Instead of letting a gambit teach you about quick development, you could simply read that stuff out of a book you know, and take the opportunity for fast development in a normal opening if your opponent goes wrong.
Are Gambit Openings sound for Lower rated players?
Sort:
montypython wrote:
i keep noticing that lower rated players always take the offered pawn.
It has something to do with the way new players are instructed. When someone first starts to play chess all they really know is: Material= win therefore they will almost always take a gambit pawn piece ect. Also when you do not know the full theory on a move unless it's absolutely losing it make a lot more sense to take the gambit-you can be assured that taking is at least a book move- other than finding the correct way to decline the gambit which a new player/lower rated player is less likely to do.
super12345 wrote:
Soundness is completely objective. The Evans Gambit may not be sound but it is still a good choice if your 1500 USCF. At 2800... not so much (exepet in blitz)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018648
I am just wondering, since coms make no blunders, is a lead in dev and space any useful if u are down on mat and the com survives to endgame?
zxb995511 wrote:
montypython wrote:
i keep noticing that lower rated players always take the offered pawn.
It has something to do with the way new players are instructed. When someone first starts to play chess all they really know is: Material= win therefore they will almost always take a gambit pawn piece ect. Also when you do not know the full theory on a move unless it's absolutely losing it make a lot more sense to take the gambit-you can be assured that taking is at least a book move- other than finding the correct way to decline the gambit which a new player/lower rated player is less likely to do.
I love to take gambits, there's nothing wrong with that. Nimzowitsch said an extra pawn in the corner doesn't make you happy because that's not what you want to do in the opening, but on the other hand, if you win a pawn, then it's ok not to have a great opening position because once the dynamics are fizzled out hopefully that pawn will be very useful. Accepting is rarely bad, as the gambiteer is basically saying "I have a winning attack" or, "My position is so good I can win the pawn back eventually" which is a pretty bold claim.
Nov 30, 2009
0
#27
I agree with what's generally been written here - that one should learn at least one gambit opening to best teach the value of the initiative, how to attack, etc. As with most things, gambits are best done in moderation.
I'm pretty sure the Queen's Gambit and the Evans Gambit are considered perfectly sound openings for lower rated players.
Someone sprung the King's Gambit on me the other day, and it really threw me for a while...
Nov 30, 2009
0
#29
Another way of looking at it is that playing a gambit takes your opponent out of his comfort zone IF you're playing somebody who is a sub-Expert and can't possibly book up on the theory of ALL unsound openings, let alone sound GM-certified lines. The better chess player wins these conflicts, not the guy who booked up 20+ lines of the Najdorf. So if you are short on time or don't like diving into theory (beyond the 4-5 moves a gambit expects you to know), you might have a lot of fun with these.
Been playing them for the past 3+ years with a lot success and scalps and as somebody else already posted, you are guaranteed to get a non-drawish + violent game that helps you with your tactics.
Though you NEED to be a risk-taker ... hesitating or playing conservatively after your pawn-sac means you definitely do not have the temperament for these openings.
Elubas wrote:
zxb995511 wrote:
montypython wrote:
i keep noticing that lower rated players always take the offered pawn.
It has something to do with the way new players are instructed. When someone first starts to play chess all they really know is: Material= win therefore they will almost always take a gambit pawn piece ect. Also when you do not know the full theory on a move unless it's absolutely losing it make a lot more sense to take the gambit-you can be assured that taking is at least a book move- other than finding the correct way to decline the gambit which a new player/lower rated player is less likely to do.
I love to take gambits, there's nothing wrong with that. Nimzowitsch said an extra pawn in the corner doesn't make you happy because that's not what you want to do in the opening, but on the other hand, if you win a pawn, then it's ok not to have a great opening position because once the dynamics are fizzled out hopefully that pawn will be very useful. Accepting is rarely bad, as the gambiteer is basically saying "I have a winning attack" or, "My position is so good I can win the pawn back eventually" which is a pretty bold claim.
Also, most gambiteers look down upon those not brave enough to accept the challenge. OTB I pretty much sneer at "decliners" and have even developed an affected Elvis-like curled lip for those moments.
Nov 30, 2009
0
#31
I am very much in my element against such a line:
1.d4 d5 2.e4?! c6!
with advantage to black, of course.
I think the title of this thread is confusing, shouldn't be it "Are gambits good for lower rated players" ? Practically good they may well be, whether they are theoretically sound is a different issue. Also, there are many different gambits and one could hardly put the Queen's Gambit and the Evans and the Benko all in the same drawer. Lastly, to the Serbian Chess Star, I recommend the Halloween Gambit since it's definitely unsound.