Go back
Gambit Soundness

Gambit Soundness

Only Chess

Vote Up
Vote Down

I'm just going to put up a list of gambits that I personally play. Anyone who has an opinion as to it's soundness can then put up an argument for each.. I'm really interested to see what people think of the openings people my level (myself included) play.

- Kings Gambit
- Traxler (Wilkes-Barre) Gambit
- Fried Liver Attack
- Muzio Gambit
- Danish Gambit
- Scotch Gambit
- Wing Gambit

Those are the openings I usually play. My personal opinion is that with perfect play, only the Kings gambit would hang on to a draw.. the rest seem unsound.

Any opinions?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ih8sens
I'm just going to put up a list of gambits that I personally play. Anyone who has an opinion as to it's soundness can then put up an argument for each.. I'm really interested to see what people think of the openings people my level (myself included) play.

- Kings Gambit
- Traxler (Wilkes-Barre) Gambit
- Fried Liver Attack
- Muzio Gambit
- Danish Gamb ...[text shortened]... ay, only the Kings gambit would hang on to a draw.. the rest seem unsound.

Any opinions?
By the very definition, a gambit is not, nor never will be, sound. The idea of a gambit is to introduce a complication that you hope you can solve before your opponent does. Sorry to be a pedant. If you have to play perfectly in order to gain a draw... use a different opening!

Vote Up
Vote Down

oh i dunno.. QG seems perfectly sound to me. Maybe not.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ih8sens
oh i dunno.. QG seems perfectly sound to me. Maybe not.
It's not a true gambit, that's why. It should be declined.....
(Anyway... you don't play it, per your list above...)

Vote Up
Vote Down

sorry to say this but what's the G mean in QG then? If the difference between 'gambit' and 'true gambit' is a matter of soundness... then your definition of gambit isn't really fair to the question. I honestly am confused.. what are you talking about?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by English Tal
It's not a true gambit, that's why. It should be declined.....
this is because the pawn can always be gained back right?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by English Tal
It's not a true gambit, that's why. It should be declined.....

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by English Tal
It's not a true gambit, that's why. It should be declined.....
oops 😞

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ih8sens
oh i dunno.. QG seems perfectly sound to me. Maybe not.
I was told that White can get the pawn back therefore it is not a true gambit.

Vote Up
Vote Down

King's Gambit. Spassky was asked one time why he played the King's Gambit. He stated that White had no advantaged with the Ruy Lopez or the Giuoco Piano so why not play the King's Gambit? That is the best thing I can say about the King's Gambit. Fischer also stated that White has no lasting advantage with the Ruy Lopez.

Vote Up
Vote Down

a gambit is where you give up matieral that you can not force the recovery of. the queens gambit black cannot safley keep the pawn he takes.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ih8sens
- Kings Gambit (sound, but with proper play, Black can get good position)
- Traxler (Wilkes-Barre) Gambit (Unsound.)
- Fried Liver Attack (Completely sound.)
- Muzio Gambit (Unsound. 1 criticial refuting line.)
- Danish Gambit (I don't know. Maybe slightly better for Black.)
- Wing Gambit (Black can obtain a better position.)

Blackmar-Diemer (Unsound. Two refuting lines [that I know of].)
Poison Pawn Sicilian (...f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2) (Sound with some dead end lines that end by perpetual check)

But if you don't know how the lines go, you may lose.
Game 3905460
Game 997086
Game 2983502

Vote Up
Vote Down

In the QG, a simple queen check can be used to win back the pawn. I think saying it should be declined is nonsense, the pawn can be won back straight away, true, but with the queen out that early, the queen gambit accepted is a sound opening for black IMHO.

Vote Up
Vote Down

QGA: Alekhine defense, Borisenko-Furman variation:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 a6 4. e4 b5 5. a4 Bb7 6. axb5 axb5 7. Rxa8 Bxa8 8. b3 e6 9. bxc4 Bxe4 10. cxb5 Bb4+ 11. Bd2 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Bxd2+ 13. Nxd2 Qxd4 14. Qa8 Qd8 15. Be2 Nf6 16. Nf3 O-O 17. O-O Qd5

A very old and long forgotten line showing Black can indeed hang on to the pawn making the QG a 'true' gambit.As far as I know the line has never been refuted.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by English Tal
By the very definition, a gambit is not, nor never will be, sound. The idea of a gambit is to introduce a complication that you hope you can solve before your opponent does. Sorry to be a pedant. If you have to play perfectly in order to gain a draw... use a different opening!
The benko gambit simply doesn't work like that. It is one of the few "sound" gambits.Against most gambits,you more or less try to trade down into an endgame where your extra pawn gives you all the winning chances. This won't work against the benko gambit. then there is the Queen's gambit though I don't consider that to be a real gambit.