Originally posted by moon1969
That's what I think. That all gambits can be refuted. But have to be careful against their initial threat. It is pleasurable to refute the gambit and survive with the extra pawn.
>I quite agree. The problem with playing gambits is that once the gambit is accepted, the attack must be pressed immediately, otherwise there's no point to a gambit, and that's almost always too soon because it's unsupported.
>In defending against a gambit, one must be careful not to end up out of position in an attempt to retain the gambit pawn. You have probably given up a bit of the centre in taking the pawn and so you will have to defend accurately, but if you can do that, your position is quite sound.
>Therefore, if the gambit pawn is returned at the right moment, you end up with the better position. Even better is retaining that pawn, but I think it's a mistake to base one's whole strategy on doing so.
>So my way of dealing with gambits is to accept them all (with the possible exception of the QG) and think about the endgame right away. What kind of endgame will likely result from this position? If I can get there and deal with that question, I'm in good shape.
>“The object of playing a gambit opening is to acquire a reputation of being a dashing player at the cost of losing a game.” -Siegbert Tarrasch
>“A sacrifice is best refuted by accepting it.” -Wilhelm Steinitz