Advice on Gambits

I need some advice on gambits. I never play gambits because I'm not one of those "pawn for position" people. Like my personality, my play is generally risk free. I don't take risks, which is why I don't like gambits. Recently I realized that I am probably missing out on a lot by not playing gambits. Does anyone have any advice on gambits and how to make them successful? And I'm talking general ideas.

im no expert, really im pretty rubbish, but a gambit is often quickly recoverd, eg queens gambit (i think) which is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxd4 but white will get the d4 pawn back because if black defends it black will lose out by a lot more than a pawn. i think

well the queens gambit can be more complicated, if black wants to keep the pawn, he can, but relinquishes the center.

A true gambit does not offer immediate material compensation, but rather offers compensation in space or time.

Some gambits on the otherhand are tactical in nature and are therefore described as dubious. If the one accepts these psudo-gambits, then ones pieces will be pulled off of their squares, the point being that they leave other pieces undefended that can then be captured. These gambits can also conceal hidden attacks, for example a knight could take the head of a pawn chain, revealing a hidden attack on an undefended knight. Whether your opponent decides to take the knight or defend his own he is still left a pawn down.

Originally posted by mazziewag
im no expert, really im pretty rubbish, but a gambit is often quickly recoverd, eg queens gambit (i think) which is 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxd4 but white will get the d4 pawn back because if black defends it black will lose out by a lot more than a pawn. i think

Originally posted by chesskid001
I play the Queen's gambit, but only because it is not really a gambit. There is no decent way for Black to defend the pawn

Originally posted by Sicilian Smaug
Don't worry, CM Master will be along shortly to go on (and on) about the Kings Gambit...😉

Originally posted by alexstclaire
yes there is

Originally posted by Mister Meaner
1. d4 d5
2. c4 dxc4
3. Qa4+ wins the pawn back by force.

This is rarely played because both sides have an interest in maintaining tension, but black cannot hold the pawn...

Originally posted by chesskid001
That's why I said general in my first post... don't need a KG lecture when I play d4 openings

as a general rule gambits arriving from e4 tend to attack the f7 square of black. gambits arrising from d4 pawn openings tend to have a longer build up before attacking. i prefer the scotch gambit e4 e5 Nc3 Nf6 d4 exd4 Bc4.

smith morra gambit is good for white, for black the marshall attack is very strong!!! it gives up a pawn for a strong attack

Originally posted by chesskid001
I need some advice on gambits. I never play gambits because I'm not one of those "pawn for position" people. Like my personality, my play is generally risk free. I don't take risks, which is why I don't like gambits. Recently I realized that I am probably missing out on a lot by not playing gambits. Does anyone have any advice on gambits and how to make them successful? And I'm talking general ideas.

Originally posted by no1marauder
To thy own self be true; if you're risk aversive, don't play gambits.

I don't like opening gambits myself on either side; they're usually extremely "booked" and require a lot of memorization. The Smith-Morra is an annoying one to face that I usually decline and turn into a c3 Sicilian (I'm a Sicilian player). I do like the Alekhine-Chatard Attack against the French though.