Gambits and "hope" chess
It just seems like many gambits disappear at the higher levels...I wonder what computer vs. computer games are like, although I hear that programmers have to input an opening book into the engine.
Maybe you are saying that the sounder gambits are not true gambits because the material is supposed to recovered shortly. Perhaps it gets more sophisticated with recovery in the form of initiative, force, time, space, etc? But this brings back round to the first sentence of this post...that 1.d4 games increase and gambits decrease at the higher levels.
Plus, what do masters mean when they say tactics are nothing more than "tricks" (e.g. Silman; also Smyslov describing Tal's style), and not real chess? You often hear GM's following a loss saying things like "my opponent played like crap; s/he only beat me because I blundered", whatever the hell that means.
I see the counter-arguments, but do not feel them in the marrow of my bones (I need to learn positional play and improve tactics obviously first to gain firsthand perspective).
Does anyone know any stats of particular openings at the highest levels- gambits, open games, closed games, particular players, etc?
Maybe I will adopt a gambiteer's repertoire, more fun anyway.
You should differentiate between what you mean. Are you talking about sound gambits, or unsound? The Queen's Gambit is a gambit, and it is also a positional opening in many cases.
I agree with Fiveofswords. Take, for example, the Benko Gambit vs. 1.d4 which is alive at master level. In this gambit, Black isn't playing for an early opening crazy attack like say, in the King's Gambit or Latvian Gambit. In the Benko, Black is playing for a positional advantage in the form of space/ open lines on the queenside- which can even last throughout the middlegame to the endgame provided the gambit is accepted.
You should differentiate between what you mean. Are you talking about sound gambits, or unsound? The Queen's Gambit is a gambit, and it is also a positional opening in many cases.
Isn't the "main line" of QG the declined version? I am not doubting that there are gambits that are alive and well at the GM level, but what is the general trend evolving toward at the highest levels of chess, and why is this so (if I am correct in saying it is so)?
The Danish has been refuted, and that's why it isn't played often.
Then I hear that Kasparov once said something along the lines of "all openings are sound", and not just below the master level (which I hear commonly), just not analyzed enough yet, then again computers...
Gambits, if we by gambits means opening gambits, such as the Kings gambit is in fact rare at top level chess. However, if we by gambits mean pawn sacrifices and/or piece sacrifices, they are extremely common at top level chess.
It might have to do with the fact that some very opening gambits often leads to fairly quick trades where so many lines have been analyzed out to the end (which is often not further than move 20) where they eventually reach a endgame where the other side is in many cases better, or equal.
And to answer the OP, sacrificing a pawn in the middlegame for piece activity is not the same as playing hope chess. However, playing 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4, hoping the opponent falls into the trap and takes the pawn at e5 is playing hope chess.
Gambits, if we by gambits means opening gambits, such as the Kings gambit is in fact rare at top level chess. However, if we by gambits mean pawn sacrifices and/or piece sacrifices, they are extremely common at top level chess.
It might have to do with the fact that some very opening gambits often leads to fairly quick trades where so many lines have been analyzed out to the end (which is often not further than move 20) where they eventually reach a endgame where the other side is in many cases better, or equal.
And to answer the OP, sacrificing a pawn in the middlegame for piece activity is not the same as playing hope chess. However, playing 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4, hoping the opponent falls into the trap and takes the pawn at e5 is playing hope chess.
Actually, this is a pretty good point. Thanks for the illumination.
Does anyone know any stats of particular openings at the highest levels- gambits, open games, closed games, particular players, etc?
Since 1980, roughly 52% of all games between Super GM's (2700+) have started with 1.e4. Within that set of games, black played 1...e5 43% of the time and 1...c5 40% of the time. Virtually all of the Sicilian games were of the Open variety.
1.d4 was played in 35% of the games, 1.Nf3 in 9% and 1.c4 only 3.5% of the time. All other opening moves are exceedingly rare at the 2700+ level.
If we disregard the fact that many of the Open Games actually end up in a Closed Spanish of some sort, it's fair to say that the ratio of open/closed games at the Super GM level is split pretty evenly.
That said, my advice is that you should play what you enjoy. Fun matters.
Is it true, however, that it has been many years since 1.e4 has been played in a championship match (like since 1995 or something)? And why?
But I agree, play what is fun. I like gambits and want to play them, but I was fearing that I would be learning fundamentally unsound play and delaying learning of more sophisticated subtle play, for reasons not entirely clear to me since I can practice tactics on my own or play through tactical games without open gambits or gambits and without risking a tournament loss, for instance.
I regularly play the Dodd Gambit.
I drop a piece and yell "DODD GAMBIT"!!!
Seriously though, have they determined that black can't keep any pawns? Is there like some kind of refutation to that kind of play?
Are gambits merely the ultimate form of "hope" chess, the gambiteer hoping to sucker the opponent into a raging attack by playing inferior moves to which one "hopes" that the opponent is ignorant of the proper response, essentially a drawn out opening trap?
More 1.d4 closed games are seen in higher-level chess, which makes sense, because when players stop falling for immediate tactical threats, they try to accumulate small positional gains over multiple moves...hence closed positions that do not lend themselves to such immediate attacks.
Developing players are told not to play these closed games, but instead play open games and gambits as much as possible to foster their chess development. What is puzzling is that, simultaneously and contradictorily, we are also told not to play "hope" chess, "hoping" our opponent doesn't know how to defend against the unsound gambit. It almost (does?) sounds like the quintessential example of a drawn-out unsound trappy line, the very definition of "hope" chess.
"Hope chess", as defined by Dan Heisman, is to play your moves, without trying to figure out what the immediate consequences are - ie. without looking at what your opponent could reply. This is the typical "let's play this move and see what happens" attitude 
Playing a gambit is simply relying on an opening variation where you trade material for initiative and/or attack. But it doesn't prevent you from taking into account what your opponent can do ! So I think your analogy is stretching it a bit too far.
However, you're right that top players consider many gambits (not all of them !) to be dubious. It doesn't prevent an amateur to play them happily and staying focused on the board, win many nice games with it
But I agree, play what is fun. I like gambits and want to play them, but I was fearing that I would be learning fundamentally unsound play and delaying learning of more sophisticated subtle play, for reasons not entirely clear to me since I can practice tactics on my own or play through tactical games without open gambits or gambits and without risking a tournament loss, for instance.
I understand this concern, and it's completely valid. It's perfectly okay to play main line openings right now, even to start with 1.d4 if you feel like it (John Nunn advocated playing main lines right from the start in order not to lose time later). But this is a steeper road, and you may find it more difficult without proper guidance.
Spassky and Bronstein played King's Gambit, and they were quite succesful in playing it against strong GMs :P
A great example is the Budapest. When it first appeared, it was regularly referred to as the "Budapest Gambit", but now, most books refer to it as the "Budapest Defence".
Gambits by nature are "unsound" in that they give up material with no guarantee of the future return, yet many gambits create such strong positions, that the material lost is greatly outweighed by the positional advantage.
Are gambits merely the ultimate form of "hope" chess, the gambiteer hoping to sucker the opponent into a raging attack by playing inferior moves to which one "hopes" that the opponent is ignorant of the proper response, essentially a drawn out opening trap?
More 1.d4 closed games are seen in higher-level chess, which makes sense, because when players stop falling for immediate tactical threats, they try to accumulate small positional gains over multiple moves...hence closed positions that do not lend themselves to such immediate attacks.
Developing players are told not to play these closed games, but instead play open games and gambits as much as possible to foster their chess development. What is puzzling is that, simultaneously and contradictorily, we are also told not to play "hope" chess, "hoping" our opponent doesn't know how to defend against the unsound gambit. It almost (does?) sounds like the quintessential example of a drawn-out unsound trappy line, the very definition of "hope" chess.