♡ 59 ( +1 | -1 ) Gambits That Didn't Quite Make itNowadays, you will do anything to get the initiative, even if it involves sacrificing material or pawn structure. Yes, these gambits may be unsound, easily refuted, and hard to play, but yet, they have a profound curiosity inherent to them. Let's look at a few of these "strange gambits" and, maybe, you might just want to catch your opponent offguard and use one of these (they go down in respectability).
♡ 34 ( +1 | -1 ) last 3?I'm not quite sure that the last 3 openings here are considered gambits, since they don't immediately sacrifice material. I would like to know peoples thoughts on the Latvian gambit. I have never tried it but I see it was used by hell-on-wheels in the gameknot-CCLA match. Any players here have success with it??
♡ 35 ( +1 | -1 ) what do you think of1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 e5 ... I'm playing a nice game with this opening right now (also debatable as to the "when-to-resign question): board #398684 Is it a variation of the Latvian Gambit? It looks likeit.
♡ 102 ( +1 | -1 ) Some poor sarcasm :-)- Thoughts of someone playing unsound gambit -
(after move 3)
"Dont decline pls...game will be equal and boring...no mate threats, no messy positions..."
(after move 4)
"Yesss Obbengheim-Uffelgoggah Gambit it is! I get to play my favourite line now!"
(after move 5)
"Now theres a trap...will he fall into it? No, he saw it"
(after move 6)
"Ok now theres another trap...Darn! He saw that too!"
(after move 9)
"Cmoon...take my Bishop so I can use a trap I saw in a book...Aaaa, dammit has this guy studied this opening or something!?"
(after move 10)
"Yeah and of course he sees that one too, now I have another boring inferior middlegame to defend"
Heheh ok that wasnt a good one...but gotta say I have never understood why some people like to play for home-prepared opening traps. Whats the fun in it? The exitement of will opponent blunder or end up to better position by playing correct moves?
Not to critisize anyone of course, there is no rule that one must play good openings! :-)
♡ 41 ( +1 | -1 ) cochrane gambit?does anyone think the cochrane gambit is good? (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe4 d6 4.Nxf7?!) i'm trying to add more gambits to sharpen up my repetoire... i'm sure this is more difficult to play for white than for black, but topalov got a good position v. kramnik with it in linares 1999...and vitolinsh played it with mixed success...any opinions?
(btw, i like the lisistin gambit as well but it's hard to play it if you open 1.e4) :)
♡ 11 ( +1 | -1 ) here is an intersting gambit..this is a finished game against an expert it is his way of refuting the GK he said it was the lativan line:387232=game_number
♡ 123 ( +1 | -1 ) findurielYou are playing the Elephant Gambit, but you made a mistake on move 5 : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Qe2 Nf6 5.d3 Qxd5 ?! In most lines of the Elephant taking the d5 pawn with the Queen is not a good move due to the exposed position of the Queen. Better is playing the gambit with 5. .. Bb4+ which can be followed by 6.c3 0-0 7.dxe4 Bc5 8.Bg5 Re8 9.Nbd2 c6 10.c4 h6; Black has compensation by the better development while White has problems to develop his kings bishop. This was an older line. The modern treatment of the Elephant is by playing Bd6 on the third move : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 Bd6. Refering to FM-master Jonathan Rogers : White can hold on to his d5 pawn if he wishes. In return Black develops quicker and more usefully viz .. Nf6/f5, 0-0, e4 and has the basis for both a speedy kingside attack and a leisurely advance of his 4 v 3 pawn majority. Meanwhile White's 5.c3 majority on the queenside tends to remain immobile, unable to advance without losing the extra pawn on d5. This makes the Elephant quite an unique gambit : Black does not necessarily aim for a quick kill, because he can build up his attacking position at leisure. Still two remarks : 1. the elephant has nothing to do with the latvian and 2. thoughts while playing gambits are very more profound than just looking for some easy traps like some kibitzers are proclaiming.
♡ 10 ( +1 | -1 ) oppsok well go to my completed games and see me vs. keiserpaul. sorry i cant figure out how to make a direct link
♡ 45 ( +1 | -1 ) triangulatorWhat about that game ? We played a Kings-Latvian gambit. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 that you won in a convinced way. But I just heard about that opening and wanted to try it out; that has nothing to do with the openings mentioned above. The Elephant, the Latvian, the Icelandic gambit, the Tennison, the Lisitsin and the Macho Grob are well-known openings with a lot of theory and ideas and a lot of games to study in different databases. ( The Mellon and Junk gambit on the contrary are not to my taste.)
♡ 26 ( +1 | -1 ) Heheh"2. thoughts while playing gambits are very more profound than just looking for some easy traps like some kibitzers are proclaiming."
It seems you are taking your job as a devotee of unorthodox openings quite seriously...
♡ 5 ( +1 | -1 ) ohok i had never even heard of that gambit
♡ 92 ( +1 | -1 ) keiserpaulthanks for your knowledgeable hints. After 5.d3 I didn't quite know what to do anymore (the opening was mere improvisation, I simply thought, "Why not?"). Now that I know the lines I can play it according to the books, thanks again. Consider, however, that the fact that the opening involves that white's king and queen are on the same rank (file?) constitutes plenty of potential for a trap, especially when one plays against opponents who don't know the opening and/or are likely to forget that their queen can be pinned by a rook. It might well be that the reason for playing a risky gambit is more profound than hoping that the opponent falls for traps but at the level I play, I have to settle for the traps. The more complicated concepts of positional chess are still out of my mind's reach.
♡ 39 ( +1 | -1 ) Latvian GambitI disagree with the ?! assessment of the Latvian. I have played the Latvian quite a bit and have never lost with it and most of the games were on the internet. As pointed out by brunetti, the Latvian is popular in correspondence circles and played by strong players. It seems to me the Latvian is not very popular because it is risky and not easy to keep the draw in hand -- which many masters like to do.
♡ 31 ( +1 | -1 ) ButIts never easy to keep "draw at hand" if one plays black :)
Perhaps the reason is if opponent plays the best moves Black will always be clearly worse? Im sure in amateur level Latvian gives good practical chances, but in master level its different...especially in GM level.
♡ 155 ( +1 | -1 ) Finduriel"It might well be that the reason for playing a risky gambit is more profound than hoping that the opponent falls for traps but at the level I play, I have to settle for the traps. The more complicated concepts of positional chess are still out of my mind's reach."
Why such pessimism? Good gambits give good compensation like development advantage, initiative, open files, etc. And of course gambit doesnt always mean giving a pawn or two for attacking chances against opponent king, for example Benko gives great pawn structure and strong positional pressure on queenside...despite of being pawn down its black who mostly has better chances in endgame! Im sure these concepts (and positional chess) arent out of your reach! Perhaps going for gambits that have more profound goals or for positional play doesnt give much wins instantly, but in the long run it will pay off.
BTW Im sure everyone (except Keiserpaul it seems) realizes that in my post I was only referring to gambits that fit to the description I gave : dubious gambits that people play mainly for traps or "messy positions" (that are inferior if opponent finds best moves) where they can hope for an opponent to screw up. In other words - not gambits that have more profound goals (Benko for example), but crap like Mellon or Junk. Of course there are many others that are better than these but still inferior, but...
♡ 47 ( +1 | -1 ) peppe_lWhat you said is true. We on an amateur level can get away with much more than the IMs and GMs. Yet Nimzowitsch played the Latvian against Spielmann in a major tournament with 1st prize at stake. Made one slip and lost, but until that point had Spielmann on the ropes. So if GMs are willing to throw away 1st prize in tournaments for the sake of the battle so to speak, we might see more risky openings. Instead we see fellows like Basman and Skembris being adventuresome.
♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 ) StillIn the times of Nimzowitsch general knowledge about chess and openings in particular wasnt on same level its now.
Also, it seems I belong to a small minority among hobby players who consider slow positional battles more interesting than tactical melees...
♡ 54 ( +1 | -1 ) yep yepmuch agreed, most that aforementioned j'nk is just what is left for online to play to totally disrespect opponent and throw his mental state out, for serious play chess is preferred to ronkhing.
peppe is still on after match heat of karpovs win over dreev today, come to north and u will see 90% of tourny players here prefer slow maneuvering.
Did nimzo have any logical reason for this try? perhaps knowing how dangerous Spielmann is with initiative wanted to get that himself at all costs?
♡ 23 ( +1 | -1 ) YesSometimes a bottle of champagne to celebrate the glorious triumphs of Almighty Karpov makes me exaggarate a bit...I hope I wasnt too rude.
North - a place where 90% of players value the ancient art of hinkh...Im packing my stuff as we speak...
♡ 81 ( +1 | -1 ) War“The better army should want to fight on hilly terrain, rather than the plains or in the mountains”, quote from Carl von Clausewitz’ treatise “ON WAR”, 1832.
This is largely quoted book, even in Business/Management subjects I’ve studied. Graham Burgess, propose that this quote still holds true in chess: "A little imbalance, such as that generated by a sensible gambit, will allow the more skilful player to prevail, where as a position which is very quiet and level (“the plains”), will tend to be more drawish (the weaker players inaccuracies may not be sufficient to cost the game), while a wild position (“the mountains”) tend to lead to more random results (decided by both sides lucky and unlucky guesses)."