Smith Morra gambit (to finish my last post that was cut off by the page refreshing). And @SquareDealer, is it fun to be easily bested because of your opening play? This is what happens at top levels where players have the ability to refute certain opening lines. This is why many top players don't play gambits in long games.
I was saying to BigG that I like his attitude. A 1900--2000 he's no slouch. You might beat him, but he'll enjoy the game. And at 2100--2200 unless you've written some well received books or something, you're not making a living at this. Might as well cool out and have some fun. However you define it.
Smith Morra gambit (to finish my last post that was cut off by the page refreshing). And @SquareDealer, is it fun to be easily bested because of your opening play? This is what happens at top levels where players have the ability to refute certain opening lines. This is why many top players don't play gambits in long games.
Oh, and so as not to leave your question unacknowledged, no, it is not necessarily fun to be easily bested because of my opening play. But truth, when I am bested it is often because of my opening play. If not, then it's because of my middle game play. I hardly ever make it to the end game. (Which was the master that quipped about having no need for end game skills because "God in his infinite wisdom, has placed before the end game, the middle game." I digress.) Point being, that if I'm going to go around playing "unsound" gambits against top players (like I'm ever going to see a top player across the board) then I must be going after fun, cause you sure don't expect a win under such conditions.
@Vincent_Valentine: Good for you. Let me say that I see no instance of aggressiveness in my comment, but if you do see such an instance, if there is one, then I do apologise to you. My view is that BigGman made a comment, I supported his comment, your comment took issue with his comment and my support of it, and I responded to that. I certainly was not trying to imply not being able to make a living at chess was in any way a bad thing. I sure as shootin am not going to be able to make a living at chess. And yes, I stand corrected, if one plays his cards right, he can do anything he wants.
Nice to know, thank you for the info IM pfren. I have only recently started to study the lines of the Schliemann, it will be nice to view some of GM Radjabov's games.
I've played some games with Benko gambit, but it's not an opening you play without knowing the basic ideas of that gambit. When you mastered the concept of the Benko, I believe it plays itself.
All gambits I play ... and all gambits you don't find at top-chess-levels. You decide if they are sound or unsound, but they give me joy at chess!
To be honest, you shouldn't play any opening without mastering the basic ideas of it. In some cases a simple bad trade or poor pawn push can give your opponent an overwhelming advantage.
I have already made a post about it. Using the 2.d4 ed4 3.c3 dc3 4.Bc4 move order, it is simply unplayable- the least Black can expect is a clear advantage.
@shepi13: I do not fully agree with you. Mastering the basic ideas is essential to know how to play correctly, but where is the fun if you and your opponent know all the best moves till move 30 (and then accept a draw).
Chess is like an adventure on a board. You have to discover things for yourself. Like Indiana Jones you first find the golden statue, and then have to run for your life.
When I fall into a trap, I learned something (hopefully). The next time I won't fall for it.
I wasn't talking about learning tons of theory, but rather basic positional ideas. While Bb4+ is perfectly acceptable (the idea is to draw white's bishop to d2, where it blocks the knights best square), Qa5 forcing a trade of black's great bishop and best piece is a terrible move (almost all of the black pawns are on light square. When you combine this with playing a risky variation in b5, black becomes lost. It isn't necesary to know all of this theory, but if my opponent (rated 100+ points higher than me) had understood simple positional ideas (good bishop vs bad bishop) he wouldn't have reached a lost position out of the opening.
The reason Bb4+ and Bxd2 is playable in Bogo indian is because black follows up with d6 and plays for e5, putting the pawns on dark squares. In the catalan it is worse as the pawn is on d5 (or c4), so d6 isn't possible, and with some sort of slav position with pawns on c6 and e6 (light squares) the idea becomes losing.
After 6. Qa5 the computer already gave me almost a pawn advantage. By move 15 I had a 2 pawn advantage, and eventually reached a pawn up ending with 2 pieces for a rook which I went on to win.
To see why the albin counter gambit is unsound go to the game in this forum Taylor vs TCCMB Team where we spent a year playing a game with this opening and White was able to early on transpose from an opening position to an endgame position where White had the advatage of a good N vs a bad B.
I used to play the Smith Morra so much that Ken Smith called me "my hero"
Fischer once said he believed the smith mora was good enough for a draw, but not more . He played it against Korchnoi once, and they drew .
Smith Morra gambit (to finish my last post that was cut off by the page refreshing). And @SquareDealer, is it fun to be easily bested because of your opening play? This is what happens at top levels where players have the ability to refute certain opening lines. This is why many top players don't play gambits in long games.
I was saying to BigG that I like his attitude. A 1900--2000 he's no slouch. You might beat him, but he'll enjoy the game. And at 2100--2200 unless you've written some well received books or something, you're not making a living at this. Might as well cool out and have some fun. However you define it.
Smith Morra gambit (to finish my last post that was cut off by the page refreshing). And @SquareDealer, is it fun to be easily bested because of your opening play? This is what happens at top levels where players have the ability to refute certain opening lines. This is why many top players don't play gambits in long games.
Oh, and so as not to leave your question unacknowledged, no, it is not necessarily fun to be easily bested because of my opening play. But truth, when I am bested it is often because of my opening play. If not, then it's because of my middle game play. I hardly ever make it to the end game. (Which was the master that quipped about having no need for end game skills because "God in his infinite wisdom, has placed before the end game, the middle game." I digress.) Point being, that if I'm going to go around playing "unsound" gambits against top players (like I'm ever going to see a top player across the board) then I must be going after fun, cause you sure don't expect a win under such conditions.
GM Khachiyan plays the Schliemann Gambit in high level games.
Many theorists argue whether white has enough compensation for his lost knight to take an advantage in the Muzio Gambit of the King's Gambit
@Vincent_Valentine: Good for you. Let me say that I see no instance of aggressiveness in my comment, but if you do see such an instance, if there is one, then I do apologise to you. My view is that BigGman made a comment, I supported his comment, your comment took issue with his comment and my support of it, and I responded to that. I certainly was not trying to imply not being able to make a living at chess was in any way a bad thing. I sure as shootin am not going to be able to make a living at chess. And yes, I stand corrected, if one plays his cards right, he can do anything he wants.
GM Khachiyan plays the Schliemann Gambit in high level games.
Super-GM Radjabov too, and he has never lost a game.
He just plays it when he doesn't mind a draw, as the Scliemann/Jaenisch has quite a few variations which are more than drawish: draw by force.
The Englund is just bad. 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 f6 4.e4! fxe5 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.Ng5 +/-
Nice to know, thank you for the info IM pfren. I have only recently started to study the lines of the Schliemann, it will be nice to view some of GM Radjabov's games.
I've played some games with Benko gambit, but it's not an opening you play without knowing the basic ideas of that gambit. When you mastered the concept of the Benko, I believe it plays itself.
And what about:
From's gambit (1. f4, e5 2. fxe5, d6 3. exd6, Bxd6 4. Nf3). Göring gambit (1.e4, e5 2. Nf3, Nc6 3. d4, exd4 4. c3). Sicilian winggambit (1. e4, c5 2. b4). Staunton gambit (1. d4, f5 2. e4).All gambits I play ... and all gambits you don't find at top-chess-levels. You decide if they are sound or unsound, but they give me joy at chess!
To be honest, you shouldn't play any opening without mastering the basic ideas of it. In some cases a simple bad trade or poor pawn push can give your opponent an overwhelming advantage.
The Danish gambit is a lot of fun- for Black.
I have already made a post about it. Using the 2.d4 ed4 3.c3 dc3 4.Bc4 move order, it is simply unplayable- the least Black can expect is a clear advantage.
@shepi13: I do not fully agree with you. Mastering the basic ideas is essential to know how to play correctly, but where is the fun if you and your opponent know all the best moves till move 30 (and then accept a draw).
Chess is like an adventure on a board. You have to discover things for yourself. Like Indiana Jones you first find the golden statue, and then have to run for your life.
When I fall into a trap, I learned something (hopefully). The next time I won't fall for it.
I wasn't talking about learning tons of theory, but rather basic positional ideas. While Bb4+ is perfectly acceptable (the idea is to draw white's bishop to d2, where it blocks the knights best square), Qa5 forcing a trade of black's great bishop and best piece is a terrible move (almost all of the black pawns are on light square. When you combine this with playing a risky variation in b5, black becomes lost. It isn't necesary to know all of this theory, but if my opponent (rated 100+ points higher than me) had understood simple positional ideas (good bishop vs bad bishop) he wouldn't have reached a lost position out of the opening.
The reason Bb4+ and Bxd2 is playable in Bogo indian is because black follows up with d6 and plays for e5, putting the pawns on dark squares. In the catalan it is worse as the pawn is on d5 (or c4), so d6 isn't possible, and with some sort of slav position with pawns on c6 and e6 (light squares) the idea becomes losing.
After 6. Qa5 the computer already gave me almost a pawn advantage. By move 15 I had a 2 pawn advantage, and eventually reached a pawn up ending with 2 pieces for a rook which I went on to win.
I play the danish gambit that arises from the scotch gambit.It looks pretty good for white.
Is the Traxler/Wikkes Barre a gambit?
I once won from a grandmaster in a chess tournament with this line:
kings 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?
The Elephant gambit is theoretically not unsound...its += with white playing perfectly in two special variants...
Please show me the refutation, thanks...perhaps iam not state of the art
To see why the albin counter gambit is unsound go to the game in this forum Taylor vs TCCMB Team where we spent a year playing a game with this opening and White was able to early on transpose from an opening position to an endgame position where White had the advatage of a good N vs a bad B.
It is under LifeTime Best Game.