Sound Gambits? - Chess Forums - Page 4

Spaceysmile

Nov 30, 2020

0

#61

As pointed by @MichalMalkowski ; Vienna Gambit is sound, though it may be a bit too sound that it is never accepted, or in other words it is best for black to not accept it.

Queen's Gambit is not a gambit. Yeah there are lines that white pushes for more compansation and black can hold the pawn, but these are very sidelines. I am unsure whether they are good or not but my point is Queen's Gambit is not really a gambit.

Well it is possible to compare it with Budapest Gambit to show my point. In Budapest Gambit, white can hold the pawn if they want, generally they dont hold but they can hold. On the other hand for Queen's gambit, black cannot keep their material advantage after 3.e3, for example.

Not a gambit, but, I disagree with Scandanavian being unsound. White generally have an advantage due to center situation (w:e4 b: d6) but it don't feel completely unsound.

I have no spesific idea about the line shown by @Marco (I remember that variation having a name but not sure on spesific name).

MichalMalkowski

Dec 1, 2020

0

#62

Spaceysmile napisał:

As pointed by @MichalMalkowski ; Vienna Gambit is sound, though it may be a bit too sound that it is never accepted, or in other words it is best for black to not accept it.

Queen's Gambit is not a gambit.

If you really thinks so, than Vienna Gambit is not a true gambit too. Black can't really afford to accept the pawn - white will either regain the pawn with a nice plus or crush black's position. White takes no risk here too, at least no other then one of black's forcing a dry equality. For this reason Vienna gambit is much weaker then queens gambit -the later es equally good accepted and declined.

It is funny thing with those gambits. If a gambit is "too sound" people no longer consider them a gambit. If they are too unsound the call them blunders or hanged pieces. Note - most time a player loses material, he gets a tiny compensation - in form of enemy pieces entering odd squares, leaving their natural posts and tasks. It takes time to consolidate back, which can be occasionaly exploited. In that case, the blunder becames "a brilliant exchange combination" :-).

Personaly i absolutelly disagree that the queens gambit is not a gambit. An opening sacrifice is an opening sacrifice. That one is simply temporal. There is assumption that the sacrifice must be for long or be unsound, which makes vienna, scotch and queens gambits "not true gambits".

KovenFan

Dec 1, 2020

0

#63

KeSetoKaiba wrote:

Marco wrote:

I came across this while reading David Smerdon's Scandinavian

While I personally feel the opening is sound, this is uncharted theory. At the time when David wrote his book 5...Bxf3 was a novelty and I could only find one game where it has been played since then.

Very interesting history. My opinion is that the Scandinavian is probably unsound, but complicated enough to be taken very seriously with human play (like how I feel about the King's Gambit). Bobby Fischer himself considered 1...d5?! to be dubious after 1. e4. In fact, Fischer literally laughed at his opponent once when Fischer played 1. e4 and they played the Scandinavian Defense.

In regards to this specific variation, it is unstudied so at least it has that going for it in practical play. The history you gave is interesting, but if I was White, I'd just play Be2 and castle Kingside swiftly. I think White is better there, but that is just me.

In a real game, chances are the opponent would at least be unfamiliar with the line and psychology may add some merit to the line. Objectively, theory or study means nothing for soundness; but in practical play, these factors sometimes matter a lot.

Be2 actually leads to a forced draw but white has to find a lot of only moves first.

emchel

Dec 1, 2020

0

#64

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, and I don't know if this is even considered a gambit, but you do sacrifice a pawn:

FusilliPasta

Dec 1, 2020

0

#65

emchel wrote:

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, and I don't know if this is even considered a gambit, but you do sacrifice a pawn:

Looks like a gambit to me; main things are a) Can B forcibly reclaim the pawn; and b) is the position roughly equal at worst. Looks like no to a, yes to b, so it counts. Saemisch gambit in the KID, according to the analysis, and it's +0.40ish which is standard.

I do think that a distinction should be drawn between temporary gambits where the pawn can be forcibly reclaimed and other gambits where it can't. Unfortunately, most gambits fall to adequate prep (and they don't suit my playstyle, generally).

Spaceysmile

Dec 1, 2020

0

#66

Well my point about Vienna Gambit is as far as I know white cannot take the pawn back in a forced way, but take too much compansation for the pawns.

emchel

Dec 1, 2020

0

#67

FusilliPasta wrote:

emchel wrote:

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, and I don't know if this is even considered a gambit, but you do sacrifice a pawn:

Looks like a gambit to me; main things are a) Can B forcibly reclaim the pawn; and b) is the position roughly equal at worst. Looks like no to a, yes to b, so it counts. Saemisch gambit in the KID, according to the analysis, and it's +0.40ish which is standard.

I do think that a distinction should be drawn between temporary gambits where the pawn can be forcibly reclaimed and other gambits where it can't. Unfortunately, most gambits fall to adequate prep (and they don't suit my playstyle, generally).

I'm thought that this line is fine for black, as in it's equal. Top players almost always play 7.Ne2 to avoid this endgame. I think this is one of the lines where black is fine even though he's down a pawn (my engine says it's fine and most players avoid it).

FusilliPasta

Dec 1, 2020

0

#68

emchel wrote:

FusilliPasta wrote:

emchel wrote:

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, and I don't know if this is even considered a gambit, but you do sacrifice a pawn:

Looks like a gambit to me; main things are a) Can B forcibly reclaim the pawn; and b) is the position roughly equal at worst. Looks like no to a, yes to b, so it counts. Saemisch gambit in the KID, according to the analysis, and it's +0.40ish which is standard.

I do think that a distinction should be drawn between temporary gambits where the pawn can be forcibly reclaimed and other gambits where it can't. Unfortunately, most gambits fall to adequate prep (and they don't suit my playstyle, generally).

I'm thought that this line is fine for black, as in it's equal. Top players almost always play 7.Ne2 to avoid this endgame. I think this is one of the lines where black is fine even though he's down a pawn (my engine says it's fine and most players avoid it).

Yeah, I agree that black's fine. Not a position I'd like, personally, but that doesn't mean it's bad Some gambits do work to give imbalances and dynamic chances getting out of book.

NM tactic

Dec 29, 2020

0

#69

I recommend e5 after 1.f5 for black, as you will open many dangerous lines towards the white king.

Would only recommend in online blitz, bullet, or rapid, as with classical or over the board this gambit almost never works with the same charm as it does online.

KeSetoKaiba

Dec 29, 2020

0

#70

tactixianchess wrote:

I recommend e5 after 1.f5 for black, as you will open many dangerous lines towards the white king.

Would only recommend in online blitz, bullet, or rapid, as with classical or over the board this gambit almost never works with the same charm as it does online.

Noted. I actually knew a USCF expert (2000+ rating) who used From's Gambit with good success under classical time controls. I don't know if they still play it though; I kind of doubt it, but just goes to show what one can "get away with" if they are well studied in the line.

Moonwarrior_1

Dec 30, 2020

0

#71

Epiloque wrote:

although ik the elephant and latvian are horribly unsound if you don't know the theory, but they can catch you off guard easily

Latvian has actually worked ok for me, granted I use them to catch an opponent off guard. And it probably wouldn’t work agaisnt a 2000+ player