Gambits and Hope Chess?

In the age of modern chess, where Queen's pawn reigns, and the sicilian defense is so theory heavy that the first twenty moves are simply a dance between two GM's, are gambits simply hope chess?

I don't know about you guys but whenever I play a gambit ultimately I feel like somewhere down the line I'm hoping my opponent won't figure out all the complications and that the pressure will simply make them crack. I suppose gambit players require a certain personality, one of my favorite lines by Nigel Short while commentating a King's gambit he played was "When playing the King's Gambit you don't count the pieces, you simply mate the other player." Was that simply hopeful of Nigel? 

"I feel like somewhere down the line I'm hoping my opponent won't figure out all the complications and that the pressure will simply make them crack."

That's the beauty of chess played between human players. Indeed, it's how Tal won many of his games. Humans make mistakes while playing chess. We don't have the calculating power of engines and time pressure also adds to the difficulty of finding the correct defence. This will never change, even when chess is solved.

Don't most moves carry hope in a game of chess? I honestly just hope I'm making the correct move when I play, and that's pretty much the drama of the game for me.

Very philosophical

Much better than my own comment

I just quoted you, my dear...

I wish I said that

Can you teach me more about King's Gamit?

Unless you plan on playing against GMs only, gambits are very viable. The vast majority of chess players don't know all Sicilian lines 20 moves deep et cetra.

Then again if you're playing against GMs only, I'd say anything you play is "hope chess". And I'm not trying to offend anyone here.

Calling it hope chess seems to suggest that gambits are bad, and just lose material.

The compensation of development and/or initiative is very real.  In nearly all named gambits you have at least some compensation. 

By the way GM games aren't solely material driven.  In a great many GM games they pass up winning a pawn at some time during the course of the game because it would pull them out of position.

And that's how chess works, it's not the number of pieces you have, but how usefully they're placed.

I actually think this hits at the heart of an issue I have had as well. Obviously there are some gambits playable regardless... Queens gambit, Benko, but in the age of online databases, and 2700 plus home computers, how willing are you to go to war with a gambit as your main choice?

I know people use say... The smith Morra as a surprise weapon, but lets say your playing in the club championship against someone rated... 1900-2200. Would you want to go to that game after posting "I love the Morra" on Facebook?

I mean if you play the English attack against the Najdorf you can rent out a billboard...

I'd love to play a repertoire that is aggressive and largely based on gambits, but this would be my main concern.

Example,

If you take a very close look at the games of any top player, you will see countless gambits offered, and a few accepted. In almost every game, GMs offer material or space to their opponents in an incredible effort to win. Even the "lifeless draws" are not lifeless. These GMs may not play many of the old gambits anymore, but there are PLENTY of new ones.

It's not hope chess to play a gambit. It's an attempt to unbalance the position and confound the opponent. One of the key differences between the 19th century and today is that almost all the gambits played today are sound.

I think to call into question the practice of giving up material for other compensation on a fundamental level means you're thinking too materialistically.  There are other legitimate advantages in the game.  They pop up all the time, it's quite often (if just in the variations) players decline winning material.

And often the best way to get a superior position after accepting a gambit is to gambit the material back to them (again, for a better position, or initiative, etc).

i admire gambits but they are risky

The point is that you can bet any sicilian player is much more prepared against the English attack rather than against the Morra. It simply doesn't make sense for a non-professional player to invest too much time on things that he will encounter rarely.

So that's the tradeoff: you get a slighly "technically" worse position but it's one that you're much more familiar to play with than your opponent.

That's why we have countless openings, and openings that are technically dubious can still survive.

Also note that you're investing a pawn, not anything special. If things go bad and you have a good knowledge of endgames (especially rook endings) you should be able to still hold the draw if you don't have other problems in the position.

Below master level, the Smith-Morra is just as likely as the English attack. In order to reach master level as Black, Black must be prepared to face the Smith-Morra and the Alapin as well as Grand Prix attacks. In other words, if white plays these openings to surprise people, it should not work.

The main problem with the Smith-Morra and the Alapin is that Black can spend a weekend and come up with a good plan against it. There are some tactical tricks to be learned, but those openings just are not complex enough to gain an advantage against a dedicated amateur.

Grandmasters have a low opinion of the Smith-Morra because they have studied it. Yes, there are examples of GMs losing to the opening, but they are rare and not nearly as common as examples of IMs and GMs beating it.

Bent Larsen summed up his opinion of the Smith-Morra when he was annotating a game that was played against Ken Smith: "1.e4 e6? 1...c5! would have won a pawn."

The Smith-Morra may surprise some players, but every Sicilian player should be prepared to face it.

See smyslov fan hit my concern on the head... Particuarly in a world where it's easy to look at your future opponents previous games... Ill take another example so no one accuses me of picking on the smith Morra. If you invest your opening study to say, the Catalan... And your opponent next week finds you in a database and says... Ok, this guy plays the Catalan. Well fine, whatever, they are preparing for the Catalan. Pretty standard my preparation vs there preparation. If he sees in contrast that I play... The Danish, I feel like concentrated preparation against the Danish is gonna yield much larger benifits.

I guess tilt comes down to the fact that I am ok with the Catalan against optimal play in all lines, but I'm not sure I can say the same for the Danish.

But with gambits like the Evans and the Smith Morra I'm more on the fence trying to decide...

Can you take these into battle when the whole world knows they are comming?

It's a debate for me.

A simpler question is whether these openings are good enough to play in correspondence chess. Quite a few people do play the Smith-Morra and the Evans in correspondence, but not the Danish. They have some success, but not much.

Some more interesting gambit lines can be found in the QGD Botvinnik, the Catalan (extremely complex play that baffles even world champions), or even the King's Gambit.

Generally, the really good players try to find unusual gambits such as ...g5!? in the French or Nd5!? in some sicilian lines. Many of the most effective gambits don't have names.

 I think your right. We play one/two moves ahead trying to make the best move,wishing our opponent makes a mistake, does not see our plan or resigns.