Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 17 Dec '10 11:09
    Hi everyone,

    I'm currently playing in a Cochrane's Gambit themed tournament and I love the wild, reckless games where I'm constantly attacking. I enjoy these edge of the seat type games the most and I've started playing aggressive gambits quite successfully at my local chess club - I've just learned the Evans and Kings Gambits and they're the flavour of the month for me.

    However, I have much less success playing aggressively on rhp and I wonder if that's because opponents have more time to spot the cheeky tactics that these type of games rely on. What's everyone's take on this? Can you be as aggressive in rhp games as you are otb or does everyone tone it down a bit when they play correspondence chess?

    Graham
  2. 17 Dec '10 11:46
    Originally posted by Double G
    Hi everyone,

    I'm currently playing in a Cochrane's Gambit themed tournament and I love the wild, reckless games where I'm constantly attacking. I enjoy these edge of the seat type games the most and I've started playing aggressive gambits quite successfully at my local chess club - I've just learned the Evans and Kings Gambits and they're the flavour of ...[text shortened]... otb or does everyone tone it down a bit when they play correspondence chess?

    Graham
    I've moved away from thinking of myself as a positional player and now I routinely sacrifice material for activity... not just pawns. I think this is essential for one's chess development. I expect the next phase will see more circumspection but for now my play is very aggressive: you are forced to find sharp moves that maintain the initiative. I'm also enjoying my chess a whole lot more. Don't worry about your rating, worry about the development of your style. I bet no strong player has ever not gone through this period of aggressive play.

    Beware this strategy seems to work against players lower rated than yourself but better players accept the material, consolidate their position and see off the attack. I suppose this is because they don't allow disadvantageous sacrifices.

    I suggest you get a hold of Rudolf Spielmann's The Art of Sacrifice in Chess.

    Here I lost badly against a better player:



    An unsound win:

  3. 17 Dec '10 11:48
    Gambits basically rely on your opponent not knowing the lines and falling for certain tricks. By definition, many gambits, if countered correctly, result in the gambiteer being at least slightly down (but conversely, if countered incorrectly, a signficant advantage can be gained) - so you're gambling on your opponent not countering with the soundest lines.

    in CC, everyone can refer to books, online tutorials, etc so the more sound counters are likely to be chosen, whereas OTB of course if the player hasn't learnt the opening, such resources are not available and they're more likely to not select the best response.
  4. Standard member pdunne
    Badmaster
    17 Dec '10 13:15
    "Gambits basically rely on your opponent not knowing the lines and falling for certain tricks. "

    Not so. That's the definition of an *unsound* gambit.
  5. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    17 Dec '10 15:25
    Originally posted by pdunne
    That's the definition of an *unsound* gambit.
    there are other kinds?
  6. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    17 Dec '10 15:44
    Originally posted by wormwood
    there are other kinds?
    Only when I play them.
  7. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    17 Dec '10 15:46
    Originally posted by pdunne
    "Gambits basically rely on your opponent not knowing the lines and falling for certain tricks. "

    Not so. That's the definition of an *unsound* gambit.
    "Games without blunders are called draws." -CP
  8. Standard member Exuma
    Anansi
    18 Dec '10 02:39
    I play the Scotch pretty often:-



    Intending to sac the c pawn as well, with hopefully a lead in development. Maybe even the b pawn too 🙂
  9. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    18 Dec '10 02:48
    Originally posted by Exuma
    I play the Scotch pretty often:-

    [pgn] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 [/pgn]

    Intending to sac the c pawn as well, with hopefully a lead in development. Maybe even the b pawn too 🙂
    What an unsound opening. 😀
    JK my friend TSG is awesome. 🙂
  10. 18 Dec '10 04:29
    Originally posted by wormwood
    there are other kinds?
    Yes
    Maybe you have heard of the marshal gambit, or of the benko.
    There are better gambits of course, which give such an advantage that they're refused most of the time.
    For example :
    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 is an excellent gambit.
    No, not exd4 4.c3, or Bc4 (those are regular, maybe unsound gambits), but what is normally called the scotch opening, could be called a gambit (of the e4 pawn)
    In effect, black can take the pawn by 4...Qh4 ?!, (since the only way to keep the pawn would be bad : 5.Qd3?!), but it's so risky that it's hardly ever played anymore at top level.
    So maybe the scotch game should actually be called a gambit, usually refused by 4...Nf6 or Bc5.
  11. 18 Dec '10 04:38
    I forgot another one in the same kind (although a little less strong) : what is usually called the 2 knight defence vs the giuco piano should also be called a gambit !
    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6
    It's not called a gambit, but it should, since now 4.Ng5 wins a pawn. And it's considered a good move i believe, at least sound.
  12. 18 Dec '10 07:21
    Originally posted by shorbock
    I forgot another one in the same kind (although a little less strong) : what is usually called the 2 knight defence vs the giuco piano should also be called a gambit !
    1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6
    It's not called a gambit, but it should, since now 4.Ng5 wins a pawn. And it's considered a good move i believe, at least sound.
    Yep, usually black plays 4...d5 making it a real gambit, lovely variation and my main weapon against the Ng5 line.