Beginners Gambits
Sort:
jcash228
Jun 27, 2022
0
#1
List your favorite gambits for lower level players
Favorite Gambits for Beginner-Novice
In (roughly) the following order...
For White…
Vienna Gambit
Scotch Gambit
Evans Gambit
Danish Gambit
King's Gambit
For Black…
Smith Morra Gambit
Albin Countergambit
Benko Gambit - a compelling gambit, but your opponent is unlikely to allow it.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/what-is-your-fav-gambit-opening
Chess Openings Resources for Beginners and Beyond (search 'gambits')...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/openings-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond
Chuck639 wrote:
Queens Gambit. It’s growing on me.
Despite its name, Queen's Gambit is not actually a gambit....
due to...
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Qa4+.......and White regains the pawn.....
#4
3 Qa4+ is a poor way of regaining the pawn, as it commits the queen too soon.
There are variations where it is a true gambit, e.g.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1759875
tygxc wrote:
#4
3 Qa4+ is a poor way of regaining the pawn, as it commits the queen too soon.
There are variations where it is a true gambit, e.g.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1759875
The point is that the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it. Thus the QG does not satisfy the definition of a gambit.
Jun 29, 2022
0
#7
- Kings gambit (white)
- Danish gambit (white)
- Evans gambit (white)
- Smith-morra gambit (white)
- I forget the name, the gambit in the scandinavian defense, similar with the danish gambit (black)
- Duras gambit, very risky tho (black)
This is for beginner that like aggressive playing style, its also my fav gambits if I want to have some fun.
Jun 29, 2022
0
#8
RussBell wrote:
Chuck639 wrote:
Queens Gambit. It’s growing on me.
Despite its name, Queen's Gambit is not actually a gambit....
due to...
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Qa4+.......and White regains the pawn.....
R u sure that is the way to regain the pawn? The best way is 3. e4, you know what happened if black try to protect the pawn right?
#6
"the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it." ++ No, but the capturing player benefits from the white queen moving prematurely. The whole point of the queen's gambit accepted is for white to recapture Bxc4, developing the bishop and having an extra central pawn. That was also the argument of Tarrasch: no master would play 1 d4 d5 2 e3 e6 3 c4 dxc4.
Jun 29, 2022
0
#10
tygxc wrote:
#6
"the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it." ++ No, but the capturing player benefits from the white queen moving prematurely. The whole point of the queen's gambit accepted is for white to recapture Bxc4, developing the bishop and having an extra central pawn. That was also the argument of Tarrasch: no master would play 1 d4 d5 2 e3 e6 3 c4 dxc4.
Yes because if white plays the queen move, the queen will be misplaced because you bring your queen uot early
tygxc wrote:
#6
"the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it." ++ No, but the capturing player benefits from the white queen moving prematurely. The whole point of the queen's gambit accepted is for white to recapture Bxc4, developing the bishop and having an extra central pawn. That was also the argument of Tarrasch: no master would play 1 d4 d5 2 e3 e6 3 c4 dxc4.
None of that refutes point that the QG is not a true gambit in the traditionally accepted and universally acknowledged understanding of the word.
A gambit is an offer of material for free, where the winning player cannot be forced by the losing player to return the won material. Further debate on this topic is pointless. I'm done here.
RussBell wrote:
The point is that the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it. The fact that the losing player may choose to allow the capture of material for free is irrelevant.
How can the pawn be "immediately, forcibly regained" after 3.Qa4+ Nc6, which incidentally is Black's most consistent answer?
Jun 29, 2022
0
#13
pfren wrote:
RussBell wrote:
The point is that the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it. The fact that the losing player may choose to allow the capture of material for free is irrelevant.
How can the pawn be "immediately, forcibly regained" after 3.Qa4+ Nc6, which incidentally is Black's most consistent answer?
I don't play this line as either color, so I wont pretend to know... but using a database I see
1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Qa4+ Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Qxc4
White is winning here.
White is winning here. Thanks @nMsALpg
tygxc wrote:
#6
"the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it." ++ No, but the capturing player benefits from the white queen moving prematurely. The whole point of the queen's gambit accepted is for white to recapture Bxc4, developing the bishop and having an extra central pawn. That was also the argument of Tarrasch: no master would play 1 d4 d5 2 e3 e6 3 c4 dxc4.
There is a crapload of games with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e6, which gets to the same position, but anyway- a few GM games using the move order you claimed that "no master would play blah-blah-blah": Here is a game between two strong GM's.
Never assume what a GM would do, or not do, when you are ~1500 points short of being a GM... 
pfren wrote:
RussBell wrote:
The point is that the captured material can be immediately, forcibly regained - the capturing player cannot prevent it. The fact that the losing player may choose to allow the capture of material for free is irrelevant.
How can the pawn be "immediately, forcibly regained" after 3.Qa4+ Nc6, which incidentally is Black's most consistent answer?
My use of the word "immediately" was clearly premature, so I must retract it. However, according to Stockfish, after 3.Qh4+ it appears that White should eventually be winning (i.e., ahead material) or at least equal with accurate play, based on the couple of examples I provided above. The issue of the 3.Qh4+ move not being optimum, even dubious, is certainly legitimate, but that in and of itself does not negate the fact that the QG is not a true gambit.
You might get a kick out of this snippet, comment from the Introduction (p.5) to GM Chris Ward's book "Play the Queen's Gambit"...
