Are Gambits Worth It?

I think that there are some differences between playing a gambit that you have analyzed at home and know the ins and outs of versus a sac that you come up with at the board in the heat of the moment.  On the other hand, though, both serve to spice up the game, and the same kinds of players are likely to be attracted to both.  Perhaps some types of players are more likely to be attracted to speculative sacrifices for the attack, while others prefer long-term positional compensation, but I do think a lot of gambiteers seem willing to play both.

I understand though the distinction Benkobaby is trying to make.  The Benko gambit in particular saddles white with pawns that are hard to defend, and this can last on into the endgame, and thus casts a pall over white's whole game.  It would be nice though if you could come up with that kind of long term sac in middlegame positions as well, but that isn't always the case.  Petrosian and Botvinnik's exchange sacrifices are maybe of that type.

rigamagician: thanks for those games. I've never played the Ruy where someone accepted the pawn and everything i've read says it's bad. Losing by force though? That is provocative. Is this true?

Fiveofswords: You make a good point. Is it really a gambit? I would think that any gambit is based on the theory that you are getting something for your sacrifice.  Frankly, any move you make should offer you something, better position, active pieces, mating net, etc. I don't think the Ruy strays from this line of thought. I was just trying to point out, that while taking the pawn is rare, it is still a good example the soundness of offering material under the right circumstances. It just seems that nobody calle the Ruy a gambit line because nobody accepts it. Which takes us back to your point. Is it a gambit if it is never accepted? I'll leave this to the experts :-)

This is the problem with most inexperienced players and gambits. Using the initiative correctly and evaluating positions of compensation are some of the most difficult things to do in chess and unless you know what you are doing those things are best left for AFTER you learn some solid variations and gain some experience.

Weirdly enough I almost never play an opening gambit as White - unless it's an 960 game (then I throw away pawns like Tal on speed).

OK, perhaps I went a bit far.  GM Zoltan Varga has accepted the gambit pawn in a couple of games, and seems to think the line is playable for black.  It strikes me though as more of a surprise weapon to get white out of his preparation rather than a completely sound option for high level games.  A lot of players respond with 10.Kxh2?! or 10.Kf1? which are perhaps a bit weaker than Capablanca's 10.Kh1!, and so perhaps black is hoping to catch them there.  Strong GMs though are more likely to be familiar with Capablanca's approach.

schlagle wrote:

Fiveofswords: Is it a gambit if it is never accepted?

I would consider it a gambit, just a very strong one that people try to avoid.  A lot of GMs have taken to sidestepping the Ruy Lopez Marshall gambit lately with a4, but everyone still considers it a gambit.  Some gambits are just very strong by nature.

Or if they are difficult, maybe beginners should start learning them early on to get a head start, and start developing their sense for the initiative.  In part, I guess it depends if you want to end up being a fiery fighter known for their spectacular brilliancies or some dull dreary woodpusher who draws more often than he wins.

@ Riga and zxb - yes I agree.

I guess I was trying to point out that "an opening gambit" often directs the entire course of the game (for good or bad for the gambiteer) with the mid/end game sac being a fork in that road.

@ Riga - yes ... the bloody anti Marshall (8.a4!) I think helping with my point about what to fear as a gambiteer: players who immediately return the material, players who decline the gambit altogether, or perhaps most fearsome of all ... those that launch immediate counter measures as in the anti marshall 8. a4 or the super sharp 7. f4 of the Benko

Benko, it is kind of disappointing when your opponent returns the material to reach a sterile equality, but on the other hand, it does make you appreciate players who are willing to take up the challenge even more.

Incidentally, here's former world correspondence champion Victor Palciauskas playing the Ruy Lopez as a real gambit and winning big time.  Maybe this is why almost everyone seems to either refuse, or return the pawn.

Which is why those willing to say "stuff you and your little gambit plans" unsettle me more than those who decline, return, or even accept the gambit ... it's the counter measure guys I respect the most. It's a double down - they turn it on it's head and start playing your game

Benko, the people I respect the most are players who decline the pawn, and then turn around, and offer a counter-gambit.  Proud warriors of the chessboard, I salute you!

schlagle, I found some comments by GM Julen Luis Arizmendi Martinez on the Ruy Lopez Gambit Accepted (shall we call it?).  He writes that 6...exd4 "leads to a very nice ending for White: good chances to score the full point, almost no chances to lose. Yet, it is a dangerous variation if White does not know his theory." After Ed Lasker's 14...Be6, he goes on: "This position has come about almost by force, and the assessment is clear: White is better. This is due to the bishop-pair, especially his strong dark-squared bishop. Of course, if Black could push his e-pawn one step back in order to keep control over some dark squares, then everything would be different."

If I am going to be completely truthful here, I have played Lasker's line as black, but I ended up losing the game, and that may be part of the reason why I don't trust it.

I think we're on the same page Riga  The centre storm variation of the BG scares the crap out of me as a Benko player - OTB. It's like getting the finger together with a mighty expletive .... all with the simple press of a button.

Great quote. I've had a renewed interest in the Ruy lately, just check my current games ;-) You're really providing some good stuff here. We stand on the shoulders of giants but how often to we really take the time to check their math? If you get my drift.

Of course, it is always possible to revise current theory - find a line that overturns previous assessments, and inject new life into once rejected lines.  It can be quite fun to try to do this, and you no doubt learn a lot in the process.  My preference though is to try to revive the gambit lines rather than the materialistic pawn grabbing lines.  To me, it seems only right that pawn grabbers get punished for ignoring their development.

Shut up! (Riga's Canadian team is about to prove that very point in its Vchess game with my Cheers! Cafe team)

Didn't your mother tell you?  It doesn't pay to be greedy.

She also warned against hubris Just ask Chess-Nuts!

I am nothing if not humble.  In fact, I think I am the humblest person ever!