Gambits And The Beginner?

Should beginners or intermediates play gambits a lot? Does it help with tactics? What about position? I've read a lot about chess recently and there seems to be a conflict in terms to what takes precedent: tactics or positional chess. What do you guys think?

I'm definitely no expert on this topic (as my rating indicates), but I think that the purpose of nearly all gambits is to gain a positional advantage. So from that, I'm inferring that you should play gambits if you're a positional player, and avoid them if you're more tactical.

I've been playing chess for a long while, but only recently have I became studious and competitve in my playing. I have a lot of learning to go. In my experiences so far the more I play gambits the more I pay attention to the point and piece counts. Regardless of whether I'm a tactical or positional player, playing a gambit, learning what I have on the board to work with and adjusting my strategy accordingly has helped me pay more attention to the finer points of the game overall.

Whatever suits your style. They help you learn tactics tremendously, but they often lead to endgame neglect (because few games reach that point). So it's just a personal choice.

Wilhelm Steinitz says that you should avoid gambits. Play for microscopic advantages, and when you have enough of them, there may be an opportunity to attack.

beginners often play a lot of gambits because it appeals to their desire to attack and see fireworks!

gambits are used to get a lead in development and build up a quick attack. however, against patient defense, they will usually fail.

John Nunn once made fun of a facit on a gambit line: "At least it gives you a lot of fun!" - Nunn asked: "Fun and losing a game does this is a good choice?"

Of course there are very promising gambits (i.e. Queen's Gambit - Black cannot hold the pawn - or the Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, where Black gets a very dangerous attack, there are more I just mention these two)!

What is probably most difficult for players of all levels is the initiative! It's really hard to use it because it easily slips off. So you'll have to be very energic and at the same time careful to use this moment! In this way Gambits can teach you how to use this slippy initiative! 

i personally am comfortable playing or not playing gambits.

but how old was steinitz when he lost the title?? over 50???

In 1894 Steinitz was 58 years old. At the end of the revenche WCC in 1895/6 Steinitz was 60! Nevertheless I regard Lasker as one of the greatest World Champions ever.

didnt want to imply that Lasker won because Steinitz was old.

some gambits tend to lead to middle games with tons of tactics involved (king's gambit comes to mind). i think they're great for beginners since giving a pawn away at that level isn't a big deal, and they can be very tactical which is good for beginners.

Playing gambits all the time can lead to a mindset of "I must win in the attack, or I'll be dead lost!", leading to unnecessary burning of bridges and lack of objectivity in general.

They're good to learn, but I wouldn't recommend them to beginners.

"That Steinitz at the age of fifty-nine years was defeated by me and later also by others is due to no defect in his theory. His theory is and forever remains the classical expression of the idea of Chess."
Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Manual of Chess, p. 228 

Gambits make you "go blind" from the tactics.  Not that that stops anyone. 

And just for illustration purposes, here's an example of Steinitz's slow careful style of play:

lol

I believe gambits are for everyone, beginner, intermediate, advanced, if you start out with a plan and pretty much stick to it you can do well.  As in all games before you choose a gambit take a look at your opponent he he out rates you by several hundred points then your gambit will most likely fail, so choose a more conventional opening.  For those who would like to learn and play more gambits check out this new group:http://www.chess.com/groups/home/the-gambiteers2