gambits are stupid

Maybe learn what "initiative" means.

Initiative is the ability to attack enemy pieces and force them to move, allowing you to gain space, a lead in development, and later, maybe win your pawn back.

Not to mention, no "regular person" I know plays d5. Everyone plays Nf6. It's logic.

There are 3 tiers of gambits: Sound, dubious, and unsound. There are only a few sound gambits, the Queen's gambit and the Reti gambit are 2 examples. Dubious gambits, like the Englund gambit you showed, and the King's gambit, are ok, but not great. And unsound gambits are the ones that are really stupid, like the Duras gambit and the Irish gambit.

Its never about the opening, its about the player. As you can see he is actually an 2500 if it were not for these cheaters man!

P.S. Don't you love it when he is saying he is a 1800 when Lichess is known for a totally different rating syste that is pretty much hundreds of ratings higher than chess coms until 2500s?

I can see his next wall of writing coming already.

You can always count on sarcasm to fly over the heads of most people in these threads......

:brilliant

gambits are not stupid. they are the result of a philosophy of play that incures a certain type of play.

the root definition of gambit is to "gamble". the player is investing something of value, at a risk, to reap a potential reward.

but if i play d5 then you are gonna london me... and nobody wants to deal with a london... nobody...

I don't mind playing against the London.

I am not a big fan of the London either for or against it. But my chess life got easier once I understood that my opponent can play whatever they want. it's their move.

Yeah, gotta agree with chessterd. Why would I cry over a London as black? If I'm goint to cry over anything it's going to be over white playing in the most pressing manner possible, where I have to thread the needle to equalize, and London ain't that.

Well, my club has a list of permitted gambits. We don't even allow unsound opening play in offhand games let alone rated play. If players disobey our "house rules" we have a system of verbal and written warnings that could culminate into suspension from our club for a minimum of 47 days. We are doing our best to keep Chess "pure".

I guess Carlsen and Naka won't be playing for you then 🙂

That is, of course, permitted. Our special rules are, however, being unofficially challenged to the USCF. The "purity" of Chess was not disturbed by the en passant rule. Once one acknowledges me as the spiritual leader of the club, there should be minimal trouble. We even have a ceremony for new members in the darkened playing hall illuminated with 64 lanterns in which I ask, "Do you acknowledge me?" I ask this 3 times and then turn off the lanterns one by one. A minute of silence is observed. Then, the lights are turn on with cheering and applause. A little weird, you might say, but our club is well respected.

The London is playable against almost anything. That's kind of the point of being a system opening. I like the d5 Londons better than the Nf6 Londons.

Originally, a gambit is a sacrifice, where it's unclear wether the initiative one gets in compensation for the sacrificed material is enough or not. Like for basically everybody.

It has just nothing to do with the pecular results of a single players playing gambits or against gambits and their fortune or misfortune along it.

So, when one do post in the forum as if their life was everybody's life, they be a self centered whiner and should be ashamed of it.

This is a really bad example of a Gambit. The Englund simply sucks.

i enjoy making chess as fun as i can.I actively try to play sharp semi slav lines, dynamic grunfeld lines. strong kings indian lines, while the london player is trying to make the position as tame and slow as possible. Not to mention but 90% of the london players are just mindlessly following what their favorite streamer is telling them to do; "Move you queens pawn up two squares... Move your queens bishop to f4... then move your kings pawn up one... then develop your knights to f3 and d2.... and if they ever play c5, make sure to bring your c pawn up to protect your pyramid...."

like cmon man, grow a pair.

Depends on the gambit. The Landau Gambit is the best winning gambit because you lose if you accept it

Recently, I was able to win with a terrible gambit which has a trap but my opponent didn't play into it. I'm talking about the Oxford Gambit

I have now won with 190 different gambits on my Lichess account. If you want to participate in the Holy Gambit Grail, keep track of your gambit wins with Holy Gambit Grail List which I updated from Jonathon Schrantz (the creator) and use HolyGambitGrail.com to be able to visually see all the gambits you have won with. The site is not perfect so keep track of all the gambits with URLs for youself

I strongly disagree

I've never understood this. If your opponent plays a stupid opening, you should be able to punish it. If you can't punish it, maybe it isn't so stupid for your level.

Dubious gambits is too broad. The Omega Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.e4) is dubious and offers no compensation for the pawn. The Elephant Gambit is dubious but it has some venom if you are caught unprepared. It should be Good Gambits, Unsound but tricky, Unsound, and Outright awful like the Dudweiler (1.g4 d5 2.f4). The Spanish Countergambit may be seen as Outright awful but if White plays one of the two gambits, is it really that bad?