Yes, they are sound. I can usually hold off on either side of the King's Gambit - usually an inaccuracy in the QG will make my lose the game, but that's because I have little feel for position and strategy (which is why I'm working and losing) :D
But generally gambits are sound if you're tactical and and find strong attacks - the defending side loses concentration and are more likely to blunder since they are under pressure to find the correct moves.
Good question, well there is an article by Eric Schiller about on the opening and he said for the beginner/intermediate players recommend they learn some gambit opening. 'click here'
Soundness is completely objective. The Evans Gambit may not be sound but it is still a good choice if your 1500 USCF. At 2800... not so much (exepet in blitz)
The strongest player will win on both sides, with the gambit or against the gambit.
not really, it depends how you play the WHOLE game.
I could easily accept a queens gambit pawn and hold off to the endgame but with some trouble against a similar rated player as me, making me a pawn ahead.
How do you plan to keep a pawn against the queens gambit? You do know that it's not really a gambit right?
It has always been my opinion that the further one is down the "food chain" the more sound any gambit becomes. Not playing masters? then don't worry about it, just push out the gambit pawn for an interesting game.
I still play Gambits all the time (Danish is my favorite) and in teaching my daughter to play i also encourage her to play gambits. It teaches a player about quick development, use of space and organizing an attack. While I would choose a "normal" gambit such as Goring/Danish/Evans/Smith Morra etc the loss of a pawn will not lose the game for a beginner. However do not spend too much time on the opening is another piece of advise i would give,
i keep noticing that lower rated players always take the offered pawn.
Gambits keep you constantly alert and on your feet. I play gambits of all different levels of soundness against players of all strengths. My favourite kinds of gambits are the piece sacrifices for 3 pawns. They make interesting endgames.
There seems to be a missunderstanding, taking the Queens gambit isn't bad, trying to hold on to it however is.
Except for in a few lines white can play that actually turns it into a gambit.
I could easily accept a queens gambit pawn and hold off to the endgame but with some trouble against a similar rated player as me, making me a pawn ahead.
How do you plan to keep a pawn against the queens gambit? You do know that it's not really a gambit right?
It is possible to hold off and keep the pawn, but it will ruin my position,
of course i know its not really a gambit.. but they do call it "queens gambit" dont they?
I could easily accept a queens gambit pawn and hold off to the endgame but with some trouble against a similar rated player as me, making me a pawn ahead.
How do you plan to keep a pawn against the queens gambit? You do know that it's not really a gambit right?
It is possible to hold off and keep the pawn, but it will ruin my position,
of course i know its not really a gambit.. but they do call it "queens gambit" dont they?
Line please, there is no way to remain material ahead, unless white decides to not take back material.
Alot of people do QG but dont know how to get back the pawn.. trust me.
"Alot of people do QG but dont know how to get back the pawn.. trust me."
Rule of thumb, that will be good for as long as any of us are still alive: Never trust anyone who says "trust me".
lol, i played about 12 3 0 games on playchess where i accpeted it.. only 4 knew how to get the pawn back
First post, so to start off I'd like to say hey.
Now, I like to play gambits becuase of the result on the accepted line, and I like the faster paced play that usualy results from playing a gambit. Now as a lower ranked player, (and while not new to the game, I have only recently started really studying it), perhaps gambits aren't the best way for me to improve, but I dont know. So I guess in conclusion, I find gambits fun to open with, and since all I play for is fun, (although I admit that I'm dissapointed when I lose rating points :) ), so they serve thier purpose for me.
Accepting a gambit isn't wrong, a gambit is not a poisoned pawn.
Winning your pawn back isn't the idea of a gambit, you sacrifice one for imbalance. You give up a piece and you win a better development and sometimes the initiative.
Using gambits isn't wrong and maybe particularly sound for lower rated players. To understand the value of a position over the value of a piece.
Are gambits (Kings Gambit, etcc) really sound in the class section (A,B,C,D,E)? I could easily accept a queens gambit pawn and hold off to the endgame but with some trouble against a similar rated player as me, making me a pawn ahead.
Even though its a "Gambit" and its suppose to be bad if accepted, but im sure a GM would easily dominate if someone were to accept the pawn, but would lower rated players be able to do the same?
I had many games where i simply took the pawn (because they were a bit weaker rating then me, and mostly in QG) and was able to hold off for the entire game.
Just wondering.