accepting gambits

[Derek Sinclair]

Who prefers to accept the gambits rather than decline them? Is it ok to accept most of them or should you not do what your opponent wants you to do?

d

[Roger Lancaster]

Case-by-case basis.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Plus there are gambits and gambits - the Queens Gambit Accepted isn't really that save for a smallish minority of lines.

[Joey Stewart]

I feel like gambit players are cowards, putting themselves in a position where they can't really lose any respect - if they win they are hailed as a dashing and brave attacker and if they lose they are patted on the back and told what a great attempt it was.

Never take a gambit unless the refusal leaves you completely worse - make them play a proper game where they will be properly admonished for losing from a level position!

[Derek Sinclair]

I feel like gambit players are cowards, putting themselves in a position where they can't really lose any respect - if they win they are hailed as a dashing and brave attacker and if they lose they are patted on the back and told what a great attempt it was.

Never take a gambit unless the refusal leaves you completely worse - make them play a proper game where they will be properly admonished for losing from a level position!

don't think they are cowards.. they used to be all the rage in chess before modern theory I assumed?


how is the queens gambit accepted in terms of playability for black then?

[Matt Mackenzie]

how is the queens gambit accepted in terms of playability for black then?

It is a highly playable opening, even if not the most popular response.

[Joey Stewart]

Queens gambit is not really a gambit, per say, pretty sure white can regain the pawn by force if he does want it back unless there is some sort of new deep engine analysis for black to dig deep and hold on but I'd be very surprised if any modern chess computer could stand to give away so much initiative

[Roger de Coverly]

Queens gambit is not really a gambit, per say, pretty sure white can regain the pawn by force if he does want it back

There are related positions in the Slav and the Catalan where Black plays dxc4 and is able to follow up with b5 for a hold on the light squares. White's best play can be to just continue in the centre and king side ignoring the loss of the c pawn.

[Geoff Chandler]

I feel like gambit players are cowards, putting themselves in a position where they can't really lose any respect - if they win they are hailed as a dashing and brave attacker and if they lose they are patted on the back and told what a great attempt it was.

As a confirmed gambiteer this to a certain extent is very true. However I found, like most players when I'm possibly lost I think better. The quicker I get that dodgy position the better.
I was never really after pats on the back. I was after the win and it had to come before the end game.

But, as they, inside every clown is a actor wanting to play Hamlet and I would have loved to have played a patient accumulating small advantages game culminating in a flawless ending.
(Or maybe not. I enjoyed how I played, every minute of it. Surely that is what matters.)

Regarding the question. All depends what is on offer. A pawn, very rarely, a known to theory and established piece sac. These are usually unavoidable, you have take them, but that means you now have two (sic) pieces to sac back.

[Derek Sinclair]

i assumed it was only pawns that were used in gambits. A piece (bishop or knight) must be a piece sac rather than a gambit.

[IM Jack Rudd]

No - cf the Cochrane Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7).

[Joey Stewart]

There's even a crazy, but highly unsound, Halloween gambit if you really like being material down and to be able to force the position regularly

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Nxe5 Nxe5 4.d4

[Roger de Coverly]

There's even a crazy, but highly unsound, Halloween gambit if you really like being material down and to be able to force the position regularly

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Nxe5 Nxe5 4.d4

I thought a Four Kinghts move order was preferred. That way you can chase both Black Knights.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3, Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 and both the d pawn and e pawn can advance.

It's also possible to play it with colours reversed in the Glek system

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 Nxe4

Bizarrely a Stockfish thinks the colours reversed version is only slightly better for White, whereas the mainstream version is nearly winning for Black. That's likely because it thinks the Knight retreat from e5 to g6 is the best play, which isn't possible from e4 with reverse colours because of the pawn on g3.

[John Upham]

Derek,

Have you investigated the Swiss Gambit?

This is a gambit involving no pieces or pawns given away.

There is also the arriving late at the board to annoy your opponent gambit.

[Matt Mackenzie]

No - cf the Cochrane Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7).

Also the Fried Liver Gambit (at least one prominent online chess outfit has started regularly referring to 5 Ng5 in the Two Knights as that - aargh!) and quite a few branches of the Kings Gambit Accepted - most famously perhaps, the Muzio.