Avoid Gambit Opening Games. They Sucks..

Gambit Openings are not good. if you do not understand Theory in general. passed pawns, double pawns, pawn Island, bad piece this, good piece that, weak square this, weak piece that, etc..etc.. You have to have a good learned knowledge in what? listen, In Opening What? THEORY (not Gambit !!), Middlegame Theory, and good learned Endgame knowledge to handle it. You don't need to be an Endgame Expert. to destroy it either. That is why we don't see it much at higher level chess. Why? because Most GAMBIT OPENINGS nowadays, are thing of the past. History they call it. Sucks to me. They don't last. A lot of Grandmasters are beaten by lower ranks because of it. That is the reason why you don't see it nowadays or see it in master chess. If you don't believe me, try any Gambit Opening Crap you know and use it against me when you join my club, "Rookies Chess Club" here's info-link>>Club 317 , for i will surely teach you, until you drop it. Now did i huh..say something?? huh.. Oh well. all i say was all true.
__ Jcmessy (User 658847)

Originally posted by jcmessy
Gambit Openings are not good. if you do not understand Theory in general. passed pawns, double pawns, pawn Island, bad piece this, good piece that, weak square this, weak piece that, etc..etc.. You have to have a good learned knowledge in what? listen, In Opening What? THEORY (not Gambit !!), Middlegame Theory, and good learned Endgame knowledge to handle it ...[text shortened]... .say something?? huh.. Oh well. all i say was all true.
__ Jcmessy (User 658847)

Lol, such controversy!

Originally posted by jcmessy
Gambit Openings are not good. if you do not understand Theory in general. passed pawns, double pawns, pawn Island, bad piece this, good piece that, weak square this, weak piece that, etc..etc.. You have to have a good learned knowledge in what? listen, In Opening What? THEORY (not Gambit !!), Middlegame Theory, and good learned Endgame knowledge to handle it ...[text shortened]... .say something?? huh.. Oh well. all i say was all true.
__ Jcmessy (User 658847)

So they stopped playing the Benko Gambit at a high level?

And what makes you think gambits aren't a part of opening theory?

You can't tar all gambits with the same brush. I more often than not prefer to play the side of a gambit that is giving material for the initiative.

Here are just two of the gambits which are sound up to the highest levels

Queens Gambit
Benko Gambit (My white repertoire is solely based on avoiding this and the Benoni)

I play the Schliemann as black against the Ruy Lopez and I would not say that it's completely sound BUT Carlson and Radjabov have both played it at the very highest levels. I even play f5 back against the Kings Gambit..!

Some gambits are not suitable to be played at the highest level eg Morra Gambit in the Sicilian but it's good enough up to 2200 (FIDE)

Originally posted by kingshill
I even play f5 back against the Kings Gambit..!

How does that line go? When do you play ...f5?

Originally posted by jcmessy
Gambit Openings are not good. if you do not understand Theory in general. passed pawns, double pawns, pawn Island, bad piece this, good piece that, weak square this, weak piece that, etc..etc.. You have to have a good learned knowledge in what? listen, In Opening What? THEORY (not Gambit !!), Middlegame Theory, and good learned Endgame knowledge to handle it ...[text shortened]... .say something?? huh.. Oh well. all i say was all true.
__ Jcmessy (User 658847)

you're a moron.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
How does that line go? When do you play ...f5?

1.e4 e5
2.f4 Nc6
3.Nf3 f5?! (fun but dubious)

Originally posted by kingshill
1.e4 e5
2.f4 Nc6
3.Nf3 f5?! (fun but dubious)

At least it gets white out of book! 🙂

1.e4 e5
2.f4 Nc6
3.Nf3 f5?! (fun but dubious)

Forgetting to add: Therefore definetely playable. 🙂

(I'll see if I can dig some RHP games with it.)

Kingshill any chance of a picture of your fridge?

Swiss Gambit has sent me a picture of his fridge........well not quite.
I have a picture of my neighbours fridge, I'm going to splosh about with it
and claim it's his.

Re this thread.

The good guys refrain from heavily analysed gambits because they peak
too early, very easy to remember and are pretty rigid.
(often a series of one best move follows another and all deviations are
tactically bust, though all the questions have not been answered in the Evans
and some sharp lines in the Two Knights.).

But they will have studied them. They will know them. The busts and
refutations and ideas are common knowledge.

If you send somone, especially under 2000 to a board armed with only
the openings GM's currently play and no gambit play knowledge they will
get undone quite beautifully with a Budapest, Latvian, Alpin......they will even
be ripe for a standard Colle Bxh7+ sac sac and mate combo.

They will have to start learning the game, this time properly, all over again.


Yup looks like fun. Latvian type postion and ideas.

jackinblack1983 - cashthetrash RHP 2007

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]1.e4 e5
2.f4 Nc6
3.Nf3 f5?! (fun but dubious)

Forgetting to add: Therefore definetely playable. 🙂

I prefer the black side of the resulting positions and I don't think that it is so dubious for under 2200 play.

OTB i score very well with it and have always done do. The compensation of having a position that white would prefer to have is great and the games are always wild


I think there are some games where Miles (RIP) plays it.

Telling people never to play gambits is sheer stupidity. Part of the fun in learning/playing chess is dealing with all sorts of playing styles. Gambits ARE part of chess whether you like it or not.

If one is too timid/does not understand gambits then that is okay, but telling people never to play gambits is like saying only play 1. e4 because you don't like Queen pawn openings.

A friend of mine (high 1900 USCF at the time) was paired against a 2300 USCF at last year's US Open. We did some research before the round, including finding out his ICC handle and looking through his history and library. My friend, a King's Gambit player, saw this f5 thing in a couple blitz games and decided to look up the relevant theory; the following game resulted.

Originally posted by SHINEONFOREVER
A friend of mine (high 1900 USCF at the time) was paired against a 2300 USCF at last year's US Open. We did some research before the round, including finding out his ICC handle and looking through his history and library. My friend, a King's Gambit player, saw this f5 thing in a couple blitz games and decided to look up the relevant theory; the follow ...[text shortened]... 22.Bxb6 Be3 23.Kh1 cxb6 24.Qxe4 Nf2 25.Rxf2 Bxf2 26.Qf4 Bxd4 27.Qxd6 1-0 [/pgn]

Now that's entertainment!

Originally posted by jcmessy
Gambit Openings are not good. if you do not understand Theory in general. passed pawns, double pawns, pawn Island, bad piece this, good piece that, weak square this, weak piece that, etc..etc.. You have to have a good learned knowledge in what? listen, In Opening What? THEORY (not Gambit !!), Middlegame Theory, and good learned Endgame knowledge to handle it ...[text shortened]... .say something?? huh.. Oh well. all i say was all true.
__ Jcmessy (User 658847)

As gambits go, I think many people will be curious to see how many players you convince to drop the Queen's Gambit. It is most certainly an opportunity to make a name for yourself!

Someone should have told this to that patzer Aronian. He regularly plays 2.c4 as well as the Marshall.