Gambit theory

HI again.

I am searching theory on many gambits.


I want to play Evans gambit, blackmar diemer gambit, traxler gambit, letvian gambit and such opening, but I don't know where I can find books or review on these opening, cochrane gambit was looking good too.

I just don't want to play opening that are really refuted.

>I think those gambits are basically refuted, so I see no reason to play them other than as a possible surprise. However, it the opponent keeps his wits about him, he should get an advantage.
>I forget who said it, but someone once said that the way to refute a gambit is to accept it.
>Tarrasch also said something to the effect that a player who plays a gambit does so in order to acquire a dashing reputation at the cost of losing the game.
>As far as I'm concerned, the only gambit to play is the Queen's Gambit, but of course that is mis-named because it really isn't a gambit at all.

The Evans Gambit is a good and playable opening (GM Nigel Short plays it occasionally). Two good books on the Evans are Marin's "Beating the Open Games" and Harding's "Evans Gambit & a System vs the Two Knights Defence".
Traxler theory is extremely complicated and evolving fast. It's rarely played at the top level so theory outreaches whatever has been played on the board. I don't know of any book or article which isn't outdated in parts but as a starting point there is Dan Heisman's e-book, Palkovi's book, de Zeeuw's series of articles in the New in Chess yearbooks. The latest article on the Traxler is in NIC Yearbook 90 but even this shouldn't be taken as gospel.
I can highly recommend playing the Traxler (from either side), its a lot of fun.

I have played every gambit that is worth trying. I have found that under 1700 it usually doesn't matter, however, with opponents over 1700 they can usually easily get an equal position. The only two gambits I would suggest are the kings gambit and the scotch gambit.

The latvian can be a pain, but those who know how to play against it will have little trouble getting equal. I prefer to stick with the openings that are played at the highest levels. They play them for a reason.

Where the hell I am supposed to get those two books, you mention them, but how to get them is another story.

I even tried the halloween gambit twice and it did not deceive me, I was facisnated, by such an agressive opening, trading pawns in order to get the black king, such an untypical way. but nothing more then a article.

Originally posted by geo86012
Two good books on the Evans are Marin's "Beating the Open Games" and Harding's "Evans Gambit & a System vs the Two Knights Defence".

Marin's Beating The Open Games isn't a helpful suggestion here.

People interested in playing the White side of the Evans gambit shouldn't get the Marin book. It does include a chapter on the Evans - but only from Black's point of view. For the White player it wouldn't be much help at all as it only discusses one line for Black

For Black players wanting to defend 1. e4 e5, however, it's an excellent book, covering everything White may throw at you other than the Ruy Lopez (although it does include the exchange ruy)

Originally posted by AudreyxSophie
Where the hell I am supposed to get those two books, you mention them, but how to get them is another story

Have you considered the possibility they might be available for purchase at a book shop? Perhaps one that specialises in chess products and has an internet presence?

Originally posted by JonathanB of London
Have you considered the possibility they might be available for purchase at a book shop? Perhaps one that specialises in chess products and has an internet presence?

Even not specialiced internet bookshops have the books.

And if money is a question there is always internet auctions and second hand shops.

Originally posted by AudreyxSophie
HI again.

I am searching theory on many gambits.


I want to play Evans gambit, blackmar diemer gambit, traxler gambit, letvian gambit and such opening, but I don't know where I can find books or review on these opening, cochrane gambit was looking good too.

I just don't want to play opening that are really refuted.

Take a look here

http://www.chessville.com/UCO/index.htm

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
>I think those gambits are basically refuted, so I see no reason to play them other than as a possible surprise...

Yes - I must remember this next time I play a roomfull of GM's.

What do you suggest? Semi-Slavs or Ruy Lopez from now on?

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Yes - I must remember this next time I play a roomfull of GM's.

What do you suggest? Semi-Slavs or Ruy Lopez from now on?

>Well, I'm strictly a 1.d4 player and haven't played 1.e4 in 6 years, so I never see double king pawn openings from either side of the board since I use the Sicilian, usually the Dragon Variation, as Black (occasionally I unavoidably get into a French as White by transposition), so I'm the wrong guy to seek advice on playing 1.e4.
>A Slav or Semi-Slav is basically Black's choice, not White's.
>My advice is simply to figure out what kind of player you are and what kind of positions you like. To keep this as simple as posible, if you like tactics and open games, go with 1.e4; if you like strategy and closed games, go with 1.d4.
>Pick three openings that fit in with this your chess personality (and ideally, all relate to each other - for example, the Sicilian as White relates to the English as Black), one with White, and two with Black (to respond to either 1.e4 or 1.d4) and stick with these through thick and thin until you understand them completely and/or get bored with them. After that, you'll have a much better understanding of where to go from there, because along the way you'll encounter all sorts of variations as well as transpositions being played against you and you'll have to learn those as you encounter them.

What I mean is that any gambit is reasonably sound for 99% of players on this site.
I've beaten both a 1900 & 2000+ rated with the Englund gambit.
I've also been beaten by a 1400 playing the Morra - such is life.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
What I mean is that any gambit is reasonably sound for 99% of players on this site.
I've beaten both a 1900 & 2000+ rated with the Englund gambit.
I've also been beaten by a 1400 playing the Morra - such is life.

>Oh, I'm sure that's quite true. I was just trying to pount out that gambits have gone out of fashion at the highest levels of chess (which certainly doesn't include the likes of lowly me) because the best players have shown them to be unsound.
>I think every player in learning the game goes through a love affair with gambits (I certainly did), but if he wants to play sound chess, in time he learns not to play them.

Unsound does not mean a refuted opening.... And what gm say is no always the truth, they are human after all.

Originally posted by AudreyxSophie
Unsound does not mean a refuted opening.... And what gm say is no always the truth, they are human after all.

That is true, but I still feel that there is always a way to gain equality, perhaps even an advantage, against a gambit. It's not always easy and is often difficult, so that a gambit may well work against players below a certain rating.