Which gambit opening do you prefer to use?

I prefer using the queen's gambit opening, because at the next move you can put in your attack not only the queen but your bishop too.

Queens gambit!

Oh come on...you cant be serious, if both of you call the Queens Gambit a real gambit...

If you really wanna play gambits, then you have to choose about the serious gambits, like Wolga-Benkö, Smith-Morra or stuff like this.

And when you dont care about a pawn and total compensation and refutations with best play from the other side, then you should play the Latvian, the Elephant, the Blackmar Diemer, the Englund or even the Gibbins-Weidenhagen...

But when i take a look at your ratings, you should first learn the general principles of chess, before talking about gambits.

Obviously you lack knowledge on Queens gambit. Otherwise you knew that there are several sharp gambit systems in Slav defense for example.

i prefer queens gambit

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bg5 Bb4 6. e3 Qa5 7.Bxf6 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Qxc3+ 9. Nd2 gxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 (Not 10...cxd5 11. Rc1) and I have good structural compensation and a lead in devolpment in a position that I bet my opponent has never seen before.

Botvinnik played the queen gambit like a man. He played a computer which tried to hold on the pawn, then he played b3 and just outplayed the computer tactically.

By the way, I prefer the Smith-Morra Gambit.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Nf3 Qa5 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Bd3 Ne4 9. O-O and here I would play 9...Nxg5 and not take the pawn. 9...Nxc3 10. bxc3 Qxc3 11. e4, which looks like it will become an isolated d pawn position with Black's king stuck in the center for too long.

I use mainly Scotch Gambit and Smith-Morra.

I play the Two Knights and never give the pawn a second thought. So I suppose if I had a favorite gambit it would be 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5.

Might be, but 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is not an actual gambit. I don't mean to argue with you since you're a NM and obviously know better than me, but those several lines of the Slav Defence are just a little part of the QG.

These "several lines of Slav" are not "just a little part" and are not only possible gambit lines in QG. Lets take this QGA line for example 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Bc4. A real gambit line with large amount of theory.

Fried Liver sucks.  That's why.

I'm a Falkbeer Counter Gambit fan. Of course white has to try King's Gambit first. Still, when ever I do get to use it and white doesn't take the wrong pawn, it leads to a very entertaining game.

Queen's Gambit, though I'm still learning it. 

Queen's gambit isn't a real gambit.  You can point to specific lines that happen after the Queen's gambit which are gambits but 1.d4 d5 2.c4 isn't a real gambit.  You are committing the fallacy of composition if you think the Queen's gambit is a true gambit.  Krestez and Dark Falcon are right.

You are very arrogant to come into a thread saying 'obviously you lack knowledge' when his point about the Queen's gambit not being a real gambit is a valid one.  It is common knowledge that the Queen's gambit is not a true gambit.

I like fried liver with onions.

As for gambits, it has been said in my city that I am not happy playing a game of chess until I am a pawn down. I play the Queen's Gambit, the King's Gambit, the Falkbeer Countergambit, the Staunton Gambit, and perhaps a few others.

I don't play gambits very often, but I do like the Calabrese Countergambit when someone plays the Bishop's Opening.

I'm not much of a gambiteer myself but I like the Icelandic Gambit and I went through a stretch years ago where I played a lot of Scotch Gambit.

I`m getting sick from these arrogant patzers, praising cheap crappy gambits and belittling more solid openings, which may give no less interesting play in the hands of skilled players.