I find 'win quick' gambits disgusting

I'm sick of all these  'how to crush lower rated players with XXX gambit' type videos. Is this all people care about, getting a quick win by reciting a few moves by rote? At best, you'll improve your rating for a short while but then get kicked back down when you have to actually play real chess. I don't think we should be encouraging this sort of thing. I really want to yell at my screen when opponents play some stupid gambit that they've been told will let them 'win easy'. 

Sorry you don't seem to like gambits in general.  Let me try my best to give some positives of gambits:

1. If people don't play gambits, then people don't learn how to counter them which results in gambits being more effective again.  Gambits will always be part of chess theory and repertoire.
2. The faster the time control, the more viable the gambit is.  Blitz games can feature gambits even at very high level play.
3. The most important reason - they can be fun.  I have even seen master-level players on streams and videos explore gambits and have fun with theory.

I don't necessarily agree with sensationalism "crush lower rated players with [insert this opening]", but gambits will always have their place in chess.

I don't necessarily think that is true. At the top level sure, but in blitz or rapid time controls against fellow beginners/intermediate players, gambits can be difficult to refute

I play gambits whenever possible.  I don't learn the theory, I just play them for fun.  Some people like to have fun while playing chess.  It's an odd concept, it's true.  If they're bad gambits you just win against them and move on.  If you lose I guess they're decent gambits.

A gambit is just exchanging on advantage (material) for another (faster development or structural advantage or whatever) so it's no more nor less legitimate than any other chess idea.

Ridiculous. It all depends on what your chess goals are.

So many people are obsessed with improving. To what end? Do you actually think your life will be better as a 1700 rated player than a 1500 rated player? Do you really think you’re going to challenge for the world championship?

Playing gambits is fun. I play the King’s Gambit a lot because it leads to fun positions. Is it good? Probably not so much. Is it fun? Definitely. Do I miss those ratings points I just lost? No. I do miss my dog Kikki though. That was a good doggie. Ratings points? Not so much.

That's a pretty ridiculous straw man you've got going there.

You gotta chill man. I’m 1200 lmfao I’m too scared to use them, which is why I’m stuck here

@richard_hunter how is it a straw man? You advocate “real chess” over a few tricks, as if this somehow makes you better.

I can assure you that the KGA, or Evans Gambit, or the Smith-Morra Gambit are not “trick” openings that are insta-win traps.

What I can tell you is that they are a hell of a lot more fun to play than mainline theory, which leads to dull closed position snoozefests. I’m not obliged to partake in your soporific drudgery and I choose fun over sound play.

I mean just being objective here the KG is the definition of a trick opening. It gives good chances to score miniatures against unprepared players but is objectively unsound. It may be fun to play as White against people who don't know what they're doing, but it doesn't make it good. Magnus tried the KG for fun in an online tournament recently and got blown off the board in like 20 moves. I think that says something about the opening...

The whole point of gambits is to avoid theory since they're almost all objectively bad

Imagine advocating for real chess over cheap tricks. 

 

Magnus lost to a 1500 player?  If not it says nothing about the opening at the level most of us play at!

KG has been played at the highest levels with success. Kasparov was known to play it, and Judith Polgar played it often.

Playing against someone who is prepared for the kga is the most fun of all. There are threats and pieces hanging everywhere, and if I lose, all righty.

But honestly, I don’t care about playing a 90 moves snoozer!

Real chess... such snobbery. You sound salty because you lost to a gambit, and instead of learning how to properly defend, you start blaming the world for your troubles.

Instead of moaning in a forum about gambits, why don’t you hike up your pants and head over to YouTube. You can look up things like “how to punish the _______ gambit”. Real players know how to defend against fake chess.

LOL, I'm a snob because I'm not obsessed with getting quick wins against low ranked opponents.

You’re a snob because you believe that “real chess” is a thing, and that learning how to properly defend is beneath you. Yup. Snob.

Real chess isn't a thing?

 

The entire Romantic Era in chess emphasized style and flair and beautiful chess over drudgery. Was that not real chess? Just because your computer tells you to be a boring wet noodle doesn’t mean that it isn’t real chess. That you would classify the kga or Evans as “not real chess” is obnoxious ahistorical snobbery.

Seriously. Now head over to YouTube and type in “how to punish the gambit I just lost to.” It’ll help with that case of hyper salinity you’re suffering from.

I don't think you understand the nature of chess during the so called 'Romantic era'. Players like Paul Morphy won through following solid principles, not through playing traps by rote.

Kings gambit is occasionally played at the highest level in blitz and rapid. Usually if GMs want a sharp game in classical they play a sharp opening that doesn't immediately give up material like the accelerated dragon or the modern benoni or KIA. But even those will almost inevitably involve a sacrifice during the game so you really can't get away from the idea of activity over material in aggressive games.

Paul Morphy’s favorite opening as white was the King’s Gambit!!! It’s in the name of his favorite opening! He routinely played the Evans and the Scotch gambits! Get thee to a youtuberee!!!