What well known gambits are unsound?

I would guess that White has about .033 to .044 of a Pawn advantage. This is based partially on Black moving his d pawn twice in the opening and partially on Black having to move his N to e7 and then will have to move that knight again.  Of course  there are many other factors to consider... 

White will have a very nice fianchettoed B...  

Indeed there are many other factors to consider as  reasons you`ve mentioned are primitive beginner`s level. Moving d pawn twice gives more space in center for Black and White bishop are also developed in 2 moves (g3 and Bg2).

Speaking on your Ponziani analysis -  you should show the way how white can exploit this space in advantage. Otherwise your analysis are worthless.

To sum up - if you wanted to show yourself as expert you failed.

I was not trying to show myself as an expert, I was trying to answer your question.

Moving a d or e pawn twice in an opening often is a bad idea -to give one eample:

How can the Elephant be fairly unsound vs. players +2000, if its not refuted so far?!?

Best White can achieve is +=

That neither unsound, nor refuted...

So hopefully I have shown one several step plan to try and win the postion above where white has only a space advantage and the position itself had been declared dead drawn by many masters and grandmasters. With the position--White has all the fun and play and Black is defending.

I certainly agree with those who say one must consider who you are playing against in a practical game and that a gambit that may be unsound at the highest levels may be playable at a lower level.

In my remarks I am trying to address if i think a gambit is sound at the very highest levels[i.e. with perfect play for each side]

If the elephant gambit does not give a bad enough position where it is a loss game at the highest levels--i.e.-not refuted--then it is sound. Some of these gambits--their soundness at the highest levels --that is not yet determined.

In quick over the board games the elephant gambit is hard to play against.

Pacificique how the value of bishops change after the opening is not basic begginners stuff--I would guess many players do not a have a good concept of this.

But of course, space, development, material, etc starts at a novice level but the exact best understanding of these dynamics grows with experience and learning.  For example we learn that a bishop or a knight is worth 3 pawns as novices--later we learn differently. And later after that we learn even more.

This is a little piece by Robert Forney who is a member of Ponziani Power

Bishops

• 5 days ago·Quote·#2

  DJAbacus

  Knights

  Unlike bishops, there is no such thing as a passive knight--they're all dynamic! =P Well, sort of. The thing about knights is they jump around quite well in all sorts of positions and switch colors so pawn structure doesn't affect them as much as bishops. However, they are very much dependent on pawns. Knights have limited range, and like "outpost squares", which are generated by pawn structure. In this position, d4 and d5 are outpost squares for black knights, since not only can they be protected by pawns on those squares, but they cannot be attacked by white pawns. An outpost square doesn't exist if it can be attacked by pawns.

  In positions where outpost squares exist, knights are particularly good--hence good knights. Our knights cannot use outpost squares since we have none, so we would like to trade our knights for theirs. Ideally, we would trade our bishop for a knight, one knight for a knight, and end up on a good knight vs. bad bishop endgame.

  Note: a knight doesn't need to actually occupy an outpost square to be a good knight. The threat of occupying an outpost square is often much stronger than the execution!

  Thanks Robert

DJAbacus is administrator of our team--did not mean to put his name here but do not know how to erase. The little essay was from Robert Forney who is one of the best players on our team/group

[I really think there is plenty here above the novice level]

ps to clear things up he was talking about a position in a chess vote game and even though it is a slightly old position--I did not give the position--but what he says rings true.

To those who are offended because I think a certain gambit is unsound at the highest levels--this does not mean the gambit cannot be played and of course I could be wrong! And even if I am right--who is going to play at the very highest level?

I had a good relationship with Ken Smith of Smith Morra Gambit game and even played against him and he had many of my Smith Morra Gambit games published--but after all that it is my opinion it is unsound at the highest levels. [even Fischer played the gambit once and did not lose]

What amuses me is that Pacifique seems to think that one move (viz. 5 ..... Ne7) is the universal panacea. Well, the Albin panacea.

What amuses me is your inability to refute it.

The two candidate moves that spring to mind after Ne7 are Bg7 and d3. I've played both and won with both. I don't think I've been defeated by 5 .... Ne7.

A refutation would involve an exhaustive analysis of every possible permutation of moves Pacifique. What amuses me is your considerable, self-confident naivite and also of course, your charm.

Ponz in your game Black had no problems to draw all the time before 33...Bc8??  as White can`t win after 33...dxc5+ 34. Kxc5 axb5 35.Bxb5 Ke736.d6+ Kd8!