Yeah, not letting kids / new players play gambits is silly IMO. That's usually when you learn there's more to chess than counting the pieces, not to mention initiative and attacking are fun."But what if they don't have the attacking skills and lose in the endgame?"Oh come on. Their opponents who are also new players / kids don't have technical / endgame skills. I wouldn't worry about 1 pawn. I mean don't force them play gambits, maybe they don't like them, but don't ban gambits.
I don't care what rating range you are in, endgame and technical skill is the most important in chess. Tactics are important, but you aren't always going to have a winning shot whereas if you're winning but the win isn't obvious you need to know how to properly convert it. I watched two "beginners" play and was stunned when one didn't seize the opposition for the clear win. Even if you need to figure it out OTB one should know that you don't want the opponent to control the square in front of your pawn. I also had a 1350 practice an endgame against me. It was won for white but I drew him even after I told him the correct move from Fine's endgame book. Then again a class A later said of the same position (but a little later) "Why not move the king here?" I said because white needs black to have move in that position to force zugzwang so a3+ wins, so Kd2, not Kd3 was needed.
I don't care what rating range you are in, endgame and technical skill is the most important in chess.
I wish that were true, because it's my favorite thing to study. Unfortunately, other than being completely off topic and unrelated to my post you quoted, you can't separate tactics from strategy or middlegames from endgames or quiet play from attacking play. Real games always mix these elements, often many in a single position.
Then again a class A later said of the same position (but a little later) "Why not move the king here?"
You started off with what seemed to be a disagreeing tone, but then proved my point for me. Well what can I say except I agree lol. As I said, don't worry about the pawn investment because players aren't little Smyslovs and Karpovs. Especially considering that reasonable gambits give you compensation so you shouldn't be losing in any case.
One advantage of introducing gambits early is to teach that just because a piece is offered, it doesn't mean you should automatically accept it. Similarly, just because it looks like your opponent has left a piece hanging, it doesn't necessarily mean your opponent overlooked it - maybe something else is going on.
Good point. I remember leaving some pieces hanging against a new player once. The second time I did it he asked if I was mocking him... I had to explain that after he took the pieces I was winning!
Gambits can be quite good (I even recommended the Manhattan) but one should really know what they're doing and the ideas behind them. Still, many tactics and sacrifices are to obtain a clearly better endgame, but that would be drawn or even lost if one doesn't have sufficient technical skill to convert it. The majority of chess moves involve improving the position, converting a win, or holding the draw whereas only a few moves in a given game are tactical in nature. Agree though that all aspects are important and related. What stays on the board matters much more than what leaves, if exchanging an active rook for a passive rook (usually bad) gives you a clearly winning pawn endgame why not do it? Some triangulation there, a little zugzwang there, and you break through and win those pawns, keeping the rooks could improve the other guy's drawing chances.