Grandmaster Gambits

[Johanne]

Whydo top grandmaster neither play the king's gambit nor the Smith-Morra gambit, whereas "normal" gms do? At what point and why does Carlsen think: "No, the king's gambit is just unplayable" but then return to a Ruy Lopez for the billionth time where he ahs to be careful about the dangerous secret weapons of his oppenent? Is it simply not suiting his style? But then how come that people like Topalov (attacking geniuses) don't play the King's gambit? Also, why does no black player apart from Nakamura play the Queen's gambit accepted line?

The king's gambit is bad. The Smith Morra is a boring draw. The Marshall attack in the Spanish is also a drawing weapon, etc. But for players who dont do extreme preparation (and don't have a very high level of play) these openings create great attacking and winning chances.

Vecana is correct but I wouldn't just limit myself to the Fantasy variation alone. If you have the time, patience and skill, there is an excellent book by Uwe Bekemann called "Gambits Gegen Caro-Kann" by Schachverlag Manfred Madler out there. It is in German but fear not, as long as you have a grasp of algebraic notation then there are more than a few good ideas to try.

For what it's worth, the Alterman Gambit Guide, which tries to create a complete repertoire based on gambits, winds up acknowledging that there isn't really a gambit against the Caro-Kann that's reputable enough to recommend seriously. Instead Alterman covers the Panov Attack, which isn't really a gambit (unless you treat the creation of an IQP as some sort of vague material loss, which almost nobody does), but which he considers closest in style to what gambiteers are looking for in terms of quick development and open lines.

Many may claim that gambits are perfectly ok, and that many grandmasters all over the years have proved them to be solid enough. however... let's be honest: You don't see many gambits in the chess-elite nowadays. I believe there was way more gambit play in the early romantic-chess era. Nowadays, you will hardly ever see a grandmaster play for a King's gambit accepted in a decisive match.

Another thing that I find interesting is that I've never seen a computer play a gambit. It's probably because there's no clear advantage from it, other than maybe a couple tempi and piece development... but truth be told, if your oponent knows the line (or calculates it by force like comps) then you're prety much lost. So it finally comes to this question: Are gambits solid at all? or will they ultimately get "solved" and dissapear from high level opening choices?

The idea of the gambit is to trade material for activity/development/threats/tempo. It creates an imbalance that's harder for your opponent to calculate, usually putting them on the defensive. In the KG or the Evans, with an extremely agressive line chosen White can basically grab hold of the initiative forcing Black to respond to threats - this makes for an interesting attack or a tactical firestorm in the middlegame. In the Benko, Black trades a pawn for free piece play on the Queenside and often ownership of the dark-square diagonal, whereas White has a hard time developing because of the difficulty of pushing e4 without forfeiting casling or playing at least 5 slower preparatory moves (Nf3 g3 Bg2 0-0 Re1).

Truth be told, single pawns are not really a huge loss in the opening, especially if the compensation is good enough. Often you can regain your gambit material with interest if you can make the right threats and keep the initiative. I don't think any of the more frequently seen gambits will ever be phased out because they're what make for some of the most interesting games.

EDIT - as to "knowing the lines" - with most mainstream gambits, the person who gives up the pawn has far more choices of how to steer the game, and if they keep the initiative the opponent has to keep responding to threats. In some of the more positional gambits (once again I speak of the Benko since it's a personal favorite), I've seen 1900-rated players lose the exchange by force against it because of the active play that Black can get. There's just too much for a single person to know because of the activity that the gambiteer will get.

after years of laborious study using masters notes from the past and ultra modern up to date technology, the noted chess genius Proffessor Tno Rute Ta Lla solved chess. The result was, white wins with the Seppuku Gambit every-time.

Jester, the chess computer, will play gambits. I've seen it play the King's Gambit as well as the Queen's gambit. It is true though that computers are generally very materialistic. I've never seen a computer make a piece sacrifice unless it led to checkmate or a material gain. But then its not really a sacrifice then is it?

There are a lot of gambits played at top level these days. Two Marshall gambits (in the Ruy and in the Semi-Slav), the anti-Moscow gambit, the Poisoned Pawn Najdorf, the most fashionable line in the Queen's Indian, et cetera. Every major opening has sacrifices somewhere in its main lines, I think.

couldn't black retreat his bishop after capturing the queen and take his time for development? and maybe later sacrifices a piece to break white's pawns formation, being a queen ahead i think it shouldn't be that hard

I agree... and its probably just the settings! lol. You can program most computers to vary their openings if you want to... other wise they will almost exclusively play the popular stuff (e.g., Sicilian)

kings gambit has the reputation of suicide for white ever since Fischer essayed it, yet, as Gallagher points out, the Fischer variation is far from a refutation of the king's gambit. King's gambit didn't disappear because it was refuted, it just went out of fashion.

Everyone have different opinions upon gambits. Korchnoi would go on and on criticising your 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5, even though the Benko Gambit is no immediate disaster for black, or somewhere in the near future.

Speaking of the Benko Gambit, this is one gambit I believe that computers wouldn never understand. Unlike so many other gambits, instead of sacrificing for a shot at the enemy king, the Benko simply aim for long term queenside pressure. The key word there is longterm, something that the chess engines would never have in their vocabulary of chess terms.

I do agree with you though, it is not everyday you see GMs play a gambit, although you see Kasparov choosing the Evans Gambit before he retired once or twice. 'A pawn is a pawn', saw William Hartston, 'and anyone who throws one away willingly in the first few move ought to realize that he is commiting an offence against the natural laws of the game.'

Mind you, computers have changed a lot. Rybka likes sacrifices, perhaps a bit too much. My club's trainer (an IM) says that when you're analyzing a pawn sac with Rybka, and it says it's only +0.1 for you, then you should really start doubting whether there is enough compensation.

I wonder, have there been any such books published? You'd think such a book would sell like hotcakes! I once bought a humorous book called "Unorthodox Openings" by Benjamin/Schiller, which was (and still is) a good read and inspiration to occasionally dabble in wonky openings. The only drawback is that the more playable openings were covered too sketchily and it was generally quite a slim book - could have been double it's size.

Also, where best to find up-to-date books about specific gambits or slightly off-beat openings, especially Blackmar-Diemer G., Milner-Barry G., Morra G., Dutch, Bird's O., (any books on the Tayler Opening lol?)

PS- I already have Esserman's book on Morra, Simon Williams book on Dutch (prob. a bit out-of-date now) and a very outdated book on BDG by Gary Lane, which contains at least 1 crucial theoretical flaw (written before computers helped with checking lines).

There is Boris Alterman's "The Alterman Gambit Guide: The White Gambits" from 2010. It includes chapters on the Danish Gambit, the Urusov Gambit, the Philidor, the Cochrane Gambit, the Morphy Attack and many more.

Didn't realize there was a book version of "GM Gambits" by Palliser/Williams! (I've watched some of GingerGM's vids promoting it) I'll check out Alterman's series of books too & pick the most suitable/interesting.

Polish Grandmaster Jacek Stopa presents his brand-new course, Countering 1.d4 Gambits. GM Stopa reveals the most effective and lean ways for White to refute the 3 most dangerous gambits: Albin Counter-Gambit, Budapest Gambit, and Queen's Gambit Accepted.

3a8082e126