The Queen's Gambit is not a gambit. Change my mind.

Sort:
Avatar of Tails204
talliholic wrote:

tails u kinda annoying tbh

I'm just a man who wants to be honest with other people. There's nothing annoying unless someone's trying to prove wrong opinions - and I don't want to be such a person.

Avatar of Optimissed
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
royalknight101 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
royalknight101 wrote:
Tails204 wrote:
royalknight101 wrote:

its a gambit, just not a very traditional one

Why do they believe that it's a gambit when someone can always get back their pawn?
In the King's / Halloween / Italian / Wing Gambit you don't have such an opportunity.

thats exactly the point, you give a pawn in exchange for activity and counterplay just like any other gambit but its not traditional due to the fact on how it can be easily neutralized from both sides without much drastic chances of winning

In the QGA, black gets more activity than in the QGD. What white gets is the centre. The QGA isn't a true gambit although white and black can play it as a gambit. For instance, 1. d4 ...d5 2. c4 ...cd 3. Nf3 ... c6 4. e4 ...b5 or 3. Nc3 ...a6 4. e4 ... b5 are possible lines which are gambit-like.

yeah white can neutralize and have a balanced game in the QGD 

Generally, when black plays lines which hold the pawn for a few moves and white plays e4, it can become a genuine gambit because it's the e4 pawn that can drop. I usually play 3. Nf3 and 4. e3. 3.e3 is the easiest way to get back the pawn but black can't hold it after 3. Nf3 and 4 e3, even if white has to take on c4 and then play Qa4+ to get the piece back. Usually the Q side is bust open with s4 and b3, and white can get a lot of play there. I like playing against the QGA and also sometimes play it as black.

That's true, but I perfer e3.

I was bust by that move in a tournament. It was a five round weekend major. Either under 1800 or under 1880 (FIDE). I was on three and a half out of four but there were about seven players just behind me and one equal. I had black and I had to win to win the tournament outright, because a draw could have meant a five or six way tie. It was the days before I'd switched from the QGA to the Modern Benoni. It was actually the reason I switched. I was tired and my opponent was experienced. He played 3. e3 and, like s complete fool, I played 3. ...e5 and was positionally outplayed in a queenless middlegame. Looking at it later, the entire thing was better for white, it turned out. I lost and was out of the prizes altogether but in those days I played more for the money than anything else and I was gambling the £150 first prize, in the days when the entry fee was £6, against about £40 if I drew.

And that's why I play that. The benoni is actually a good move, I play it in blitz, and I seriously considered playing it in rapid, but I chose to play the KID instead.

Yes, I took a big hit in blitz and went down from near 1900 to about 1430 and am working my way back up, slowly. These things happen occasionally. I dropped the Benoni and am playing the QGD as much as I can as black. I want that to become my primary defence because I think it suits me more these days. Occasionally I play a QGA. But if I'm losing at Blitz I switch to the Modern Benoni. I love the Modern Benoni but it's just that I need as much practice with the QGD as I can get. I want to play one or two more tournaments and maybe club chess again.

Avatar of Stil1
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:

White can reclaim the pawn, but in some lines, black can greatly improve his position while white burns time trying to win the pawn back.

Example:

White won the "gambit" pawn back. But now black has connected passed pawns on the a and b files.

White has to play with care, or black will steamroll over him.

Funny how this is +0.4 and this is a known variation. Who cares about the connected pawns. It's not an endgame. Because of the light square bishop, because white can make a huge pawn storm, and because white can remove the a pawn with good play and destroy the b pawn later, I would actually like to play white here.

Easier said than done. Many grandmasters have lost as white from that position.

Avatar of mrfreezyiceboy
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:

White can reclaim the pawn, but in some lines, black can greatly improve his position while white burns time trying to win the pawn back.

Example:

White won the "gambit" pawn back. But now black has connected passed pawns on the a and b files.

White has to play with care, or black will steamroll over him.

Funny how this is +0.4 and this is a known variation. Who cares about the connected pawns. It's not an endgame. Because of the light square bishop, because white can make a huge pawn storm, and because white can remove the a pawn with good play and destroy the b pawn later, I would actually like to play white here.

Easier said than done. Many grandmasters have lost as white from that position.

Funny that black's win rate is 33% in that position and that 187 titled players played that position. Think before you talk again.

33% doesn't mean it's a sure win for white though. also not all 187 of those titled players were necessarily grandmasters, the best of the best

Avatar of Optimissed

Probably better for black at our level than GM level.

Avatar of Optimissed
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

Probably better for black at our level than GM level.

But like I said, if you can put the LSB on the a square, you will be able to target the a pawn, and the pawns cannot advance.

But I don't think it loses by force for black and in the meantime, the lsb is a bit tied up. Anyhow, maybe I'll be a bit more confident as white after your comment. I get it so very rarely. Nobody seems to want to play the Slav against me for ages except in blitz, where they play daft moves like 4 ... Bg4 or 5. ....Bg4.

Avatar of Stil1
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Funny that black's win rate is 33% in that position and that 187 titled players played that position. Think before you talk again.

That position, at the grandmaster level:

14 wins for white, 19 wins for black, 16 draws.

28% white wins, 32% black wins, 38% draw.

Sorry to break it to you, but that position is mostly even, with white losing slightly more than black.

Going into it, black can reasonably expect to draw or win, while white can reasonably expect to draw or lose.

Also: don't act like an arrogant know-it-all.

Especially at your rating.

There are players on these forums who are far beyond your level, and you'll go farther if you attempt to learn from them, rather than argue with them.

Avatar of Stil1
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.

You're not an "expert" on the Queen's Gambit. Nor are you an "expert" at chess. You're still, clearly, a novice.

The sooner you realize this, the better your path to improvement will be.

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.

You're not an expert at anything lol. All that means is that you primarily play the QG as white and your opponents lose. Barely anyone at out level actually knows theory. @Stil1 is right.

Avatar of mrfreezyiceboy
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.

You're not an expert at anything lol. All that means is that you primarily play the QG as white and your opponents lose. Barely anyone at out level actually knows theory. @Stil1 is right.

yeah, none of us are truly "experts"

Avatar of mrfreezyiceboy
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.

You're not an "expert" on the Queen's Gambit. Nor are you an "expert" at chess. You're still, clearly, a novice.

The sooner you realize this, the better your path to improvement will be.

Novice? I am advanced. I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines. Novices aren't people under 2000, novices are newbies who are 500 or 1000.

i wouldn't consider you advanced, you're more of an intermediate player imo, no offense. but if you know SO much about the qg, try playing against a gm and get out of the opening into a balanced position

Avatar of Commando_Droid

it isn't a gambit. If Black tries to keep the pawn, then it backfires

 

Avatar of NoName1245

By your logic, the scotch gambit isn't a gambit and niether is the kings gambit, the problem with your theory is that you are saying that any gambit where you can easily win back the materiel  isn't a gambit. And that icludes many gambits. 

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
little_guinea_pig wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.

You're not an "expert" on the Queen's Gambit. Nor are you an "expert" at chess. You're still, clearly, a novice.

The sooner you realize this, the better your path to improvement will be.

Novice? I am advanced. I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines. Novices aren't people under 2000, novices are newbies who are 500 or 1000.

I consider myself a novice :\

So do I, so I will improve further. But I can tell you that if your 2k your an expert. People say I am "Advanced"...

You just said that you are advanced lol!

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
kingandqueen2017 wrote:

it isn't a gambit. If Black tries to keep the pawn, then it backfires

 

lol +1

Earlier you were saying that it WAS a gambit…

Avatar of assgatito

@ChesswithNickolay is so light

Avatar of assgatito

right

 

Avatar of PerpetualPatzer123
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
kingandqueen2017 wrote:

it isn't a gambit. If Black tries to keep the pawn, then it backfires

 

lol +1

Earlier you were saying that it WAS a gambit…

The arguments were so good, they changed my mind.

Nice

Avatar of ninjaswat

I've considered myself to be a noob for a while... also overall 60% winrate in blitz and over that in rapid, but it doesn't mean I'm an "expert" in my openings... so please don't use that as evidence to show your proficiency. As @IMBacon would say, our games are not decided in the opening.

Avatar of Stil1
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

... No wonder I am a master at the queen's gambit.

... Think before you talk again.

... Dude, my win rate with the queen's gambit is 60%, I am an expert on this opening.

... I studied everything on that opening and know all the lines.

... People say I am "Advanced"

You're a 1200 blitz player. Yet I've seen you, in various threads, talking down to players far more experienced than you.

I don't know what gave you the idea that you're a "master" / "expert" / "advanced" player. Wherever that belief came from, you should work to correct it.