JackRoach wrote:
I mean, I've heard that it's bad.
Cause it neglects development and opens their rook?
It can cause your piece(usually queen) to be trapped, and it can give your opponent an initiative.
What is the difference between gambit and poison pawn
Sort:
@JackRoach, this sort of thing ...
Apr 12, 2021
0
#24
Yes, but black didn't play the opening well and didn't develop. I get what you mean like that were you can either trap the queen or win material somehow.
But it's not always like that.
Apr 12, 2021
0
#25
In game 11 of the 1972 World Chess Championship match, Spassky won Fischer's Queen right in the opening in a Sicilian Najdorf Poisoned Pawn variation.
Boris V Spassky vs Robert James Fischer (1972) Crime and Punishment (chessgames.com)
The Blackburn-Shilling Gambit has a poisoned e pawn.
Apr 13, 2021
0
#27
Ok. I missed mate in 1.
But the point is, that sometimes the pawn is just a free pawn.
blueemu wrote:
Typically, the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it. Accepting a poisoned pawn has a poor reputation.
True
Openings like the King’s gambit are gambits because you will win the pawn back in a couple of moves. If you opponent takes a poisoned pawn, then you usually win something bigger, like the queen.
Apr 13, 2021
0
#30
Usually you don't try hard to win the pawn back in the KG, right?
Don't you just attack?
It depends on what they do. If they try to defend the pawn with their life, then I attack. If they do actual orthodox moves, then I take it with the bishop.
Here is a game with a few blunders and poisoned pawns:
Gambit refers to a sacrifice in the opening, usually a pawn, but sometimes even a piece.
A poisened pawn specifically refers to a pawn sacrifice, usually in the opening. But I guess it could also refer to the middle game. Also the term "poisoned" implies the assessment that it might be too dangerous to accept the sacrifice, while the term gambit is neutral.
I mean, I've heard that it's bad.
Cause it neglects development and opens their rook?