[TRUTH]: Why Gambits Are BAD

Hey guys,

So today I'd like to present you with the truth - why gambits are bad and boring.

I just played this game were both kings ended up in the middle of the board, yes, literally, in the middle of the board. This is not chess. This is child's play at extremely high level of technique/sophistication.

PGN (I was black, BTW, they opened with "king gambit", so this is from my POV):

Benzodiazepine won by checkmate
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=827187962

I inherently dislike people dragging down the quality of games by using a "gambit" in a childish attempt to win a game...

Greetings,

You are correct about childish attempt, but not correct about gambits as a whole.

King's gambit?  Were you playing a retro-game from the 1930s?

Nope, not at all. It's very common, even in 2014. King gambits, Queen gambits, you name it gambits... >_<

About 50 % if not more games start with such a way (I never do it).

The King's Gambit and 4 Knight opening seem to be played a lot more 75 years ago.  For Gambits, the queen gambit is a lot more popular.

Anyone who consideres the QG to be a true gambit is wrong... the QG allows white to win back the pawn (If it is accepted) almost immediately.

The true gambits like the King's Gambit, Benko Gambit, Evan's Gambit, et cetera are really just as good of openings as any - look at any engine evaluation of a well-known gambit. It's hard to argue with computers. One person's opinion that "all gambits are bad" definitely doesn't refute the tried-and-true opinions and openings of every strong player and grandmaster from Morphy to Carlsen...

I agree with you, Twinchicky. The Queen Gambit is not a real gambit. But people still play it, making it even worse/more childish.

99 % will attempt to win the pawn back immediately, in order to gain "position advantage".

It's really sad.

So just because this game does not fit your standard of what a game should look like, it was poorly played or bad? This is a very interesting game BECAUSE it is different.

So, you're saying the Queen Gambit is a real gambit?!

Please explain to me how gambits are "childish" or "bad". I see absolutely zero concrete reasoning for this.

Again, one single player isn't going to disprove hundreds of years of tried-and-true chess!

The only thing that is childish and bad is your attempt at a thread.

You can't say that the gambit's (at all) are bad...There are many great openings with gambits..My opinion is that there is no opening for two (>1900) players that can lose surely!!!King's Gambit is losing for a Carlsen - Caruana but, for all (<2000) Kingss Gambit is a great openning...Gambits are not bad, they could be less suitable for you or you think they are not winning for you but bad is  very general!You can't disprove such a big part of chess theory!

Of course.  He can stop the electricity supplying the engine.

The kings were only dragged into the middle of the board because of how you played, it's not the gambits fault. And you cannot say all gambits are bad based on one game (you may be basing it on more but you only showed us one example). 

I think a better thread would have been QGD vs QGA.

Well, I play the Queen's Gambit and do fine with it

So gambits really ARE bad! I knew it!

There you have it, folks. Conclusive proof that we shouldn't p[lay gambits. And i find it hard to imagine anything more convincing than watching two patzers moving pieces around aimlessly for 34 moves, like we just saw above.

Truth or Dare -- this thread is frighteningly stupid.  Much like the chess game he provided as example.

If you want, you can try to argue that gambits are bad.  However, they are most definitely not boring.  In my experience, gambits cause the most intense, most fascinating games.