gambits are stupid

this is an opening that people play. it loses a pawn in return for "initiative"

initiative is fairy dust, it's an overcomplication that basically means 'the permission to do stuff without being bothered by the other guy'

if you play any other opening you're just gonna get it later anyway

and like, 99% of chess players lose the initiative after 8 moves and are now simply a pawn down

just play d5 like a regular person, at least you won't be a pawn down when you inevitably lose the initiative because you're rated 800 and you watch gothamchess

IN YOUR DREAMS!

the ONLY gambits I DON'T do better than my opponents in are the french alapin diemer (and I've always hated gambit dodging pawn pushing french cowards... I MIGHT try the new orthoschnapp or something else in the future, but I'm happy with close to = stats and ESPECIALLY crushing frenchies in under 20.

I have slight losing stats in king's gambit too, but it's not the best gambit and I don't play main lines. that's why I want to switch to a much more BRUTAL double danish/2x sac goring repertoire.

all you gambit haters REALLY need to learn that TALKING like you're a GM doesn't MAKE YOU ONE!

meanwhile, double danish destroys EVERYONE up to 2200! these are juicier 1600-2000 stats.

BEHOLD the TRUE POWER of the initiative!

as a much better playing than me GM once stated, it's MUCH EASIER to attack than defend. as a PURE ATTACKER myself, NOTHING gives ME winning stats like GAMBITS

so... if gambits suck, opponents who can't defend against them DESPITE being a pawn or more up in material swallow

1883B if all these triple-double lindy gambits destroy everyone up to 2200, why are you still rated 1418?

Benko Gambit is the soundest of the bunch, Budapest is not so good but more so can be avoided, Queens Gambit is not a true Gambit in gambiting sense ,and I no idea what the Grunfeld Gambit is?

In almost all lines you end up getting the pawn back.

mothereffing site keeps eating my replies!

here's me climbing UP to 1891! (with smith morra GAMBIT)

look up! STUPID SITE ATE THIS REPLY TOO!

one mothereffing last time. my rating TODAY, climbing back from a slump I STILL say is because I'm getting sandbagged by cheaters every time I get over 1700. it's a funny "coincidence" that I faced TWO owens today and neither one would rematch

it also doesn't make sense that the lower my rating goes, the harder it is to beat opponents

i'm a 1658 and c.com can eff off and die sandbagging 10m! another site used to do that, yet when i gave my opponents 5 free extra minutes and played 15m, I got my ACTUAL rating.

"other site" doesn't sandbag and im not playing 15-5 here just to put trolls in their place.

Yeah, my mistake, B-boy, I forget you are the only one who has to fight through all the sand-baggers and engine/database users

Well. Let’s make a very very clear distinction here. Unsound gambits are stupid. The Marshall Attack isn’t stupid, the Evan’s Gambit isn’t stupid, the Basman-Palatnik Double Pawn Gambit isn’t stupid, the Goring Gambit Double Pawn Sacrifice isn’t stupid, the Fingerslip Winawer Kunin Double Pawn Gambit isn’t stupid, et cetera. If the gambit is sound, it’s dangerous.

Way back in the day, like the early to mid 19th century, chess professionals made a living playing games for stakes in coffeehouses. There were no clocks and the more games a player could get in the more money he'd make. Gambits would allow the player to get a fast paced open game where he could, hopefully, score a quick tactical victory. Couple this with opponents who would invariably be unsophisticated and who would try to hang on to material for dear life, and likely suffer the consequences, and you get a window into why gambits were so common 200ish years ago.

Today though we have clocks and fast time controls and even relatively weak players kinda know now you don't try and hold the material to the detriment of all else.

Not saying don't play gambits, if you like them and are good at them then more power to you, but they've lost a lot of their practical usefulness.

Back in the romantic Era, it was considered unsportsmanlike to decline a gambit.

Times have changed and everyone has access to unlimited theory and GM+ analysis, but the point no one ever brings up in gambit hater sessions is that amateur players NEVER play perfect moves every move. Tactics exploit THAT.

For those of us who are positionally challenged (not ashamed because I can visualize attacks) gambits are the best way to use OUR kasparov skillset.

Position AND tactics win games. I play tactically stupid players who can't see mate coming with a rook pair on their pawn rank ALL THE TIME!

If gambits are stoopid, players that lose to them are stoopiderer.

All I know is they're the only way to win games FOR ME. I WISH I could visualize position beyond intuitively, but can't. I'm at peace with my limitations, if not pathetic trolls who parade them around to make their sad sad sad selves look better.

I beat 1800s DAILY for 86 games straight, even climbing all the way up to 1891 to my highest rating ever with my sad pathetic 1.e5 gambit repertoire, even HOBBLED with the skankwall against 1.d4, with my "pathetic local rating" AND the game just so happened to be a smith morra GAMBIT, which I hadn't studied or even PLAYED for over a decade. I love that it was a smith morra, and not a skankanakvian or skankwall

Then there was the game where I beat a 2200 as a lowly 1500 (1450?) who didn't play 3.c4 in the scandinavian and allow the scandinavian OR Icelandic gambits and taunted me with "where is your gambit NOW?" In the 3.d4 line as he traded down and went on a pawn grabbing check fest on my queenside until I finally found a square he couldn't fork my king on... sprung the rook check that x-rayed HIS rook and pushed him back with a queen check that removed kings from defense.

"There's your gambit!" (I actually said that)

He tried and tried to trade queens until I decided to simplify before HE finds another TACTIC. Then I just retreated my rook to the back rank to both block his king from capturing my soon to be queen on the e file as well as defend against his pawn on my 6th or 7th rank. After a couple pawn advances, he and his overloaded king punked out and abandoned the last 6-7 minutes of the caissa 10m game I won ON TIME

I won my BEST GAME EVER with a straightforward TACTIC the condescending f### should have seen, but was too cocky and overconfident to look for. My "very best" was switching sides against Chessmaster tal who thought

Was a good idea, trying to build 4 pawns theory. I said prove it, flipped sides and beat him in 27 moves, I think, with no takebacks and using less of my 30 minutes to boot. I'm guessing it was 2400 on my 160mhz system. If I remember correctly, I went for an immediate 0-0-0+ for a tempo

Has anyone heard of the Kings' Gambit? I hear Kasparov played it...

I'm sorry, was my sarcasm not identified? I know the Kings Gambit...

kid named Damiano Gambit: (ok I get it no one in their right mind actually plays the Damiano defense anymore)

My understanding is the Damiano verges on being playable.

This guy back in the day famously drew Fischer in a simul with it.

just a worse petroff

QG is playable and 600s don’t lose the initiative after 20 moves.

Why hate gambits? If they're so bad, isn't it good when people play them against you? In my opinion they make chess a lot more fun. And I tend to win more when I play them too.