the queenside, but this probably won't be a long term asset (the pawn chain is easily undermined), so White probably won't see any benefit of that space advantage.
It depends on the gambit. I only use two personally...
The Kings Gambit is better for black to accept.
The Traxler Gambit is better for white to decline (Bxf7+).
Other than that I have no comment :P.