How to gain from a gambit?

Most gambits provide you with some sort of advantage, usually in development (ie. open line for bishops, more pieces out, etc.) The problem is that if you don't know how to use that advantage and convert it into something you can use to win the game, it doesn't help much. So what is the best way to use the advantage from a gambit?

There are sound gambit and unsound ones. Some of them are easy to play and other aren't. For example don't play sth like evans gambit. Gambits which i could recommend you are: Morra gambit, Danish, Benko, 2 knights defence(sometimes is kind of a gambit), maybe Marschall Attack vs spanish(i know there are many antimarshall, but in fact u can play marschall attack anyway, despite it is less effective then, attack still will be very strong, very hard to defend)

All of these gambits are sound(maybe apart of morra gambit, but i am not sure), easier to play for your side and u should achieve at least equal positions, but defending is difficult, 1 bad move and position could collapse. Check them on wikipedia, try them and have fun:)

The best way to refute a gambit is by accepting it!

The morra is less sound then most, I think the evans actually is better but neither are sound. Um I think in alot of the alekhines defence lines 14...c4 can often work as a gambit and is completly sound. alot of the catalan structures have a sound gambit of the c pawn aswell.

Popular statement, but not always true:p

Queens gambit isnt a real gambit, and according to ECO there is only 1 line where black could be better in morra gambit, moreover accepting is good only when u know a gambit very well, if not u are asking for trouble

 Yes but that is a double edged sword. A gambit only works if you have a thorough knowledge of it's counters.

I see. So, if not a gambit, what is it?

 You seem to imply here that the danish gambit is more "sound" than the evans gambit. I have to disagree, I believe the evans gambit is the sounder of the two.

No, i think that evans gambit is more difficult to play. However, danish hasn't got many variations and it isn't refuted, if black accepts, he can easily equalize, but nothing more. Danish is just more practical, also u can't play Evans vs 2 knights, which is very popular defence

i lose a pawn and then call it a gambit... but that doesn't count does it... :P

Well, I don't think "sound" is the same as "reaching an easy position". White usually wants more out of the opening than just a position which is dead equal and easy to play, such as occurs after an early d7-d5 by Black in the Danish. Play in the Evans is much more complicated, and so offers more chances to falter to the defender. Isn't that a point you have made earlier yourself, darnok?

Although not officially refuted, I don't think the Evans is really White's best try after 1.e4 e5. Then again it has been used by Garry Kasparov at the height of his career (although admittedly not very often), which definitely can't be said about the Danish or the Smith-Morra.

Thanks for the replies, but I don't think my question was really understood. Let's take for example the Danish gambit, I'm playing white. If we go through the main lines to around move 10 and reach a relatively equal position then everything is okay and I simply play out the middlegame and endgame. However, if my opponent plays a line that I don't know, I often just lose my whole advantage and end up simply being 2 pawns down. What I want to know is how do you maintain an advantage and use it to build an attack, what are the main principles / ideas?

Well, of course the game is still subject to the common rules of chess strategy. In order to know which plan to follow, you need to be aware what you sacrificed your material for.

In some cases that may be swift development and heavy threats against the enemy king, in other cases again you may have sacrificed your material for positional assets like good outpost squares, superior structure or pressure/a bind on the position. While in the first cases you will have to play very energetically, keep creating threats and always be on the lookout for heavy tactical blows, the latter case will require you to strengthen your position until your opponent's defence just crumbles - unless you can find a sudden tactic, that is.

Really, this absolutely depends on the kind of position you have entered by which kind of gambit, hence I suppose Gonnosuke's question "which gambit?" is motivated.

The Queen's Gambit is really only the offering of a pawn, since most people decline it anyway. The Smith-Morra Gambit is good against amateurs, but masters would tear right through it. The King's Gambit is absolute garbage; unsound and only playable against people who have not seen it very often. The Benko Gambit is very powerful.

In general, you should try to accept gambits, since if you can survive the ensuing fight, your extra material can ensure a good game for you. Hence, a gambit is refuted if accepted; or so they say.

Never, ever accept the Queen's Gambit. You will be absolutely crushed against anyone who knows what they're doing.

The kings gambit is absolute garbage?!  It scores better than the Benko gambit and yet you say the benko gambit is ok?!  Such great players as Spassky and Bronstein did very well with kings gambits.

This was a discussion a long time ago...Just look up the Gambit on Wikipedia or something. I have done my homework on this gambit, and have researched a lot of lines and the concensus of most modern grandmasters is that the King's gambit is playable, but not very sound and certainly not very dynamic. The mere fact that it is not seen very mush in high-level play should mean something to you.

It scores better than the Benko gambit in amateur play, yes. At least books have been written on whether to accept the Benko or not, whereas everyone knows you should take the pawn in the King's Gambit. White has just blundered his entire Kingside!

I have books on the kings gambit, I dont use wikipedia for chess knowledge. The reason you dont see the kings gambit at high levels is that it doesnt suit the styles of the top GMs, they consider it too risky. However, I dont believe any GM would say the kings gambit is "garbage". You also dont see the benko gambit a lot at the top either, most top GMs dont like to give away a pawn in the opening when facing another top GM.

Reb,

now listen up big fellah, some young kid with a rating 1000 points lower than yours is trying to teach you something. Pin your ears back, what do you think you are? a Master or something?

I play the Vienna Gambit, when black takes a pawn it will be very difficult for him to defend his king and dont lose a pawn. I don't knpw what my level is now (in ELO) but against 1900 players I dont lose much with this opening, I've defeated an 2200 player in a rapid game in the clubcompetition. When you know the theory this is an opening you can play "safe". At lower levels this opening works really well.

I learn my openings by searching as many as possible games in my database (made from TWIC-databases). I make a tree from this games, then I see automatically what is the main line and which moves are deadly. Books are an other good option, but many books aren't good.