Some gambits are extremely popular at the GM level in recent years, eg. Benko, QGD Semi-Slav Botvinnik, Ruy Lopez Marshall and Sicilian Najdorf Poisoned Pawn. Other gambits are strong, and have achieved excellent results at the GM level, eg. the QGD Semi-Slav Marshall 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 or the English Flohr-Mikenas 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 c5 4.e5 Ng8 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.d4. Some of the older gambits that were more popular in the 19th century have been having trouble recently as strong replies have been found for the defender, eg. the Evans Gambit or the Latvian. At lower levels, it can be great fun to play some of the old swashbuckling gambits, but as you face stronger opposition, you might want to switch to some of the stronger modern gambit lines instead.
Gambits and "hope" chess
GM's play positional sacs now, in their mind gambits like the danish are indeed "hope" because those openings are hoping there will be a mating attack, while positional sacs are saying they don't care if they ever get the pawn back or not, that's how good their position is.
Gambits by nature are "unsound" in that they give up material with no guarantee of the future return, yet many gambits create such strong positions, that the material lost is greatly outweighed by the positional advantage.
"Unsound" to me implies that the gambit leads to a loss by force, eg. the Chicago Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5 or the Busch-Gass 2...Bc5 3.Nxe5 Bxf2+. A gambit where you get the material back right away was called a sham gambit by Rudolf Spielmann. A gambit where you get compensation in the form of an attack or a better position would probably be termed a sound or true gambit, not an unsound one.
Is it true, however, that it has been many years since 1.e4 has been played in a championship match (like since 1995 or something)? And why?
Actually, in the last game of the last world championship match in 2008, Anand opened 1.e4 against Kramnik. Anand, Leko, Morozevich and Svidler were all opening 1.e4 in Mexico City 2007 and San Luis 2005 as well.
Gambits are rare at the higher levels for the same reason you can't play them against strong engines - the technically correct replies will usually defuse them. That doesn't mean they aren't useful at levels under FM, though.
Someone forget to tell Topalov that gambits are out of style. He's already sacing like crazy in his match with Anand.
Well in positional chess you don't need to hope for big mistakes though, even tiny ones can slowly add up, and there is less risk involved.
His pawn sac in the Grunfeld hardly qualifies as a "gambit" in the usual sense - an opening designed around the pawn sac - and his piece clearly doesn't fit. So what are you talking about?
Karjakin played the same gambit a couple of years ago, as have Li Chao and Stimple. It'll probably become even more common now.
Anand has won both of his games where he gambited a pawn against Topalov in the opening. Kasparov is another player who used to gambit pawns regularly in his matches with Karpov, especially in their 1985 rematch.
You should differentiate between what you mean. Are you talking about sound gambits, or unsound? The Queen's Gambit is a gambit, and it is also a positional opening in many cases.
The Queen's Gambit is not a true gambit because black can't really hold on to the gambited pawn.
Today's preference for d4 might have something to do with Kramnik and his Petroff defence :)
Actually, Anand has been doing so well with 1.d4 lately, it's no wonder he wants to play it more.
Anand usually prefers 1.e4, but Topalov is probably more comfortable facing 1.e4.
Anand usually prefers 1.e4, but Topalov is probably more comfortable facing 1.e4.
Some GM commented that Anand is probably playing a psycological trick on Topalov using Kramnik's repertoir and lines. It is well known that Topalov and Kramnik hate eachother's guts and having Topalov face his "arch rival's" most powerful weapon must have at least some effect. If nothing else, Kramnik is one of the best players ever and using a line he perfected can't be a bad thing!
Unless your name is Kramnik and you are playing Anand.
A lot of people play the Catalan: Aronian, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, etc. Anand used to play it when he was younger, beating the likes of Predrag Nikolic even.
Yay! A fellow Halloween Gambiteer! I've just started learning it, and like it very much...
I just said that the Halloween is hope chess because there are several refutations which give black a positional advantage by giving the piece back, but they are very hard to find without previous preparation. Perhaps they don't qualify as actual refutations, since Black only ends up with a small positional advantage in most of them, so maybe I should have said that clearer... sorry!
A positional advantage? That does sound interesting. Which lines are these exactly?
Yay! A fellow Halloween Gambiteer! I've just started learning it, and like it very much...
I just said that the Halloween is hope chess because there are several refutations which give black a positional advantage by giving the piece back, but they are very hard to find without previous preparation. Perhaps they don't qualify as actual refutations, since Black only ends up with a small positional advantage in most of them, so maybe I should have said that clearer... sorry!
A positional advantage? That does sound interesting. Which line is this exactly?
I'm guessing he's referring to the 5...Bd6 line and isn't aware of Wind's treatment.
I don't believe any of the cop out variations are good for anything more than equality. I want to believe.
The Truth is Out There.
Dutch International Master Maurits Wind has run some correspondence tournaments, and written extensively on the Halloween Gambit for the magazine Kaissiber. In general, Wind tends to win his games as both black and white, and is probably one of the world's leading experts on the Halloween. As black, Wind always accepts the piece, so it would seem he thinks this is stronger than giving it back.
Just offhand, I would say white might still have the edge there. None of black's pieces are terribly well placed, and white could play Qe2+ for instance forcing one of them to retreat. Do you have any games where black has won with that line?
There is a Ferocious Four Knights group for those who are interested. I think they played three or four Halloween theme vote games, and they were all wins for white.
As hicetnunc very correctly pointed out, this is not the Dan H. trademarked (!) definition of hope chess.
What can be said however is gambits = fun for certain people. If those people also want to "improve" and take on stronger opposition, you're essentially fighting an uphill battle, unless every other aspect of your chess (analysis, endgame, positional understanding) is outstanding.
So from a practical standpoint, you should play chess the way you think is fun. Nobody on this forum can ever teach you what is fun for YOU. Though if you were to complain that you weren't getting any better after a point, maybe you need to look beyond the "I have the initiative, let me mate the punk" school of thought.
Don't get me wrong, I've had a lot of fun driving to weekend OTB tournaments and casually rolling a hand grenade into the middle of the board when I felt like it. As one might guess, the shrapnel either takes me or my opponent down, depending on how good he/she is.
Though as I got to play stronger players, I noticed that the explosions were usually more on my side of the board than the other.