I will give this a start:
1. Latvian Gambit 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5
2. Albin Counter Gambit 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5
Does the jerome gambit count?
What about the Scott Baio gambit?
and what about the halloween gambit?
What is the halloween gambit?
What about the "Makin' it Rain Gambit"
Must be well known gambitss and I know "well known" is a matter of opinion.
This leaves out making it rain and Scot baio and I am not sure about Jerome or Halloween.
On others mentioned Kings Gambit is sound Wing Gambit is probably unsound
elephant gambit unsound--smith morra probably unsound Englund gambit no opinion.
Suggestion when gambit mentioned give the first moves--such as what are moves for jerome gambit and halloween?
Throw this in there: an old chess adage says no position is bad unless the opponent can take advantage of it. So an unsound gambit at certain higher levels of play can be a sharp weapon lower down. So on the one hand we might all like to play 'sound' chess, on the other hand there's the fun of the game - and winning however you can.
I think he was mentioning in general. But it is true - a BDG at 1100 rating is probably plenty good.
Yes, an unsound gambit can be a good weapon at lower levels of play but I am interested in which gambits are sound at the highest levels of play.
I am guessing the Jerome Gambit and the Halloween Gambit are unsound.
Since I have been a correspondence player most of my life--where each side may have days to make or consider one move--you will not see many unsound gambits in higher level correspondence chess.
Yes, I considered that such might be the case. But I wanted to throw my post in there because I thought it would be a worthwhile point to make in a discussion of gambits, and sound and unsound that is viewed by many levels of player (like lowly me).
You don't see gambits played so often by very strong players because sound or not, most players they face are also strong and experienced enough to know how to face them. At higher levels, you will far more often see pawn sacrifices in the early middle game, because these are original and the opponent will likely be surprised.
You consider the smith morra worse than the englund? That's surprising, personally I think the smith morra is sound but gives black a good game, while I can't see why anyone would play the englund.
And when you see pawn sac's in the early middle game--it is too late to call them "gambits" [i think]
Anyone have what they regard as refutations against some of these gambits?
By "refutations" I do not mean equalizing lines--I mean lines where the defense to the gambit has very good winning chances.
Why is albin counter gambit unsound?
Well yes the word "gambit" does have more than one meaning. I am trying to use the meaning as a sacrifice of material in the opening of a game.