nice win
Wing gambit
Sort:
Mar 23, 2012
0
#3
hehe...thanks trysts 
@Greenmtnboy: cool....1.e4 e6 2.f4 is the la bourdonnais variation.I'm a french player and see that one fairly often...didn't know u could combine that with the wing gambit.cool.
Mar 23, 2012
0
#4
melvinbluestone wrote:
Don't count on seeing 2...e6 too often. The usual, and good, reply for black is simply 2...cxb4. After 3.a3 d5 is a popular response, but 3...e5 is more aggressive. I used to play 2.b4 as white, but I couldn't bring myself to play 3.a3, so I went with 3.d4, which seems more logical to me. I got mixed results......
indeed....cxb4 is the usual reply against this according to the game explorer....is this what u got most often when u played this opening?
I experimented with it in blitz a long time ago.
You can get into a LOT of trouble if you don't play accurately.
I think at the time I didn't even know the main lines of it and played an immediate d4 after cxb. I advise you not to play that line.
Now I use exclusively the Smith-Morra to combat the Sicilian. It's a brilliant opening but you have to know your tactics to be successful with it. One advantage is how many inuitive moves for black end in disaster. Often black can't even play Nf6 until move 8 or so without creating problems.
You definitely get strong iniative but you really have to be prepared to work to get your pawn back. If you miss an important tactical shot somewhere, you might find yourself a pawn down in the endgame.
As a 960 player, you'd probably enjoy that aspect of it.
Have some thorough analysis on it:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz134.pdf
Estragon wrote:
None of these wacky gambits are sound - if they were, they wouldn't be wacky gambits, would they?
They can work very well as a surprise weapon, or if you don't play in a given area or group or club (once they know it's coming, they can be ready for it, and that's no fun for the gambiteer).
[I]t's NOT an objectively strong way to play, so you are gambling on you knowing it better than the opponent.
The Smith-Morra is objectively strong.
Speaking of which, why didn't you capture his c-pawn on your 3rd move?
3. bxc5 Bxc5 4. d4!
Fullcontrol of the centre obtained.
I would caution against the Wing Gambity. It just doesn't have teeth. A good gambit forces the other player to make very precise, often unintuitive moves. The Wing lets black equalize any number of ways. 2...cxb4 is fine. 2...d5 is fine and simple. 2...e5 is playable.
I agree that the Smith-Morra is better. I don't play it, but I've played against it enough to know it can be a scary weapon, especially in blitz or rapid. Not as much in correspondence. But, gambits in general aren't good in correspondence.
Mar 24, 2012
0
#9
Estragon wrote:
None of these wacky gambits are sound - if they were, they wouldn't be wacky gambits, would they?
They can work very well as a surprise weapon, or if you don't play in a given area or group or club (once they know it's coming, they can be ready for it, and that's no fun for the gambiteer). The important thing is to gain some experience with the line, so you know the sort of positions that happen in real play, not what some book the other guy hasn't read says. If you are comfortable playing those positions, go for the gambit.
One attitude which can help is not to be desperate to attack or regain the pawn so fast. Try to use whatever time you gain to develop quickly, good things tend to happen when you do that.
But remember it's NOT an objectively strong way to play, so you are gambling on you knowing it better than the opponent.
u are right of course that it's not objectivily sound...and I wouldn't dream of using this against the same opponent over and over again since he can prepare against this.....but it could be fun to play this occasionally as a surprise weapon like in a tournament.
I'll give the Smith-Morra another whirl too....I've played that a couple times and got good positions out of it
Mar 24, 2012
0
#10
True_Beginner wrote:
Speaking of which, why didn't you capture his c-pawn on your 3rd move?
3. bxc5 Bxc5 4. d4!
Fullcontrol of the centre obtained.
ah yes...that looks much better than what I played...dunno why it didn't occur to me.thanks.
Jeremy Silman wrote about the Smith-Morra: http://www.chess.com/article/view/smith-morra-gambit
Those top GMs also don't play the SM.
Mar 24, 2012
0
#13
RoffleMyWafflez wrote:
I experimented with it in blitz a long time ago.
You can get into a LOT of trouble if you don't play accurately.
I think at the time I didn't even know the main lines of it and played an immediate d4 after cxb. I advise you not to play that line.
Now I use exclusively the Smith-Morra to combat the Sicilian. It's a brilliant opening but you have to know your tactics to be successful with it. One advantage is how many inuitive moves for black end in disaster. Often black can't even play Nf6 until move 8 or so without creating problems.
You definitely get strong iniative but you really have to be prepared to work to get your pawn back. If you miss an important tactical shot somewhere, you might find yourself a pawn down in the endgame.
As a 960 player, you'd probably enjoy that aspect of it.
Have some thorough analysis on it:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/kibitz134.pdf
nice game....nice tactical shot with 12.Nxe5
managed to beat a higher rated with this wing gambit....extremely fun game too
hi all,
just got done trying out this curious gambit for the first time....and I gotta say I'm intrigued by this.it seems much better to me than the SM gambit....I like how in this game I got a dynamic center for the pawn investment.anyone else use this?thoughts?of course further tests against better opposition will be needed to draw a better conclusion....but I got a positive first impression for this one.in general I do poorly against the sicilian so I need a good anti-sicilian that works for me...and this just might be it.