"The best way to refute a gambit is to accept it." - your opinion?

To all gambit fans out there, do you agree with this statement? Do you prefer to accept gambits whenever you have to face them, or do you prefer to decline and play it safe?

The best way to refute a gambit, surprisingly, it to refute it!

The gambiteer has obviously prepared to play the gambit - why would you want to play into their book?

please accept my pawn we dance the dance i know ,,,, NO  , why would you let another dictate what you must do ?

Actually, yes. But you have to be prepared in order of doing this.

+1

What is wrong with studying a gambit to learn how to accept it successfully?  Learning to accept a gambit and defend the attack is highly beneficial.

+1

sometimes its worth not taking the gambit simply bc the opponent clearly wants you to - if they get angry and pissy then thats an advantage for you id say

similarly, when people get taken out of the main sicilian lines, they get angry too sometimes and dont prefer that - so all the more reason to do so

Well, yes -- if you know the refutation or feel competent to refute it over the board. But finding a refutation OTB when your opponent is booked is risky.

A college friend played the Sicilian Wing Gambit against a 2400 player (who went on to become an IM). The 2400 player accepted, played  contemptuously, and got beaten like a gong. My friend had some homebrew analysis and the 2400 guy walked right into it.

Because I want an advantage as Black after White did something really stupid!

Of course, we are talking garbage like the King's Gambit, Danish Gambit, etc.  The "Queen's Gambit" isn't really a gambit, and Accepting it isn't necessarily best.

I played a Gambit last night in a G/75 with a 15 second increment per move, but there's a reason I use it as a surprise weapon and not as my regular opening.  Because it isn't very good!  Best way to refute it?  Accept it!  My opponent didn't, he was a mere 1700 player that never learned what the word resign means either, and got destroyed:

Since I'm familiar with most of the gambits in the openings I play, I go by the wisdom "The best way to refute an *unknown* gambit is to accept it," although I might add "...but be prepared to give it back in a hurry if things get rough!"

My reasoning is as somebody above pointed out: if I haven't seen it before, it's probably not a gambit but rather a mistake.

Depends on the gambit.  For example, I believe that accepting the Smith-Morra is not as good as forcing white into an Alapin line with ...Nf6.  It can be surprisingly difficult for black to win with the extra pawn, and it seems much more drawish than just playing the Nf6 Alapin line.  But dubious gambits?  Accept it and squash their lame attempt at being an "attacker."  

Best way to refute it?  Accept it!  My opponent didn't, he was a mere 1700 player that never learned what the word resign means either, and got destroyed

Thriller: Your profile says your USCF rating is 2100+. I rather think your 1700 opponent was as likely to lose if he accepted your gambit.

And it's possible he got a better game, such as it was, than if he had accepted, since he could have easily played into traps you knew.

heres 1 i did a bit ago , sorry dont know how to embed on a board ,

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=117287012

ANOK, you get the PGN, and then copy it and paste it.  

You first see the little chess board on the left of the upper strip of the text area, click it.  

A box will pop up with three options.  Select the middle one, "Game or Sequence of Moves".  Hit "Continue".

Next, you will paste the PGN into the lower section, "Use a PGN File".  Hit "Continue".

Finally, you can edit the PGN here by adding any text or analysis you like, and when you are done, click "Insert".  

Try that out.  Here is what it will look like when you are done. 

cool will give it a go , thnx for the how to do ,

was so loving this wish aze had took the queen would have been fun to play knxc7 mate

Here's a gambit in the Caro-Kann that I had played against me at my chess club recently that I have never seen before. I can't find it anywhere online, so I don't believe that it is sound.

The idea being that if Black plays 5. ...Bg4? here, White plays 6. Ne5!, threatening Bxf7 mate, and attacking the Bishop.

I'm more of a 1) d4 player and I always play the queen's gambit. But I do play 1) e4 in order to get me out of my comfort zone and I've started to play the king's gambit to truly get me out there in the unknown as opposed towards a queen's gambit! One thing I've noticed on the black end of the stick associated with the king's gambit is that if you accept it white gets the development , centre and intiative pretty damn quickly. I always refute it and get the dark square bishop out. The attacking chances are just too fast if you don't get your pieces out.

is there a weakness black can exploit around g3 and h2 in kings gambit accepted , i almost can sniff it out but not fully to give a convrete line worth looking at

i refute ur dad and accept ur mom