It's funny and super complicated
Why is stafford gambit a miss?
Sort:
joshforthewin wrote:
Mazetoskylo wrote:
joshforthewin wrote:
this is stockfish vs stockfish playing the stafford - it was a draw. (Now, I understand that in practical terms white may be able to get a good advantage and win the game but this forum is about how the traxler is classified as a good move a "book move" whereas the stafford is just a "miss" not a "book move" even though stockfish vs stockfish it is a draw)
here we have stockfish vs stockfish traxler, an easy win for white.
The first one is just lost for Black after 8.Qf3 or g3, and this is not the only way for white to achieve a winning position in the Stafford, e.g. 5.Nc3 Bc5 6.h3 is just as good, or better, and you can also add several more approaches.
The second game is just a parade of bad moves from both sides, starting with 5.Nxf7? (either 5.Bxf7+ or 5.d4 are correct) which loses all of white's advantage, and then instead of the terrible 7...Bb6? Black should play 7...d5 8.exd5 Nd4 with full compensation for the sacrifised material.
Thou should not allow your engines to drink before, and/or during a game.
the difference according to stockfish between Nxf7 and Bxf7 is 0.03 so really it doesn't matter
And the difference between a dumb guy and a stubborn dumb guy is huge: The latter will never learn anything, while there is a lot of hope for the former.
The Stafford just blunders a pawn for very little compensation. The only reason to play this is that you assume White doesn't know or find the refutation.
Sep 10, 2024
0
#25
Jenium wrote:
The Stafford just blunders a pawn for very little compensation. The only reason to play this is that you assume White doesn't know or find the refutation.
so with perfect play does the traxler not lose anything?
Sep 10, 2024
0
#26
People are still playing Stanford? I thought the hype had been over.
Jenium wrote:
The Stafford just blunders a pawn for very little compensation. The only reason to play this is that you assume White doesn't know or find the refutation.
Oh no even if they know the refutation they can still blunder
AgileElephants wrote:
People are still playing Stanford? I thought the hype had been over.
I play it like every few chess games sometimes
joshforthewin wrote:
Jenium wrote:
The Stafford just blunders a pawn for very little compensation. The only reason to play this is that you assume White doesn't know or find the refutation.
so with perfect play does the traxler not lose anything?
Maybe, but the Traxler is probably still tricky enough...
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
Jenium wrote:
The Stafford just blunders a pawn for very little compensation. The only reason to play this is that you assume White doesn't know or find the refutation.
Oh no even if they know the refutation they can still blunder
True, but why give your opponent pawn odds, when you can start with an almost equal position?
Sep 10, 2024
0
#31
I tried Stafford few times in blitz and bullet and never get anything for the pawn. Even Eric Rosen now admits it´s lost by force.
Jenium wrote:
The Stafford just blunders a pawn for very little compensation.
You are wrong.
The computer evaluates the position after 4...dxc6 as approx +1.90, which means that white has very good compensation for the pawn he has won.. . 
I don't think any player ever player played the Stafford Gambit thinking that it's good.
It's a semi-troll opening, like the Alien Gambit. Better than the Bongcloud, but that's not saying much, that bar can't be any lower.