What well known gambits are unsound?
Sort:
Also, 9. b3 c5 10. e3
I thought this would be a general discussion about unsound gambits...and now you only discuss this dry Albin to death...boring 
All gambits can be unsound.
stanhope13 wrote:
All gambits can be unsound.
OK, then this thread can be closed...finally!
Maybe a good way to compare gambits is by comparing them to each other. It's all about how much you get for the ___ that you sacrificed. So maybe the From is better than the Englund because black is doing better in those positions. Imagine a ranking of all gambits... #hurtheal
If some gambit were sound it would not be called a gambit but rather
it would be called a combination.
No, it's nomenclature. The queens and kings gambits both offer a small edge for white with best play.
Pacifique, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Albin offers an edge for black!
Fred-Splott wrote:
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.
Albin counter doesnt really offer u anything good for black compared to some of the other defenses.
finalunpurez wrote:
Fred-Splott wrote:
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.
Fred-Splott wrote:
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 wrote:
Fred-Splott wrote:
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.
Dark_Falcon wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Fred-Splott wrote:
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 wrote:
Dark_Falcon wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Fred-Splott wrote:
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.
Dark_Falcon wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Dark_Falcon wrote:
Pacifique wrote:
Fred-Splott wrote:
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 got tired of giving lines after 9. Qb3 in the Albin Counter Gambit and looked for something better--aannnddd here is what I found: