Gambit are just theoretical sacrifices that have been named. Any gambit book will list most of those variations in it, just because they were not named 'gambit' does not mean they are not.
The poisoned pawns are gambits, just because its ignoring the threat does not mean its not a gambit, there are many similar ones such as the trompowsky vaganian and torre spassky which gambit the b pawn in the same style and are named Vaganian GAMBIT spassky GAMBIT.
Marshall gambit against the triangle is a legitimate try.
Botvinnik, is a gambit, in the same way as the others are. Most sources should confirm this is a gambit.
Schliemann, it doesnt matter if YOU dont find it sound. If i said, "i dont find the ruy lopez sound" would it matter?
Im not really too familiar with siesta so ill take your word for it, though i dont believe it is unsound.
Vaganian gambits listed: 1.d4 nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.d5 Qb6 4.nc3 Qxb2
in which case white does play 3.d5
or
1.d4 nf6 2.c4 c5 3.nf3 cxd4 4.nxd4 e5 is the start of the vaganian gambit. If white played 3.d5 it would be mainline, not vaganian, so its kind of stupid to make a point of it.
Sveshnikov b5 sacrifices (move 9.???) are still gambits, theyre listed in altermans gambit guide along with most others mentioned.
Just because you have good results against an opening does not make it unsound. I had a flawless 5-3-0 record against the open sicilian OTB when i played sicilian for a while against higher rated players. Does this make the open sicilian unsound?
Very unsound? I think thats an overstatement, with accurate play i think its =. Once again your results againt an opening are not indicative of its level of playability.
The Spassky and Petrosian gambits are two inside the Torre attack. The spassky gambit is another gambit where white 'ignores' the threat, and yet its a gambit!!! how about that? A simple google search, or opening search here will find them.
The fantasy variations gambit was what i was talking about, im not sure of its exact name.
Goring gambit 3..d5 is =
You have a very unscientific approach to openings.
Repertoire for Black against e4
Sort:
ThrillerFan wrote:
If the b5 sacrifices you're talking about in the Shveshnikov where you sac your bishop and get both knights to attack c7, I thought Kasparov or someone refuted it or made it a dubious sacrifice with Ra4. Previously everyone returned the exchange with Ra7 I think, but once again...I don't have enough info on this.
the b5 sacrifices that are dubious are earlier in the game. White can wait it out until an ideal time to sacrifice, its very positional he gets 2 pawns for a piece and also connected queenside passers.