I would argue that below 2000 ELO you play whatever opening you enjoy playing.
And as bronsteinitz very nicely said: the more you play it, the better you are at it.
Evans is risky but sound gambit.
Both Fischer and Shirov played the Evans gambit with success; mauriciolopezsr
Bobby Fischer NEVER played the Evans Gambit in a serious game! He does include 2 games with it in My 60 Memorable Games - one is a skittles game vs a very rusty Dr Fine and the other is from a simul
I said He played it with success & He did! I did NOT say He played it in serious tournaments; as I said it is a very risky opening and this is why is seldom played in serious tournaments.
If you guys know of any Grand Master that plays the Evans gambit with success; please feel free to point them out. I fail to see the point of your outrage and your trashing of my suggestion. This is a social page, I merely made a suggestion where this person can find some modern Evans gambit games. That's it!
You can also add Shirov, who has played the Evans only once in his whole career (against Timman, some 18 years ago).
Mentioning players at random doesn't help at all, does it?
In many cases it is smart to decline a gambit to avoid a tactical slugfest that your opponent has memorized and has lots more experience in.
Also there are cases where accepting the gambit is not as much a challange than declining it (queens gambit comes to mind or the white pawn sac on a2 in the cambridge springs). Other gambits can just as well be refuted by declining them like the kingsgambit where both d5 and Bc5 are very strong setups.
Last but not least you are not chicken in you refuse a gambit and you certainly not suffering a mental loss. The opening in chess is about getting the position you like. If you accept a gambit and have to look at a very open and tactical position while you are a more slow positional player you are suffering a real mental loss.
People here compare the evans gambit with the kingsgambit where black gets easy equality. This is simply not true. The evansgambit is much stronger and more dangerous for black. The strong white center combined with active bischops give white pressure far into the middle game and black has to be accurate a very long time to avoid positional or tactical loss. People who do not want to learn move orders and/or are not tactically strong do better to decline the evans.
1) The move order 1. e4 - e5 2. f4 Lc5 does not invite the Evans gambit but is an independend line that is very strong against the kingsgambit
2) e5 is perfectly suited for a positional player. Yes there are some sharp variations but there is no way to avoid sharp variations as a black player (In French the Winawar and Chatard attack come to mind while in Caro Kann the Panov and certain variations of the advance come to mind). In some cases this means some study but when you are suprised the moves are often easier to find in e5 openings than in c6 and e6 openings. This is because e5 is the most logical and in a way most principal reply to e4. It is not for no reason that many positional masters (Kramnik, Karjakin, Jakovenko, etc) choose e5 as their main answer to e4.
3) As you state that you love tactics and believe that is the essence of chess I can understand your remark that a gambit should be accepted. Chess is more than just tactics there is also positional play. Combining tactical and positional play is what makes chess chess. Stating tactics is the essence of chess is like stating that your right leg is the essence of walking. You might move forward a little while just hopping around but in the end it is easier and faster to walk on 2 legs.
mauriciolopezsr The point is that saying "GM whoever played an opening with success" implies whatever the reader wants it to. It's not my problem you weren't more specific. AND playing a questionable or debatable opening vs amateurs or in blitz games isn't the same sort of endorsement as say, Kasparov playing the Evans Gambit vs Anand (1-0, Riga 1995) There's some evidence to support you - minus all of the blowhard indignation (on your part, not mine or IM pfrens) at being called out for providing incomplete, misleading "facts"
BTW saying someone played an opening with success without pointing out they did it once or twice in their entire career is also a tad shallow isn't it?
The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it STEINITZ
Well, there may be some "tactical" variations of the French and the Caro Kan but none of them even begin to compare with the tactics involved in the Evans Gambit! The difference is like if you are right handed and kick somebody with your left leg as compare to kicking him with your right leg.
As to tactics being the essence of Chess; we will just have to agree to disagree!
To me winning with tactics is like winning a baseball game 10-0; while you satisfied winning 1-0! true still a win; but not a win that the fans will be talking about for more than 15 minutes after the game; while a 10-0 knockout they will be talking for weeks!
See the difference?!
Gambits are offered for reasons.Chess being mental has the give and take from both sides of the table.....and each knows pretty much whats up w/ the opponent. A sac.,gambit, or positional edge is done for some factual basis....if nothing more then being experienced w/ the situation.Your opponent is not thinking....Queens gambit,this way he has an extra pawn that wins in the end game.