KGA is also better than the KGD. The Evans Gambit is better accepted. The only ones I can think of are possibly the Queen's Gambit, which is good to accept as well as decline and the Smith Morra.
Gambits-always better to decline?
Sort:
Oldest
KillaBeez wrote: KGA is also better than the KGD. The Evans Gambit is better accepted. The only ones I can think of are possibly the Queen's Gambit, which is good to accept as well as decline and the Smith Morra.
I disagree. Queens gambit is also better declined.
I don't think there is a hard and fast rule here -just like the rest of chess. If you have spent your time studying a declined postion and are prepared for the middle game then you are best to decline. But the same holds true for accepting a gambit.
And I find that many times when I play the Scotch or the Kings Gambit my opponent gets so worried about the attacking pawn that he allows himself to get very cramped and would have been far better off accepting.
Not taking the gambit pawn here creates a little problem for black. If he doesn't do something to break up the pawn chain that is forming, he will be completely stonewalled on that side of the board. The loss of time from advancing the pawn a second time is worth tying up blacks pieces so they can't move.
I hate it when people decline my gambits!
Marshal_Dillon: the position you have posted (1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. c5) indeed looks like it gives white a large advantage. Although I cannot see any faults with c5, chess.com's opening explorer gives it 17% wins for white, and 58% for black. There must be something wrong with that move.
I personaly dont care either way. You should know both sides of it "accepted" or "declined" other wise dont play the gambits in the first place! that what i believe. The reality is most preffer to decline it i have noticed, but if u know what your doing on the gambit from boths idea's it doesnt matter to much. I have played both sides of it and found both have the pro's and con's in accepting or declining thats my opinion anyway...
One thing i will say is this; if u accept the gambit pawn dont try and hold ur pawn to much or u lose out on development and then u will get into trouble.
re 3. c4-c5:
Gains space, loses dynamism. White relieves the central pressure here. I think that Black should aim to play e7-e5, counterstriking in the center. Or perhaps even b7-b6.
Jul 13, 2008
0
#11
Marshal_Dillon wrote: Not taking the gambit pawn here creates a little problem for black. If he doesn't do something to break up the pawn chain that is forming, he will be completely stonewalled on that side of the board. The loss of time from advancing the pawn a second time is worth tying up blacks pieces so they can't move.
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. c5? is horrible. White has zero play following that move, and he is even down in development!
3...e5 I believe would easily equalize (4.dxe5 Nd7) but black doesn't even have to do that! black's development is restricted in no way as Nf6, Bf5, e6, Be7, Nd7 can all be played with good position. Now, if it in fact does not restrict black's pieces, than what wonderful thing does 3. c5? actually do?
Not taking the pawn against the Queen's gambit is VERY common.
i also think it's always better to decline a gambit.
except when it isn't.
Jul 13, 2008
0
#13
Not to mention that 2...c6 is the Slav defense and wouldn't be played my many grand masters if it gave white a huge advantage.
I almost always except the gambit :) Usually it is best to study both lines. Whether or not to accept depends on the position (or style of play in the case of queen's, king's and evan's gambit).
Nimzo33 wrote: Marshal_Dillon wrote: Not taking the gambit pawn here creates a little problem for black. If he doesn't do something to break up the pawn chain that is forming, he will be completely stonewalled on that side of the board. The loss of time from advancing the pawn a second time is worth tying up blacks pieces so they can't move.
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. c5? is horrible. White has zero play following that move, and he is even down in development!
3...e5 I believe would easily equalize (4.dxe5 Nd7) but black doesn't even have to do that! black's development is restricted in no way as Nf6, Bf5, e6, Be7, Nd7 can all be played with good position. Now, if it in fact does not restrict black's pieces, than what wonderful thing does 3. c5? actually do?
Not taking the pawn against the Queen's gambit is VERY common.
How does white have zero play? The queen side knight and bishop are free to develop, the stonewall can be further solidified with b4.
As for black, his queen knights best development square has a pawn sitting on it, when he moves his king pawn, his bishop has no place to go, the queen's movements are limited. The only piece black can realistically develop is the queen bishop.
redblack_redemption wrote: Marshal_Dillon: the position you have posted (1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. c5) indeed looks like it gives white a large advantage. Although I cannot see any faults with c5, chess.com's opening explorer gives it 17% wins for white, and 58% for black. There must be something wrong with that move.
My win percentage is quite a bit higher than 17% when I play that.
Jul 13, 2008
0
#17
Well its beyond me to evaluate all the possible variations of advancing the pawn to c5 against c6 (The Slav Defense)...but to put it as simply as possible, on the chessgames database none of the games, at all, feature 3. c5. Somehow I doubt c5 is so strong as to cripple black into being only able to develop his queen's bishop, 3. e5 should be a good start for black.
Oh and just wanted to add that in queen's pawn games, the Knights usually better developed at d7 not c6
Marshal_Dillon wrote: redblack_redemption wrote: Marshal_Dillon: the position you have posted (1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. c5) indeed looks like it gives white a large advantage. Although I cannot see any faults with c5, chess.com's opening explorer gives it 17% wins for white, and 58% for black. There must be something wrong with that move.
My win percentage is quite a bit higher than 17% when I play that.
Yes but what sort of competition do you play against? Maybe my win percentage would be huge using scholar's mate against new players, doesn't mean that it's universally sound, especially if I'm arguing against main lines studied by theorists and computers the world over.
Back to the OP... gambit in the opening means you're losing material with no guarantee forcing attack to gain it back. So if the defender manages to hold on then he's up a pawn or two in the endgame and it was definitely worth accepting the gambit. The problem is it's usually really difficult to defend and most of the time you end up giving the material back to buy yourself some breathing room.
The only way to refute a gambit is to accept it. In Marshal_Dillon's line, Black can swiftly counter in the center and obtain good chances. It is not a horrible move, but an inaccurate one. The QGA is a very viable option. It cuts down on theory and makes an open game in which Black has good chances.
Kingfisher wrote:
I've been thinking about it and found it to be true of almost all gambit games. The point of gambits is to pull the opponents pawn away from the center and use the tempo to gain an intiative. However, if the pawn is declined, the gambiting player has given the opponent a free tempo, and another one if he decides to to capture the center pawn.
So declining seems to me is a general rule with gambits, except maybe the Engelund.
Hey, Kingfisher you know you can't make absolute statements like that. For instance, out of the Russian Game(Petroff) there is no way to refuse the Cochrane Gambit. Plus, GMs usually rank gambits in order of results. The KGA is very effective and still seen in the highest levels to this day. Remember Fischer was jolted into action by his loss into a defense that declined the Kierseritsky Line. The Queen's Gambit Accepted is not really a gambit at all since regaining the first pawn is almost a given. Thanks, Just my opinions. Sam
I've been thinking about it and found it to be true of almost all gambit games. The point of gambits is to pull the opponents pawn away from the center and use the tempo to gain an intiative. However, if the pawn is declined, the gambiting player has given the opponent a free tempo, and another one if he decides to to capture the center pawn.
So declining seems to me is a general rule with gambits, except maybe the Engelund.