My definition of "sound" means that with best play by both sides--it does not lose. My guess is the Smith Morra and Albin Counter Gambit and Sicilian Wing Gambit are all "unsound"
I have played the Smith Morra enough that many of my games were published by Ken Smith.
I think the Smith Morra is equal with best play but it is White who is struggling for equality. But I believe White does achieve equality, often by very aggressive means.
Actually over-the-board, I have a plus score against players rated about 2300 with the Smith Morra but I still think it loses with best play on both sides! Admit this is only a guess based on 20 years of experience playing that gambit!
Halloween Gambit is interesting though maybe at points Black can decline or partially declined with a fair game.
My definition of "sound" means that with best play by both sides--it does not lose. My guess is the Smith Morra and Albin Counter Gambit and Sicilian Wing Gambit are all "unsound"
I have played the Smith Morra enough that many of my games were published by Ken Smith.
Claiming Albin "unsound" is bullshit. The line given by you in this thread (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Be6?! etc.) is self serving, because Black has another options like 5...Nge7 for example.
5...Nge7 is at best a slight advantage for white, and this is not entirely clear.
My particular line does not have to be good enough to refute the Albin Counter Gambit for the Albin Counter Gambit to be unsound. I do know that the team I played had studied this gambit for years and thought the move they played was superior to 5. g3 Nge7.
Of course, theory could have advanced since then.
If for example IM Pfren's suggestions tend to refute this gambit then this gambit may not be sound. Part of my reasons for thinking this gambit is unsound is the way it is reached. Moving the d Pawn twice with the black pieces strikes me as something that cannot be "sound"
Regarding 5. ... Nge7 it "looks" fine for White to me but I have not kept up with current theory.
I cannot "prove" the Albin unsound as someone can always come up with new moves against anything I might play or analyze. I am saying is I think with best play for both sides--that gambit is unsound. If I ever meet God I will ask Him if the gambit is sound or unsound?
Based on my own experience playing Albin, I can only agree with pfren.
According to alexlaw logic, crappy lines advocated by him in this forum is total crap as they are almost never played, while Albin has been seen even in modern GM`s practice.
Which modern gms play the Albin?
It is my impression that the average opening advantage for White is about .2 of a Pawn? [please correct me if I am wrong]
So, a theoretical win would be about .45 of a Pawn and this is just my guess. I know that if I get an advantage like this [.45] I would expect to win...
Which modern gms play the Albin?
Morozevich, Kazimdzhanov and Bauer are regulars, while Radjabov, Nakamura, hector and a few others are occasional users.
Against the Albin I play
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3
and hope for the best. Black never seems to have anything that's all that convincing and he seems destined to struggle for a draw. Yet I would never pretend I thought that the Albin is unsound since that would indicate lines favouring white in all variations, leading to forced wins. I'm pretty sure they don't exist and that therefore the opening is "sound".
Ponz, I once played against the Albin in an off-the-cuff blitz game with John Littlewood, a member of one of my two clubs at the time. He played a very early ...f6 as black and then got impatient when I tried to think for a minute (literally). This was unfair because he knew the variation and I didn't. Generally he was a nice bloke but I didn't like that bit of "gamesmanship".
Oh, he won and I swore to myself I'd never play the old so-and-so again.
Against the Albin I play
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3
and hope for the best. Black never seems to have anything that's all that convincing and he seems destined to struggle for a draw. Yet I would never pretend I thought that the Albin is unsound since that would indicate lines favouring white in all variations, leading to forced wins. I'm pretty sure they don't exist and that therefore the opening is "sound".
Ponz, I once played against the Albin in an off-the-cuff blitz game with John Littlewood, a member of one of my two clubs at the time. He played a very early ...f6 as black and then got impatient when I tried to think for a minute (literally). This was unfair because he knew the variation and I didn't. Generally he was a nice bloke but I didn't like that bit of "gamesmanship".
Oh, he won and I swore to myself I'd never play the old so-and-so again.
Your post is worthless blah blah blah if you can`t show how White can get advantage after 5...Nge7.
Which modern gms play the Albin?
It is my impression that the average opening advantage for White is about .2 of a Pawn? [please correct me if I am wrong]
So, a theoretical win would be about .45 of a Pawn and this is just my guess. I know that if I get an advantage like this [.45] I would expect to win...
pfren has mentioned GMs playing Albin.
Where did you get these numbers and how do you apply them to openings?
Pac was your question to me? Re .20 a normal opening advantage for White is just my guess. If I get close to a 1/2 pawn advantage I expect to win.
Somewhere there is an advantage enough that when you reach it or I should say when it is reached--if you play perfectly and your opponent does the same--you should win.
Pac was your question to me? Re .20 a normal opening advantage for White is just my guess. If I get close to a 1/2 pawn advantage I expect to win.
Somewhere there is an advantage enough that when you reach it or I should say when it is reached--if you play perfectly and your opponent does the same--you should win.
You misunderstood my question I guess. I mean when you have opening position - how do you known if advantage is 0.2 or 0.3 pawn?
You should start to use your brains if you want to become a good chess player.
You could understand that I asked him about patterns he use to evaluate advantage, if you used your brains. I `m bored of your ignorant remarks.
You made stupid answer to my question, which wasn`t adressed to you.
Somewhere there is an advantage enough that when you reach it or I should say when it is reached--if you play perfectly and your opponent does the same--you should win.
This Event Horizon ("the point of no return") in chess really exists, but it is believed to lie much further, somewhere around -1.4 pawn units. (Read: a pawn down in crappy position without counterplay.)
Nominally a pawn down in early middlegame when engine says -0.4, you should read as +0.6 compensation, which is huge. Engines still tend to overestimate material over other factors.
Edit: You must check engine variations for the reason. If the -0.4 evaluation comes from a line where the weaker side equalizes material and gets into crappy position instead and engine regards this as main line, then things aren't that good.
Smith Morra is sound because it gives enough compensation for the pawn but no more. Sicilian Wing Gambit is unsound. The Albin Counter Gambit is not unsound but it should leave white with an edge. It does provide sufficient counter chances for black. Therefore it may be considered sound for practical purposes at ratings of below 2300, say, which is most of us.