19 Sep 07
Originally posted by YugaCan you post the critical line in the Muzio, I thought it had been analysed to a draw!!
- 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. T ...[text shortened]... now how the lines go, you may lose.
Game 3905460
Game 997086
Game 2983502
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by English TalFamous quote: "A gambit is when you give up a pawn in the opening for the sake of getting a lost game."
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!
All seriousness aside (as the late Steve Allen used to say), a gambit isn't necessarily unsound. It is certainly speculative, but not necessarily unsound. The King's Gambit is probably not the optimal opening for White, but I'd scarecly call it "unsound."
In a gambit, White gives up something (a pawn) in exchange for something else: development and space, e.g. A good attacking player will score well with gambits. When chess is "solved", I'd be very surprised if the King's Gambit is a forced win for Black.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by Schumie4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 and then the Fried liver attack is defined by by 4.Ng5, is it not?
Really? I thought it was considered dangerous if Black didn't know what they were doing but if they played correctly, if was better for Black.
cludi has posted some analysis of the line in his blog and although it is not very deep, it does touch upon the various lines and notes which ones are better.
Both sides have to play quite precisely; that is very true. In the line after d5 ed Nxd Nxf7 Black has to play extraordinarily precisely to hold the balance - otherwise punishment is quite brutal.
i.e. like Game 793134
I think 4...d5 ed Nd4 (strongest) c3 b5 Bf1 Nxd5 Ne4 Ne6 is strongest and white is eventually forced into pushing and giving back a pawn at d4 at some point as Nf4-d3 in cannot be allowed in many lines and white's development is cramped. I am quite sure this line is sound after substantial analysis. Black has other options too, but these are the only two that I am confident that are sound.
Whereas 8...Qh4 (seen in Estrin-Berliner) has two refutations, the simplest being 8...Qh4 9. Ng3 Bg4 10. f3 e4 11. cxd4 Bd6 12. Bxb5 Kd8 13. Qb3 Bxg3 14. Kd1 Be6 15. Bc6 exf3 16. Bxd5 fxg2 17. Qxg3 Qxg3 18. hxg3 Bxd5 19. Rg1 Re8 20. Nc3 Bf3 21. Kc2 when white simply needs to stall the blockade the Kside pawns but must play very precisely to win. The above line is long but fairly straightforward and Black is pretty much committed to it after 8...Qh4 (and certainly so after 10...e4).
One really should try and practice, practice, and master one gambit line before proceeding to any others. I don't mean just memorizing critical lines - but motifs because if your opponent deviates, plays inaccurately, you must know what to do. The purpose is to set your opponents hellish problems move after move - if it is possible to do so - that is the sign of a good gambit.
One gambit that looks extremely tempting that hasn't been mentioned here is the Smith Morra. If good resources are available for white in the middlegame - it just might be simpler to simply master Smith Morra/Alapin lines and ideas than those of all the Sicilians - besides, it is a pleasure to attack. 🙂 The main lines look fine for white, but the lines in which Black delays the development of his queenside knight - I am not sure; I have not yet analyzed those.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by demonseedI actually analyzed the line with Fritz one time (which grossly overevaluates Black's position I might add) but I cannot find my analysis at this time. 🙁
Can you post the critical line in the Muzio, I thought it had been analysed to a draw!!
I play Sicilians exclusively against 1. e4 and don't play the From gambit against e4 (which I also think is unsound based on the analysis of a few games - perhaps schakuhr, Tengu or tmetzler would know about much more about the From gambit) so I have no intent of doing that analysis again, sorry!
Anyway the line starts...
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qf5 (critical move) ...
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by YugaI thought it involved saccing the knight on f7. The above line isn't a gambit unless I'm missing something.
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 and then the Fried liver attack is defined by by 4.Ng5, is it not?
I don't play these lines so I don't have much experience of their soundness.
19 Sep 07
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 {2} 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6
8. Nc3 Ncb4 9. a3 Nxc2+ 10. Kd1 Nxa1 11. Nxd5
c6 12. Nc7+ Kd6 13. Nxa8 Qh4 14. Qd3+ Qd4 15. Qxd4+
exd4
This (copy and pasted off of fritz) seems to be the 'reccomended' opening line when playing the fried liver. It seems that instead of sac'ing the knight. d4 is preferable (seems neat).
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by YugaThis is the line for the refutation of the Double-Muzio Gambit; the regular Muzio, where white doesn't sac his bishop on f7, has not been refuted as far as to my knowledge.
I actually analyzed the line with Fritz one time (which grossly overevaluates Black's position I might add) but I cannot find my analysis at this time. 🙁
I play Sicilians exclusively against 1. e4 and don't play the From gambit against e4 (which I also think is unsound based on the analysis of a few games - perhaps schakuhr, Tengu or tmetzler would know a ...[text shortened]... f3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qf5 (critical move) ...
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by English TalWhile most gambits are not completely sound, a gambit can certainly be sound. It does not at all follow from the definition that a gambit must be unsound to be called a gambit. A gambit is merely the exchange of material for a different type of currency, such as position and time. For a sound gambit, the compensation will be equal or greater in value to the material lost initially. The Queen's Gambit, King's Gambit and even the Benko Gambit to some extent are a few examples of sound gambits.
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!
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by ih8sensScotch gambit 4tw....black should just avoid the scotch and play the 2 knights defense..
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?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by gambit3The Marshall Counter-Gambit in the Roy lopez is a dangerous attack which is still played by the super GMs. It has been used twice already in the 2007 world championships with Anand scoring a win as white and the other game being a draw.
Is the Marshall Gambit or Marshall Attack considered sound or unsound?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by chesskid001Ahem, the Benko/Volga rocks. One of my better games with a testing endgame:
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.
Game 3486598
23 Sep 07
Originally posted by ouwe belgThat's really good, I'm glad you took the time and effort to post that. Unfortunately...3.Qa4+ pawn regained.
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.