Sound Gambits?

Honestly, I dont belive in gambits, at all. Certeanly there are gambits that are easily countered, others a bit harder, but your question was: " Are any of these openings objectively solid if the opponent knows their stuff well?" If the opponent knows these gambit lines, then no!

Yes, gambits are fun, and they can be good in bullets, blitz, sometimes in rapid games too. But if you play againts a well educated, experienced opponent with a long time control game, they will just beat you positionally in the end. I have never lost an OTB long game, against any gambit. True, I didn't see them much,(for a good reason) only in internet blitz, and rapid games. I lost some game here, but not too much.

For fun, sometimes I try out a few gambit lines, when Im in the mood (last one was the Stafford Gambit). I have fun with that, but no way I would play it when the match is realy important. It has many tricks that are harder to detect, check it out if you want.

But I recommend that you dont play ANY gambit lines in serious play, Yes there are some that seem sound for a while, but in the end at higher level, you gonna have problems. The difference between the lines, that some of them need a higher skill to prove they are wrong.

I don't mind facing gambits here at chess.com. As I said, they are fun, there is a "thrill" when I try to prove them wrong. Most of the time, I do, sometimes, I don't, Then I just check the engine at the end, which totaly crushes those, and I try to learn from it. It can be a useful later on if someone is crazy enough to try one of those in OTB championships.

Long story short: they wouldn't be called gambit lines if they were sound?

If you seen a doctor type well I have. They type 80wpm

Well, I can add Italian-Greco Gambit. Black may avoid it, and I don't exactly remember its analyze but as I know it leads into draw with both sides need to play very accurately (assuming gambit is accepted).

I did not include Smith-Morra/Evans/King's Gambit as I have no idea about Smith-Morra and King's Gambit, and I am unsure on Evans being sound due to some side variations.

Great post +1

This was exactly my opinion on gambits when I started playing chess. Intuitively, they just felt "wrong" - like a shortcut of "hope chess" or playing in a manner that was inviting you to get crushed positionally. 

I NEVER played gambits seriously (and hardly ever played them at all in casual games too), but now I am not so sure about some gambits. Some of them might be sound I think. Most are not sound at all (some are easier to see why than others). 

That is why I created this thread: I am at a philosophical crossroads. Should I include any gambits in my opening repertoire (serious OTB long-time control games as well as shorter games for fun)?

As of now, the answer is "no" - I do not use gambits and I prefer to play positionally solid. However, I am beginning to rethink that a few gambits may be playable (even if the opponent is a strong player who is familiar with opening theory).

Staunton is OK. But not great.

Froms gambit is technically sound but since I'm not biased I believe it is unsound 

Benko fully accepted is dubious

All right, thanks for sharing your thoughts on them.

I'd say that the Budapest is fully sound but not good by any means. Morra is soundish. Marshall Gambit is a rare sound and also good gambit.

KesetoKaiba Wrote:"As of now, the answer is "no" - I do not use gambits and I prefer to play positionally solid. However, I am beginning to rethink that a few gambits may be playable (even if the opponent is a strong player who is familiar with opening theory)."----

If there is some gambit lines, prove to be solid, even if the opponent plays 100% accuracy, then it's just a gambit in name only. The question is: is it worth the time and energy to study these lines in very deep detail? Maybe with that time and energy someone would prefer to study long term knowledge of chess, that can be applied more part of the game, not just in THAT specific opening theory? I know, I will skip study gambits in deep detail, but we are different. Good luck with that "philosophical crossroads"

Thanks. Part of this comes from me playing some players that tend to specialize in one or two openings. For example, one player I know plays the Dutch Defense for Black a lot. I usually play the solid mainlines against it as White (originally things like the Leningrad Dutch, but recently I've been liking the fianchetto, classical, lines for White against it), so I was curious if I should try playing something like the Staunton Gambit in a rated game against them.

Most of the time, I avoid gambits though (especially long time controls), but yeah I'm experimenting a bit. I'll probably still keep away from gambits in general (generally just not my play-style), but I want to know from experience which ones are sound (if any) and the reasoning why. 

"Mistrust is the most necessary characteristic of a chess player." - Siegbert Tarrasch

Well, that road won't be boring that's for sure. Have fun with it!

The Scotch Gambit

I really like this one.

At worst you lose a pawn for the bishop pair. 

Cool, but I've already gotten this exact position with Black in several OTB games before and I like my chances with Black since I've studied it a lot - I like sharp lines like this

This is a great weapon in bullet. I have started playing the spanish, but I use this gambit in blitz and bullet whenever I can. 

Anti-moscow gambit in the semi-slav. No real way for white to get the pawn back, but, in my experience, the games are crazy sharp. Had one the other day with three exchange sacs, most of the time I don't castle as black... It really helps that most of the other lines of the semislav are quiet positional ones (well, that white can enter - moscow, meran and anti meran), but I do think that white is favoured after sacrificing the c-pawn. If you're an attacking, sharp player, then the anti moscow is probably your best bet for handling that opening. I'll agree that most gambits are shaky when the opponent knows the lines.

IMO Evans Gambit is sound:

How about Budapest gambit?

I used to get destroyed playing black against the Danish Gambit, studied it and now get a ton of lightning fast wins playing it as white. But that's only if Black fully takes the two pawns. If he plays the Sorensen Defense, for example, you're basically out of luck and down a pawn.

Also like Albin Counter Gambit against Queen's Gambit, Orthoschnapp Gambit against French Defense, Calabrese Countergambit against Bishop's Opening, and Falkbeer Countergambit against King's Gambit.

pretty scary