King's Gambit- Trash- exf4 Nf3 Nf6! and White's going to need both considerable luck and skill to hold
Budapest- Playable but just leads to a pleasant position for White that can be pressed comfortably
Latvian- Just Bad
Stafford- Tricky but objectively just gets Black a worse position
So, I'd say that from least to most dubious: Budapest, Stafford, KG, Latvian
It is beyond lame..worse than bongcloud.
I doubt it's objectively as bad as the Bongcloud or Latvian. This is a bit off topic but I found out about the Stafford Gambit by watching Eric Rosen (who I recently subscribed to) as he goes on about how he beats GMs with it and I see it happen on his stream but the Stafford is just the Boden Kieseritzky down a tempo, and then goes on in another video saying how as White if someone plays the Stafford on you mirror and hope Black takes your pawn actually trying to transpose to the real Boden-Kieseritzky somehow and says "no one will ever find these moves" about some of the moves in the mainline that I knew from a very long time ago and always play. This is a bit off topic, but in the video I'm in right now with chessbrah he seems to be recommending accepting the Benoni Gambit, which is just awful. White can actually get close to winning by declining and playing Nc3, but he suggests taking because "it's tricky" and then shows Black playing a bunch of moves that lose right away... though then he shows one of the real moves and ChessBru says "that's a pro move" as if he's surprised, and he's a GM and this is real beginner stuff?, everyone who plays that opening will know all of those lines and they're good for Black. I stopped and I don't know if I'll get through the video. It's so weird.
King's Gambit- Trash- exf4 Nf3 Nf6! and White's going to need both considerable luck and skill to hold
Budapest- Playable but just leads to a pleasant position for White that can be pressed comfortably
Latvian- Just Bad
Stafford- Tricky but objectively just gets Black a worse position
So, I'd say that from least to most dubious: Budapest, Stafford, KG, Latvian
Budapest leads to least open and tricky positions out of the mentioned. I like to play it just because i hate basically every possible line of QG as black. I know its not too solid, but many people dont know it and its very easy to get out of opening without much study.
Regarding KGA: I would agree with you about knights gambit variation, as i love to play it as black and almost always get out of opening with advantage. Most positions i play tend to converge to Hanstein gambit lines, which are comfortable to play.
But there is bishops gambit line, which is more tricky. As white i always play bishops gambit with good success both OTB and blitz online. And well... if not success, at least games tend to very entertaining. In OTB matches when i play KGA, most observers will stay next to my board watching the game, because besides being funny to play, its also funny to watch.
Someone tried the stafford on me in 3+2 and well: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Nxc6 dxc6 5. d3 Bc5 6. Be2 h5 7. h3 Nxe4 8. dxe4 Qh4 9. O-O Bxh3 10. Qd3 Bg4 11. Nd2 Bd6 12. e5 Bxe5 13. g3 Qf6 14. Nc4 and idk what compensation there is. The stafford is too well known now every e4 player has probably taken a cursory glance with an engine and it seems that is enough to know how to refute it
King's Gambit- Trash- exf4 Nf3 Nf6! and White's going to need both considerable luck and skill to hold
Budapest- Playable but just leads to a pleasant position for White that can be pressed comfortably
Latvian- Just Bad
Stafford- Tricky but objectively just gets Black a worse position
So, I'd say that from least to most dubious: Budapest, Stafford, KG, Latvian
Paul Morphy: Allow me to introduce myself.
In all seriousness though, the Kings Gambit is actually a very good weapon. In practice, it is the best scoring of the lot. (39.8 percent wins for white, (40 percent loss, but no one cares) while stafford has a 100 percent loss rate, budapest has only a 21 percent win rate with 50 percent wins for white, and don't even get me started on the latvian. )
King's gambit doesn't work against players who know how to defend properly. In the 1800s no one really knew the right ways to get an better position or even just an equal one in many cases. KG scores well against the weak and unprepared. Magnus himself tried to have some fun with it in an online tourney and got promptly crushed by Ding's Schallop Defence.
Ivanchuk also won with it in the legends of chess tournament.
King's Gambit- Trash- exf4 Nf3 Nf6! and White's going to need both considerable luck and skill to hold
Budapest- Playable but just leads to a pleasant position for White that can be pressed comfortably
Latvian- Just Bad
Stafford- Tricky but objectively just gets Black a worse position
So, I'd say that from least to most dubious: Budapest, Stafford, KG, Latvian
Paul Morphy: Allow me to introduce myself.
In all seriousness though, the Kings Gambit is actually a very good weapon. In practice, it is the best scoring of the lot. (39.8 percent wins for white, (40 percent loss, but no one cares) while stafford has a 100 percent loss rate, budapest has only a 21 percent win rate with 50 percent wins for white, and don't even get me started on the latvian. )
Nf3 is not a very good line for kings gambit. As you mentioned Nf6 and black is doing fine while white has no real compensation. However the most correct line of Kings Gambit is actually 2 Bc4! The point is to provoke Qh4+ where white plays Kf1 and generate lots of tempi and an attack for Blacks misplaced Queen as well as build a strong center.
This makes the kings Gambit alot better. I would change the rankings slightly.
@chesschurro I thought Bc4 was dubious, and that is why I went for Nf3.
King's Gambit- Trash- exf4 Nf3 Nf6! and White's going to need both considerable luck and skill to hold
Budapest- Playable but just leads to a pleasant position for White that can be pressed comfortably
Latvian- Just Bad
Stafford- Tricky but objectively just gets Black a worse position
So, I'd say that from least to most dubious: Budapest, Stafford, KG, Latvian
I'm not sure how a USCF expert can seriously put the Stafford gambit as less dubious than the Kings Gambit. Stafford is certainly losing by force. As for Budapest... well sure it's playable for a Black gambit, but certainly no more so than the KG.
I'd say KG = Budapest > Stafford > Latvian.
King's gambit doesn't work against players who know how to defend properly. In the 1800s no one really knew the right ways to get an better position or even just an equal one in many cases. KG scores well against the weak and unprepared. Magnus himself tried to have some fun with it in an online tourney and got promptly crushed by Ding's Schallop Defence.
Promptly crushed in a game he has an equal position in after move 12. But by all means lets blame the opening!
It is beyond lame..worse than bongcloud.
Because the Bongcloud is the best opening... right?
It is beyond lame..worse than bongcloud.
Because the Bongcloud is the best opening... right?
No.
I doubt it's objectively as bad as the Bongcloud or Latvian. This is a bit off topic but I found out about the Stafford Gambit by watching Eric Rosen (who I recently subscribed to) as he goes on about how he beats GMs with it and I see it happen on his stream but the Stafford is just the Boden Kieseritzky down a tempo, and then goes on in another video saying how as White if someone plays the Stafford on you mirror and hope Black takes your pawn actually trying to transpose to the real Boden-Kieseritzky somehow and says "no one will ever find these moves" about some of the moves in the mainline that I knew from a very long time ago and always play. This is a bit off topic, but in the video I'm in right now with chessbrah he seems to be recommending accepting the Benoni Gambit, which is just awful. White can actually get close to winning by declining and playing Nc3, but he suggests taking because "it's tricky" and then shows Black playing a bunch of moves that lose right away... though then he shows one of the real moves and ChessBru says "that's a pro move" as if he's surprised, and he's a GM and this is real beginner stuff?, everyone who plays that opening will know all of those lines and they're good for Black. I stopped and I don't know if I'll get through the video. It's so weird.
Yeah, s_vita, it's weird, though. On the one hand these guys are recommending bad lines and on the other playing blindfold blitz simuls... I can't do that!... and then one of them refutes some GM's refutation of the Stafford which is the line we're talking about here... when a GM makes a 30 some minute video going through every variation and recommends White play a certain way to get a winning advantage, and then a streamer goes on and beats Stockfish in one of those lines by going into a line the GM probably never considered since Stockfish says it's +10 or more but Stockfish was actually having a problem with the horizon effect and "doesn't understand the position", and then some nobody player comes along and draws that GM in the same line by playing the same way (which I'm pretty sure is what happened if I remember right)... then I think twice about the original question of this thread. I can see if I can find the videos and post here if people don't know what I'm talking about and want to... my takeaway is just... think again... chess is hard.
Yeah, s_vita, it's weird, though. On the one hand these guys are recommending bad lines and on the other playing blindfold blitz simuls... I can't do that!... and then one of them refutes some GM's refutation of the Stafford which is the line we're talking about here... when a GM makes a 30 some minute video going through every variation and recommends White play a certain way to get a winning advantage, and then a streamer goes on and beats Stockfish in one of those lines by going into a line the GM probably never considered since Stockfish says it's +10 or more but Stockfish was actually having a problem with the horizon effect and "doesn't understand the position", and then some nobody player comes along and draws that GM in the same line by playing the same way (which I'm pretty sure is what happened if I remember right)... then I think twice about the original question of this thread. I can see if I can find the videos and post here if people don't know what I'm talking about and want to... my takeaway is just... think again... chess is hard.
No-one is beating Stockfish with a gambit unless under very suspect conditions. For example Johnathan Schwartz "Beating" Stockfish 12. Except he ran Stockfish 12 on 1 CPU and got 420kN/s (compared to the 12000kN/s I get on my PC). He also didn't play Stockfish 12 under time controls, he just played moves vs the analysis board and then played the engines top move in response (so no time management heuristics were used lol).
So much false content out there. Sigh.
But anyways, in regards to your post. I think I see what you are trying to say, and Chess is a complex enough game that even a "losing by force" gambit can get a winning position if your opponent makes one mistake. Problem is with engine lines and opening preparation, is it worth it go go -0.5 as White with a tricky gambit, when you can stay +0.5 and look to build on your advantage? I would say it depends on what your goals are and what you enjoy. A lot of titled players forget that a large number of people have no ambition about getting titles, they just wanna play online, and the best thing about online play is that the lower the time control the more dubious lines you can play. I don't know why anyone would want to play the Four (Bore) Knights in a 5+3. Give me the Kings Gambit any day!
I'm fairly sure I saw Schwartz using a real time control when he played against Stockfish (he has quite a few videos of this so we may be thinking of different ones) but I hear you.
Lets compare this opening to other crazy ones:
- Latvian gambit
- Budapest gambit
- King gambit accepted
You can even add others you like / encountered.
I know its dubious for OTB play, just want to hear opinion of some other players, how dubious you think it actually is compared other dubious openings.
I have to say i am intrigued by it. I love the dynamics it creates (KGA fashion). But engines give it very bad prospect, i also checked refutation and its very easy to refute.
How i see it: From the least dubious until most dubious:
1. KGA (fully playable, i play it every time i get a chance in OTB club games)
2. Budapesst gambit (playable OTB)
3. Latvian gambit (i am afraid to play it in long time controls)
4. Stafford gambit.
Honestly, i would love somebody to persuade me its not that bad, since its just so cool, funny and everything. But i have doubts about it