Gambit theory

I dug up a Bronstein gambit gem.
Two knight's defense,at move 8 Bronstein sacs his light squared bishop to establish a big center.Reminded me of the Cochrane Gambit idea.

[Event "Olympiad"]
[Site "Moscow (Russia)"]
[Date "1956.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "David Bronstein"]
[Black "Ernst Rojahn"]
[ECO "C58"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "75"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. d3 h6
7. Nf3 e4 8. dxe4 Nxc4 9. Qd4 Nb6 10. c4 c5 11. Qd3 Bg4
12. Nbd2 Be7 13. O-O O-O 14. Ne5 Bh5 15. b3 Nbd7 16. Bb2 Nxe5
17. Bxe5 Nd7 18. Bc3 Bf6 19. Rae1 Bxc3 20. Qxc3 Qf6 21. e5 Qf5
22. f4 Bg6 23. Ne4 Rab8 24. Qf3 Bh7 25. g4 Qg6 26. f5 Qb6
27. Qg3 f6 28. e6 Ne5 29. h4 Kh8 30. g5 Rbc8 31. Kh1 Qd8
32. g6 Bxg6 33. fxg6 b5 34. d6 Qb6 35. d7 Nxd7 36. exd7 Rcd8
37. Nxf6 Qc6+ 38. Qg2 1-0

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
Pick three openings that fit in with this your chess personality

I find it depends on the phases of the moon. Some days I can't resist the Exchange French, the Exchange Slav, the Symmetrical English or the Hedgehog. Other days, I play the Danish Gambit, the Moscow Gambit, the Fegatello or the Traxler Attacks

Just read a humorous assessment of the BDG.
"Any GM or IM who even dreams of playing the white side of a BDG should wake up and apologise" - James Rizzitano.

Come, it is not because you give up a pawn, that you must be lost. No one has ever refuted the king gambit.

Originally posted by AudreyxSophie
No one has ever refuted the king gambit.

Yes, they have. White seeks a significant advantage with the KI; Black can equalise fairly easily. Equality for Black after a handful of moves will do for me. I'd call that a refutation of White's ambitions

You are asking for too much, of course you won't winning after 1. e4 e5 2. f4... Come on, there is a difference between equalizing and refuting.

It is KG not king indian....

I don't think there is any opening that lead to a forced win for etheir side. If you get a big advantage. that is something else too.

Originally posted by AudreyxSophie
Come on, there is a difference between equalizing and refuting

Not with a gambit, there isn't.

The whole purpose of a gambit is to achieve significant advantage. If a Black-side gambit achieves at least equality, it can be deemed successful. But we'e talking White-side gambits mainly. If Black equalises easily, the gambit is busted. After all, White began with the advantage of the move.

I don't want thing like that game I had with you to happen, I played a gambit, but I did not know about that move, right after I went on wikipédia and find the information about the move and choose to give since I was thrilled to continue the game. NOt like i knew about Qe7, and that traxler, not like I was very thrilled, i don't know enough to play so i stopped right away, but I don't want to have to give up since i'm not ready for those things...

I am just looking for a book...

Maarten de Zeeuw's five articles on the Traxler in New in Chess are available on the internet:
www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB63_146.pdf
www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB65_137.pdf
www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB66_113.pdf
www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB67_130.pdf
www.newinchess.com/Yearbook/pdf/YB68_142.pdf

These five articles cover the mainlines of the Traxler and are a good introduction to this opening. Keep in mind that de Zeeuw was attempting to refute the Traxler (he claims it but he hasn't done it here), some of his analysis is faulty.

He always attack Heisman vision of the opening and the work he made. I have discover that too, quite a good thing too.

Originally posted by atticus2
Not with a gambit, there isn't.

The whole purpose of a gambit is to achieve significant advantage. If a Black-side gambit achieves at least equality, it can be deemed successful. But we'e talking White-side gambits mainly. If Black equalises easily, the gambit is busted. After all, White began with the advantage of the move.

Incorrect, the point (at least this should be the point, at anything other than the master level)of any opening a player plays is to get a playable position which they are comfortable playing

So, which bookshop will be better for me ? I am little lost when I had to make a choice.

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.

I was already confused after the first two gambits you listed, as Evan's gambit is a 1.e4 e5 gambit, while the Blackmar-Diemer gambit is a 1.d4 d5 gambit, unless you plan on transposing to the latter when facing the Scandinavian with 1.e4 d5 2.d4. You may want to become a member of the Internet Chess Club and check out GM Boris Alterman's series "Gambit Guide", which covers many gambits.

I just want to play plenty of things, to be varied. variety if life... ehh?

Oh well, I can transpose too, I mainly only play the king gambit by transposition from the bird.

Well in any case, I highly recommend you join the Internet Chess Club, as Boris Alterman's video series covers many of the gambits you listed in your first post, and GM-Elect Alex Lenderman has a nice three part series on the Smith-Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3) that you should look at as well. As far as books go, you should go to amazon.com and type in the name of the gambit you are looking for, and you should be able to find a book on it. GM Nigel Davies has developed an opening repertoire for white and black in his books Gambiteer I (gambit repertoire for white) and Gambiteer II (gambit repertoire for black)