They don't play it because of 4...d5!. And white's position isn't necessarily bad, it's just that there are so many better ways of attacking 1...e5.
After 4...d5 white's attacking chances are gone (it is more likely that black will be the one who gets an attack). I would guess that if black were forced to accept the Gambit on c3, then the Goring would be much more popular.
They don't play it because of 4...d5!. And white's position isn't necessarily bad, it's just that there are so many better ways of attacking 1...e5.
After 4...d5 white's attacking chances are gone (it is more likely that black will be the one who gets an attack). I would guess that if black were forced to accept the Gambit on c3, then the Goring would be much more popular.
Ok, I read about the Göring gambit in a book and it said the following:
After 4...d5 5. exd5 Qxd5 6.cxd4 Bg4 7.Be2 Bb4+ 8.Nc3 Bxf3 9Bxf3 Qc4 (preventing castling)
while Stockfish considers the position dead equal for both black and white, it is not a very pleasant position to play in. There are examples of GMs playing it in Bullet but I understand why it is not so popular in higher ratings. It is unfortunate though.
edit: after analyzing the opening I don't really understand why people don't play it in higher ratings. The only thing I can think of is that it simplify the position too soon like already mentioned which might pose a problem in higher ratings am i right?
As is the case with almost all gambits in chess, at high level play, you can just… decline and equalize or be better with zero study.
The Göring Gambit is unsound. Black can accept and hold the pawn. It is a central pawn.
The Göring Gambit is unsound. Black can accept and hold the pawn. It is a central pawn.
Can you write down the moves?
Gambits aren't good at the higher levels. Most of the time you end up liquidating or worse.
Is this about the lines where you sacrifice one pawn or two pawns?
This is the reason I am not fond of the Goring gambit (which is fine for white if accepted, you can be convinced by reading #5 and wisely assuming the exact opposite).
Black can use the same line to meet the Ponziani.
Of course Black is not better, but he has good development and easy play against white's expanded center.
(which is fine for white if accepted, you can be convinced by reading #5 and wisely assuming the exact opposite).
Yes. Anything posted by tygxc should automatically be assumed incorrect unless proven otherwise.
A monkey on a typewriter would likely have a higher % of correct posts about chess than he does.
The Göring Gambit is unsound. Black can accept and hold the pawn. It is a central pawn.
That's known to be correct.
This isn't true. Even the top engine line gives equality with chances for both sides.
The Göring Gambit is unsound. Black can accept and hold the pawn. It is a central pawn.
That's known to be correct.
This isn't true. Even the top engine line gives equality with chances for both sides.
And what good is equality for white????
An opening that ends in exact equality is totally unsound for white, nobody would ever play it.
Now if you said the engine says it's equal, but white has great practical chances, then depending on the level it could have merit. Obviously the goring gambit is a pretty well established opening, and does well at lower levels, so it clearly isn't easy to refute completely. I think it's very rare that a modern engine says completely equal but that the elite often play due to practical chances.
The Göring Gambit is unsound. Black can accept and hold the pawn. It is a central pawn.
That's known to be correct.
This isn't true. Even the top engine line gives equality with chances for both sides.
And what good is equality for white????
An opening that ends in exact equality is totally unsound for white, nobody would ever play it.
Now if you said the engine says it's equal, but white has great practical chances, then depending on the level it could have merit. Obviously the goring gambit is a pretty well established opening, and does well at lower levels, so it clearly isn't easy to refute completely. I think it's very rare that a modern engine says completely equal but that the elite often play due to practical chances.
The resulting position gives chances for both sides.
I have recently been studying the scotch game and I tried to learn the Göring gambit. I kind of like it but I read that it isn't really used in higher ratings and I wondered why. Someone wrote on Reddit that the reason is because it simplifies the game too early in the game. Is that the case? Are there any other reasons?