Bishop/Knight Sacrifice Gambits

Just out of pure curiosity, I decided to take a look at gambits where you sacrifice a minor piece for an attack of some sort. These are a few that I came across:

Halloween Gambit:

Why sac the piece in the opening (when you likely can't follow up with decent attack because your own pieces are undeveloped) when you can sac the piece later? Curious how this works out

Very cool! I love seeing pieces sacrificed.

In the Smith Morra, White can sometimes offer a piece sacrifice on the d5 square. Sometimes a knight, sometimes a bishop. Here's a typical example. Computer calls this about +1 for White. Not bad for being a piece down.

Although it's not exactly sound (unless there have been theoretical developments since I last checked), I'm aesthetically rather fond of the Hamppe-Allgaier and its less sound progenitor the Allgaier. The way White just goes about developmental business as if not really material down appeals to me somehow. Wouldn't actually play either as anything but a one-off surprise line. This is one classic example where things go well for White. I'll not enter the analysis morass on this one, but mention that 8..., f3 rather cuts across White's planned f-file shenanigans.

Here are some more obscure openings that involve saccing/trading a knight/bishop:

Vukovic Gambit:

I'm not an expert at this, but I'm pretty sure these openings came to be known as gambits because they do lead to some considerable attacks early on in the game. You're not giving pieces away for no reason, of course.

Ex. early but dangerous rook and queen activity (Nakhmanson, Muzio), space advantage (Halloween, Ghulam-Kassim), exposure of enemy king (Cochrane, Jerome), nice tactics (Nikitin, Vukovic).

Good question by the way. Hope this helps!

Also, thanks @Jasonosaurus and @RalphHayward for your valuable input! Those are really cool lines!

they are almost all objectively bad, because sacrificing your piece in the opening when you can't follow up is a recipe for disaster. Now that doesn't mean you can't do something funny, but it will only work because your opponent plays bad.

11 out of 12 gambits presented by the O.P. are utter crap.

Only the Vukovic gambit is perfectly sound, although a bit impractical to use (a great deal of memorization is required).

In the KG Kieseritsky we also have the Rice Gambit. Characterised by 8. O-O instead of the standard main-line 8. d4. Unsound, but it engendered some pretty games before the refutation was unearthed. Professor Rice financed theme tournaments for his brainchild in the early 1900s, here's one of the inventor's own efforts.

Wow, that was quite the game! The knight underpromotion from Mr/Ms Anon was quite interesting and Mr. Rice's queen sac for mate was also really cool to look at.
Stockfish seems to hate this gambit (the Chess.com engine I'm using gives -0.98 for black) but there has been a good chunk of success with it, from what I've seen in the databases.

Thanks for the input!

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Upon consulting Stockfish and watching some videos... I'd say about like 4 out of these 12 deserve the title of "beats me why you'd play this" (Irish, Noa, Jerome, Wikstrom). To be clear, I'm not trying to endorse these gambits or anything. I'm just taking a curious look at them.

If you do some research on gambits such as the Muzio and Nakhmanson you'll see that, yeah, they are objectively unsound, but they can lead to some serious piece sack attacks that activate some powerful pieces and make way for often scary attacks. Not to mention they make for some very fun-looking games.

Stockfish on Chess.com gives the more obscure Nikitin a -0.2ish so it's not garbage. In fact, the advantage slides over to +0.6 for white after black accepts the gambit with Qxe5. It's a bit of a calmer one since it's a trade rather than a real gambit, but at least Stockfish and I can agree it's a decent choice.

Masters have also found themselves to be pretty successful with the Ghulam-Kassim, Cochrane, and Stafford Gambits according to the database so that's a sign it's playable.

Also, you've heard that one GM Savielly Tartakower quote before, right? "As long as an opening is reputed to be weak, it is playable." There is a lot of surprise value playing these lines, so that is one considerable advantage...

If you're talking about the infamous knight-sac-bishop-sac-Topol-2-tactical-missile ICBM! But generally the Tennison only sacks a pawn so it technically doesn't belong in this list.

@cosmospenguin10 Glad to know the game brought you some joy. I've unearthed one more piece sac gambit (likely my last post here, I think I've run through my knowledge of these now) which is often overlooked in lists of such things because it's listed as the "Berliner Variation" of the Two Knights Defence not the "Berliner Gambit". Last I knew (the Two Knights was never my 'thing', and I've not re-checked after a long layoff from chess) it might even be considered sound. Characterised by 8..., Qh4 leaving the Nd4 to its fate. Morass of heavy-duty tactics and likely best suited to Daily/correspondence chess. Again, here's a game by its creator (massive annotations to which can be found in "The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games").

After 5...Qg5 (in place of 5...Qd5) the Nikitin is much closer to -2.0 than -0.2.

The only argument is if it losing by force, as many analysts have claimed since 40 years ago already, or not.

BELGRADE GAMBIT!! Many many many good tries and a video by GM Simon Williams on chess.com

The Belgrade gambit sacrifises a pawn, not a piece. And anyway, 5.Nd5 Nb4! is a powerful reply.

Alright, as it looks, there are still some gambits I've missed involving this kind of trade business! Here are some more bishop/knight sac gambits:

Krejcik Gambit (of the Alekhine Defense -- I'm aware of the one that comes from the Dutch, but this is another one):

Well, 5...Qg5 isn't the Nikitin Gambit (according to the engine I'm using, there are better alternatives than the Qa4 that would initiate the Nikitin if Black plays Qg5) so, although I appreciate this point, it still seems to me like this isn't a terrible opening, much less losing by force.

Then again, I've never really played this gambit. If you or someone else could post an annotated refutation or something like that, I think that'd be helpful.

Here's a master game played two months ago involving the Nikitin. Mind you, the gambit was declined in this game, but White still won.

Hope this helps!