No, it's nomenclature. The queens and kings gambits both offer a small edge for white with best play.
The kings gambit offers black easy equality if black knows the lines.
I think you are referring to the queens combination and the kings combination.
Pacifique, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Albin offers an edge for black!
It`s ridiculous to misintepret other`s posts. My point was that Black has a good practical chances to have even better position if White makes some inaccuracies (like Ponz did in his analysis).
After1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. g3 Nge7 6. Bg2 Ng6 7. O-O Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9. b3 Black can play 9...Bc5.
Pacifique, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Albin offers an edge for black!
It`s ridiculous to misintepret other`s posts. My point was that Black has a good practical chances to have even better position if White makes some inaccuracies (like Ponz did in his analysis).
Thats the point in nearly every black gambit...if White is playing a good or perfect opening theory, middlegame and endgame, Black will struggle to reach a draw.
As a Black gambit player you hope for inaccuracies, mistakes or even blunders from the White player.
I constantly play the Englund and the Latvian and i also choose the weaker lines of both gambits, although they are totally refuted.
I know these lines very good and i hope White doesnt...its fun, but against players + 2100 i have nearly no chance and most time i get crushed inbetween 20 - 30 moves.
I have to accept this circumstance or try a more sound respond, maybe The Jaenisch Gambit instead of the Latvian against these strong players.
Pacifique, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Albin offers an edge for black!
It`s ridiculous to misintepret other`s posts. My point was that Black has a good practical chances to have even better position if White makes some inaccuracies (like Ponz did in his analysis).
Thats the point in nearly every black gambit...if White is playing a good or perfect opening theory, middlegame and endgame, Black will struggle to reach a draw.
As a Black gambit player you hope for inaccuracies, mistakes or even blunders from the White player.
I constantly play the Englund and the Latvian and i also choose the weaker lines of both gambits, although they are totally refuted.
I know these lines very good and i hope White doesnt...its fun, but against players + 2100 i have nearly no chance and most time i get crushed inbetween 20 - 30 moves.
I have to accept this circumstance or try a more sound respond, maybe The Jaenisch Gambit instead of the Latvian against these strong players.
1) Even modern engines don`t play perfect. Neither humans do.
2) It depends on how it`s easy for White is to find these "good or perfect" opening moves. Playing vs Latvian and Englund its much easier that playing vs Albin when you are facing knowledgable opponent. We can see that even experienced CC player like ponz has problems to find sure way to White`s advantage in Albin, even with engine assistance.
There are too many people trying to force immature or incorrect ideas on others and trying to make cheap points which degenerate into silly arguments.
Enjoy!
Pacifique, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Albin offers an edge for black!
It`s ridiculous to misintepret other`s posts. My point was that Black has a good practical chances to have even better position if White makes some inaccuracies (like Ponz did in his analysis).
Thats the point in nearly every black gambit...if White is playing a good or perfect opening theory, middlegame and endgame, Black will struggle to reach a draw.
As a Black gambit player you hope for inaccuracies, mistakes or even blunders from the White player.
I constantly play the Englund and the Latvian and i also choose the weaker lines of both gambits, although they are totally refuted.
I know these lines very good and i hope White doesnt...its fun, but against players + 2100 i have nearly no chance and most time i get crushed inbetween 20 - 30 moves.
I have to accept this circumstance or try a more sound respond, maybe The Jaenisch Gambit instead of the Latvian against these strong players.
1) Even modern engines don`t play perfect. Neither humans do.
2) It depends on how it`s easy for White is to find these "good or perfect" opening moves. Playing vs Latvian and Englund its much easier that playing vs Albin when you are facing knowledgable opponent. We can see that even experienced CC player like ponz has problems to find sure way to White`s advantage in Albin, even with engine assistance.
Playing vs. the Latvian and Englund is only easier when you have good knowledge...but if you havent, you are doomed!
Playing vs. the Albin with little knowledge is much easier for White, because Black threatens nothing special...therefore i dont favor these positional gambits, like the Albin, the Benko or the Budapest, although they are even more sound as the Latvian and the tactical Englund-Variations (Soller, Blackburne, Hartlaub). The Englund main line with 2...Nc6 and 3...Qe7 is also not my style, because there you have the same problem as in the Albin...simply less tactical traps or ideas.
Pacifique, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Albin offers an edge for black!
It`s ridiculous to misintepret other`s posts. My point was that Black has a good practical chances to have even better position if White makes some inaccuracies (like Ponz did in his analysis).
Thats the point in nearly every black gambit...if White is playing a good or perfect opening theory, middlegame and endgame, Black will struggle to reach a draw.
As a Black gambit player you hope for inaccuracies, mistakes or even blunders from the White player.
I constantly play the Englund and the Latvian and i also choose the weaker lines of both gambits, although they are totally refuted.
I know these lines very good and i hope White doesnt...its fun, but against players + 2100 i have nearly no chance and most time i get crushed inbetween 20 - 30 moves.
I have to accept this circumstance or try a more sound respond, maybe The Jaenisch Gambit instead of the Latvian against these strong players.
1) Even modern engines don`t play perfect. Neither humans do.
2) It depends on how it`s easy for White is to find these "good or perfect" opening moves. Playing vs Latvian and Englund its much easier that playing vs Albin when you are facing knowledgable opponent. We can see that even experienced CC player like ponz has problems to find sure way to White`s advantage in Albin, even with engine assistance.
Playing vs. the Latvian and Englund is only easier when you have good knowledge...but if you havent, you are doomed!
Playing vs. the Albin with little knowledge is much easier for White, because Black threatens nothing special...therefore i dont favor these positional gambits, like the Albin, the Benko or the Budapest, although they are even more sound as the Latvian and the tactical Englund-Variations (Soller, Blackburne, Hartlaub). The Englund main line with 2...Nc6 and 3...Qe7 is also not my style, because there you have the same problem as in the Albin...simply less tactical traps or ideas.
Sorry,but you seem not to understand what are you talking about.
Against Latvian it`s easy to have a safe and better position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 (move known by most more or less decent players) without taking much a risk. Lines like 3...Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2 is easy to play for White even without any knowledge. Or do you play crap like 3...Nc6 to lose after 4.d4 ?
White is not obliged to hold extra pawn also in Englund and even opponent who knows nothing about it can have a safe position.
Black compensation in Albin is more positional - wedge at d4 so if White will not know what to do Black will have at least equal chances. To say nothing on the fact that Albin has some tactical traps too.
Pacifique, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Albin offers an edge for black!
It`s ridiculous to misintepret other`s posts. My point was that Black has a good practical chances to have even better position if White makes some inaccuracies (like Ponz did in his analysis).
Thats the point in nearly every black gambit...if White is playing a good or perfect opening theory, middlegame and endgame, Black will struggle to reach a draw.
As a Black gambit player you hope for inaccuracies, mistakes or even blunders from the White player.
I constantly play the Englund and the Latvian and i also choose the weaker lines of both gambits, although they are totally refuted.
I know these lines very good and i hope White doesnt...its fun, but against players + 2100 i have nearly no chance and most time i get crushed inbetween 20 - 30 moves.
I have to accept this circumstance or try a more sound respond, maybe The Jaenisch Gambit instead of the Latvian against these strong players.
1) Even modern engines don`t play perfect. Neither humans do.
2) It depends on how it`s easy for White is to find these "good or perfect" opening moves. Playing vs Latvian and Englund its much easier that playing vs Albin when you are facing knowledgable opponent. We can see that even experienced CC player like ponz has problems to find sure way to White`s advantage in Albin, even with engine assistance.
Playing vs. the Latvian and Englund is only easier when you have good knowledge...but if you havent, you are doomed!
Playing vs. the Albin with little knowledge is much easier for White, because Black threatens nothing special...therefore i dont favor these positional gambits, like the Albin, the Benko or the Budapest, although they are even more sound as the Latvian and the tactical Englund-Variations (Soller, Blackburne, Hartlaub). The Englund main line with 2...Nc6 and 3...Qe7 is also not my style, because there you have the same problem as in the Albin...simply less tactical traps or ideas.
Sorry,but you seem not to understand what are you talking about.
Against Latvian it`s easy to have a safe and better position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 (move known by most more or less decent players) without taking much a risk. Lines like 3...Qf6 4. d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Be2 is easy to play for White even without any knowledge. Or do you play crap like 3...Nc6 to lose after 4.d4 ?
White is not obliged to hold extra pawn also in Englund and even opponent who knows nothing about it can have a safe position.
Black compensation in Albin is more positional - wedge at d4 so if White will not know what to do Black will have at least equal chances. To say nothing on the fact that Albin has some tactical traps too.
I think i know what iam talking about for sure...
How many games youve ever played against the Soller-Gambit or the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit?
Its a myth that you only have to play "natural" moves to get a safe position, ive won so many games, where my opponents had no idea what to do and started to play schematic moves only to find themself in a lost position after move 10 - 15...it doesnt work always and sometimes you have to accept quick losses, but my results improved dramatically since ive started to play these so called crap.
And yes...i prefer 3...Nc6 (the Fraser-Variation)in the Latvian...how did you know??? 
I do not doubt that the Albin is one of the better gambits from the theoretical point of view, but i dont like the positions occuring in this opening. I prefer more straight forward woodpushing chess 
I has been played numerous online blitz & bullet games against both of them (Soller-Gambit or the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit). Had no reason to complain about opening.
I has been played numerous online blitz & bullet games against both of them (Soller-Gambit or the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit). Had no reason to complain about opening.
OK, you are an experienced player, who will find a refutation OTB with little knowledge or you have been preparing a line against these gambits.
But on my level its not common...believe me. I wouldnt play these stuff if i get my a.. kicked constantly...iam not a masochist 
I has been played numerous online blitz & bullet games against both of them (Soller-Gambit or the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit). Had no reason to complain about opening.
OK, you are an experienced player, who will find a refutation OTB with little knowledge or you have been preparing a line against these gambits.
But on my level its not common...believe me. I wouldnt play these stuff if i get my a.. kicked constantly...iam not a masochist
I did not have a need to prepare against such an openings. :)
I has been played numerous online blitz & bullet games against both of them (Soller-Gambit or the Blackburne-Hartlaub-Gambit). Had no reason to complain about opening.
OK, you are an experienced player, who will find a refutation OTB with little knowledge or you have been preparing a line against these gambits.
But on my level its not common...believe me. I wouldnt play these stuff if i get my a.. kicked constantly...iam not a masochist
I did not have a need to prepare against such an openings. :)
I suspect this...
thank all of you for reminding me of the joy of playing Gambits. I love gambits....maybe cause I'm aggressive and a little reckless.....lose some games cause of this but it's fun to take risks. I will go back to studying these wonderful gambits you mentioned. thankyou
@Dark_Falcon
Against the Soller, white can just play 4.e4 and not take the f6 pawn. What do you suggest for Black then? The line is very practical too and not hard to come up with OTB...
but I have to agree, analyzing the Englund is more fun than analyzing the Albin 
@Dark_Falcon
Against the Soller, white can just play 4.e4 and not take the f6 pawn. What do you suggest for Black then? The line is very practical too and not hard to come up with OTB...
but I have to agree, analyzing the Englund is more fun than analyzing the Albin
totally agreed...these e4-lines are very annoying :-)
The Soller is the only opening i know, where you have a better position with pawn down than with equal material!
After the natural e4 it looks horrible for black.
In fact, after 1.d4 e5 2.e4 exd4 3.Bc4, black is practically lost!
Albin counter doesnt really offer u anything good for black compared to some of the other defenses.