It seems better to show practical examples - lets say position after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.g3 Nge7. How many "pawns" would you give for White - 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 or more?
What well known gambits are unsound?
Sort:
For this please jump to the position after White's 16th move for an example of a space advantage
In the diagram White has a space advantage and the position has been evaluated as equal with almost no chances for anything but a draw by masters and grandmasters.
But in reality, White has the advantage in space and with good play can often turn this advantage into a win. So White has some advantage and all Black can do in this position is to try and hold on and fight against the schemes of White.
In answer to the question by Pacifique in the position
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...
ponz111 wrote:
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:
Shadowknight911 wrote:
you have to remember this in the context of who you are playing. Against someone 2000+ the Elephant Gambit is fairly unsound, but is perfectly fine against people under. A lot of it is basically whether the person knows the theory behind it or not. The Budapest Gambit is one of the more sounder gambits and yet if White knows what they are doing Black at best is even.
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
So, there are four kinds of bishops in chess: good and bad, passive and dynamic. Any bishop is necessarily a combination of one of the first pair and one of the second pair, e.g. a good passive bishop or a bad dynamic bishop. In this position, we have a good passive bishop and our opponent has a bad passive bishop.
Both bishops are passive because they aren't really 'doing anything': they are not out in the open controlling many squares, they're sort of holding down the fort in both the white and black positions, not attacking or creating threats. Another way to look at it is, a bishop behind a pawn chain is passive, like the black bishop, and sometimes a bishop outside of a pawn chain isn't particularly dynamic either, like ours which is hemmed in by enemy pieces (pawn on e5, kingside pawns). A bishop that is attacking and generating threats is a dynamic bishop: it controls many squares and is likely to take part in the action.
So the difference between our bishops is that ours is good and theirs is bad. What determines good and bad is pawn structure: a bishop that is of the same color as the squares on which a number of pawns rest (like the black bishop, and the c7-e5 pawns) is bad, because those pawns are slow-moving and get in the way of the bishop. It is possible to make a bad bishop good by moving pawns off of its color, but due to the fact that pawns must necessarily be of one color or the other, it is often difficult to make a bad bishop good, or avoid making one bad.
Our bishop is good because few pawns--particularly, no central pawns--are on dark squares. In fact, it verges on dynamic because of this fact. It has potential to become an attacking piece. However, we still do not want to keep our good bishop! It is hemmed in, and less useful because of that; it still has less potential than a knight in this position, especially since we already cannot possess the bishop pair. We definitely don't want to trade a good bishop for a bad bishop, so the most logical conclusion is that we would like to trade our good bishop for their good (but better) knight.
Thanks Robert 
5 days ago·Quote·#2
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]
When I evaluate a position there are several factors to consider.
1. space advantage which I hope is self explanatory. It basically gives you more room to maneuvor. After this I will give an example of a space advantage for White in which many masters and grandmasters failed to understand this is a real advantage.
2. material advantage. Each piece is worth so many pawns. At the start of the game knights are probably worht 3 1/4 pawns and Bishops are worh closer to 3 1/3 pawns. Each move you make can change the value of your pieces especially your bishops and knights. For example if you have most of your pawns on the black squares the value of your bishop which travels on the black squares goes down and the value of your other bishop goes up. In such a case you would probably like to trade your "bad" bishop for another bishop or a knight.
There are many end games where one side has a bad bishop and the otherside has a knight and the side with the bad bishops is practically or fully lost.
Combinations of pieces also matter. Suspose in the late stages of a game you have a queen and knight as your only two pieces [other than the king] and you opponent has Q and bishop. The knight in this case compliments the Queen in that it can do things the Queen cannot do. The bishop in this case can only travel on one color square and the Queen can do this also. So, often, A Queen and knight will beat a queen and bishop. Thus the Q and N is a material advantage.
Your moves in the opening. may cause a change in the value of your bishops.
If you on the white side of the Maroczy bind with your pawns on e4 and c4 then your white squared B is hemmed in by your c pawn and you probably hope to get ride of it even before you make the set up with e4 and c4.
I have a friend who can explain better the changing value of the bishops and I will ask him to elaborate...
3. development. How many pieces you have delveloped. This is very important as it is my estimation if White is given 2 moves on the first move--he could play 1. e4 and 1. d4 and would very probably have a winning advantage--which means with best play on both sides he would win..
4. pawn structure. This is a whole story in itself but in general the longer pawn structure you have the better. so having pawn chains of 5 pawns and 2 pawns may be better than having pawn chains of 4 pawns and 3 pawns.
Of course there is much more in evaluating a position than this. For instance if you think your opponent made a positional error that is taken into account.
Sorry if this is rambling. ..