I see a lot of the Queens Gambit declined positions, and I've seen games where black fights tooth and nail to maintain the pawn that he's captured. But now I'm looking for your input. When looking at the Queens gambit I prefer the Albin Counter Gambit, but would you accept White's generous offer of a pawn?
I play that gambit too, just to see if I can get them to fall into Lasker's trap.
I play that gambit too, just to see if I can get them to fall into Lasker's trap.
Did it ever work? I try the Albin countergambit every once in a while for that very same reason, yet it never happens :)
@ Lyndras
well the qga is obviously an edge to white, like any other normal opening, but if you look into around move 6 of course there are imbalances. you can play e6 nf6 a6 nc6 c5 and cxd4, giving white an IQP. Many people don't know how to play IQP positions and maybe you can call this an advantage to black?
well if played correctly it is meant to be an advantage to white, that is if you don't liquidate
Exactly, the main line with 4.e3 nearly always ends up with White having an IQP which 1500 rated players mostly just see as a weakness rather than a dynamic asset. I have played these positions OTB and sometimes after the game the White player says 'how can that be the main line when I end up with a crappy isolated pawn?'
Against those kinds of players you can apply the Karpov approved anti-Tarrasch/French strategy once you nullify White's initiative.
I play that gambit too, just to see if I can get them to fall into Lasker's trap.
Did it ever work? I try the Albin countergambit every once in a while for that very same reason, yet it never happens :)
No. However, I generally have good results if it doesn't. I have ran into a few bumps in the road though.
My Houdini says +0.07 after 9...e6. Quite obviously my Houdini is better than yours! 
No, I do not need Houdini 2, the difference from 1.5 is very tiny. I like the playing style of Critter, despite the fact it's not yet as strong as Houdini: He plays more "human" chess.
Then both sides are equal from the very start according to chess engines.
And according to Steinitz...
As far as I understand, Steinitz' theory claimed that the initial position is a perfect equilibrium, which is maintained by playing correct moves. Once one side makes a mistake, the other side has an advantage, which can only be kept if an attack is started. Starting an attack without pre-existing advantage would backfire.
Winning percentages for white are presumably better, following Steinitz that is, since white has the first move, the initiative and therefor can keep posing problems to black which have to be solved. If black starts making inadequate moves before he can gain the initiative, white can accumulate small advantages and eventually win.
On the other hand, if black plays solidly, he should always be able to draw, or win if white plays inadequately, applying the same principles of accumulating small advantages.
That's what I make of it anyway...
edit: here is some stuff on his theory: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Wilhelm_Steinitz.aspx
Steinitz was not properly understood at his era, and I'm afraid he still isn't.
Black should never try to defend the pawn with b5
Ah, those dogmas. Black could try defending the c4 pawn whenever applicable.
This is a blitz game, but still it's not a speculative one:
"My cpu claims a 0.17 advantage so you're wrong pfren"
eww. I feel bad for titled players that post on here, thanks for sticking around guys, I'm sure many of us (who may be silent) find your posts informative, I do. 
Play e4 and not worry about it.
In my opinion, I usually play the Albin Countergambit and the Soller.
I like the open positions, flexibility, and attacking chances it gives me.
Pointing out a4 vs a3 is right, more power to you.
Saying there is an advantage because your computer reads .17 in the opening is just ridiculous.
In middlegames too though. I'd always rather hear any player stronger than me talk about a position than a computer. There are many practical considerations when making moves, and when dealing with centipawns, the evaluation is very rarely stable from move to move even on the same computer. So quoting things like .17 (especially in the opening) is worthless. As pfren pointed out his same engine gave a different readout. Just for fun let me put it in my houdini....
It tells me 0.08 Here's a trick, tell us what it reads after Bxc4 Qxc4, I'm sure the computer foresaw those moves, but the eval with change regardless. The position hasn't changed for the human but it has for the computer. What's the difference? The human is thinking in terms of a big picture, while the computer is limited by it's horizon. Now who do you trust, an IM or a computer? The computer just spits out a number. Unless it's a mate in __, the number is worthless if you turn off your brain and don't look at the position.
And even if the eval was constant at 0.17 for the moves the computer gives as best (it never is but just pretending) due to practical considerations, 0.17 is a draw.
For humans and computers because we error more than that. As info relevant to the readers of this thread especially (we error even more). But it's also theoretically a draw because the drawing margin for any endgame is larger than a computer's 0.17
So even if the computer's evolution was correct just in it's own terms (it isn't) and you were talking theoretically (not to the forum posters) you would still be wrong.
As you are aware pfren, 4. e3 is a gambit. 4. a4 is the move if he wants to win the pawn back.
"My cpu claims a 0.17 advantage so you're wrong pfren"
eww. I feel bad for titled players that post on here, thanks for sticking around guys, I'm sure many of us (who may be silent) find your posts informative, I do.
Oh yes, let's always kneel and worship the titled players. Never question anything they say, never try and clarify anything. Obviously if they play that well then everything they ever say here must be godly and right.
It's not so much about worshipping titled players as it is choosing to trust the judgement of an international master who has played hundreds of FIDE rated OTB games over that of the bullet junkie who's played none
...together with any white advantage.