I find 'win quick' gambits disgusting

Gambits are intrinsically an insult to one`s opponent. Some guys in my Chess club want them forbidden to be played in our tournaments. I am not sure that the USCF would sanction that.

u might think gambit is trap but maybe not, maybe like gambit for position, actual chess like scotch gambit 

dude, ur a 900 player, not solid chess, please listen to others, u don't know much, gambits are not disrespect because it's not traps, it's also like piece for position ex the scotch gambit, 2 pawns for 1 piece early development 

only gambit tricks are and only at high levels and depending on gambit, some like evans gambit is not a trick, it's positional and counterable, it's just pure strategy, the real disrespect is not mating an opponent for pleasure or trying stuff like scholar mates 

Unsound?!  What level are you playing at?  > 90% of players on chess.com play unsound moves most of the time.  Basically what you are saying is there is no point for a human to play because computers know better moves that are more sound.  If you think chess is about ideas then get your head around the idea of gambits too!  Playing solid positional chess is mostly just someone waiting for their opponent to make a mistake that they can then capitalise on too.  Look at an opening like the Hedgehog.  Not a gambit at all, just a typical opening to let your opponent over-press through boredom then punish them for doing so.

Every time I win with the legal trap it makes me hard

Isn't gambit sacrificing material for positional advantage or initiative? what does this have to do with crushing lower rated players?

And why are you so angry? about what people do with their own purposes? they can play chess to satisfy their ego while you play it to learn something. Do all people have to share same reasoning with you? 

Sure, principled play is better.

It's nice that you're disgusted by bad habits other posses (such as an affinity towards bad gambits).

But I can't help but think you'd improve more if you focused your disgust not on the bad habits of others, but on your own.

I'll use myself as an example. I was disgusted by attacking play in general, and especially sacrifices. "This is how stupid children win chess games" I thought to myself. "Professionals use real chess."

Even so, attacking play and sacrifices are part of the game.

To bring the analogy back to you, gambits and elements like the initiative are very real and very important aspects of the game. You may idolize champions like Karpov and Kramnik, but even they would leverage their memory, and the initiative, to win a game if you gave them the opportunity.

Oh, I didn't read this topic. I'll feel bad if my post, in effect, helped pile on.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but...

Gambits create activity in more positional positions. I used to play the Scotch Gambit and still play it from time to time. I like the scotch as it prevents boring e4 e5 pawn structures that usually lead to a draw. I don't play it anymore but not because I felt uncomfortable, but because I moved to the Ruy Lopez, which I'm sure most people would do. Sure, gambits usually give the other side a slight advantage, but a lot of the time, the side that sacrifices the pawn gets the pawn back or gets great compensation.

I'm a gambiteer. It has nothing to do with tricks or even just winning.  There are traps in most openings anyway. What appeals to me about gambits is the classical tension between time and material.  In gambits, you give up material, maybe a little, maybe a lot, for the sake of rapid development.   I think computers have shown that material usually becomes advantageous over time with near perfect play. Fortunately, I play imperfect people.  Faster development gives you more options for a while. If you can make better use of those options before the advantage dissipates than your opponent can with his added material, which doesn't dissipate, you'll probably win, if not you'll probably lose.   Gambits aren't for everyone, but they certainly add spice to the game... and to me, it's all about the journey not the destination.  

Exactly my point. They're no doubt better with perfect play, but they can't play perfectly. They collapse under all the pressure we get in exchange for material.

Gambits are simply part of the game, usually the offer of immediate material gain for an advantage in position. As they are an "offer" they can be accepted or declined.

It is up to you to decide how to reply when you are confronted with a gambit. If this happens frequently, especially if it is the same gambit, you can take some time to read up about them and determine how best you would like to respond.  Good luck.

90% of  youtubers will target newbies. 

Majority of chess books are also like that

For example. 

1. How to crush Sicilian  by cherry picking black blunders

2. How to win with Sicilian by cherry picking white blunders

If they aim a real chess book how to draw from both sides, 90% of chess players wont buy them.

I really don't get the name of this forum. Gambits are interesting. Some are bad and have been refuted, like the King's gambit, while others are good. Gambits= interesting.

"some schmuck who plays wayward queen or scholar’s mate over and over and over again and is gleeful when some poor noob falls for it."

So after all that, you basically agree with me.

It's my understanding that while the KG can be neutralized (as probably every gambit can be), there's no refutation.