Are gambits work? What's the strongest gambit? Do u use gambit?
@kabug said in #1:
> Are gambits work?
Yes, if you know what the point of your chosen one is. Just playing one to see what happens will probably be less successful.
>What's the strongest gambit?
The one you ́ve studied most
>Do u use gambit?
Yes, King ́s Gambit
Incidentally: with a puzzle rating of 3000+ you seem to be a genius at tactics, so gambits should be right up your street.
> Are gambits work?
Yes, if you know what the point of your chosen one is. Just playing one to see what happens will probably be less successful.
>What's the strongest gambit?
The one you ́ve studied most
>Do u use gambit?
Yes, King ́s Gambit
Incidentally: with a puzzle rating of 3000+ you seem to be a genius at tactics, so gambits should be right up your street.
Gambit is not gambit. They have different goals, for example the Benko is heading for a better endgame. The fewer light pieces the better...
@Wasted_Youth said in #2:
> Yes, if you know what the point of your chosen one is. Just playing one to see what happens will probably be less successful.
>
>
> The one you ́ve studied most
>
>
> Yes, King ́s Gambit
>
> Incidentally: with a puzzle rating of 3000+ you seem to be a genius at tactics, so gambits should be right up your street.
Tqsm bro, i appreciate it !!
> Yes, if you know what the point of your chosen one is. Just playing one to see what happens will probably be less successful.
>
>
> The one you ́ve studied most
>
>
> Yes, King ́s Gambit
>
> Incidentally: with a puzzle rating of 3000+ you seem to be a genius at tactics, so gambits should be right up your street.
Tqsm bro, i appreciate it !!
@Sarg0n said in #3:
> Gambit is not gambit. They have different goals, for example the Benko is heading for a better endgame. The fewer light pieces the better...
Agreed, the goals differ.
But perhaps we can say, vaguely, that all gambits aim to get "activity" for the sacrificed material? That activity can take many different forms, but let's say with some confidence that you don't gambit a pawn in order to get a cramped position. :-)
> Gambit is not gambit. They have different goals, for example the Benko is heading for a better endgame. The fewer light pieces the better...
Agreed, the goals differ.
But perhaps we can say, vaguely, that all gambits aim to get "activity" for the sacrificed material? That activity can take many different forms, but let's say with some confidence that you don't gambit a pawn in order to get a cramped position. :-)
Sometimes it’s about structure, long term goals. Activity yes, but later on.
@Sarg0n said in #6:
> Sometimes it’s about structure, long term goals. Activity yes, but later on.
That ́s not how I ́ve understood the videos I ́ve watched about the King ́s Gambit - get all your pieces out fast and throw them en masse and coordinated at the enemy King seems to be the concensus, unless you get the Falkbeer as a reply. But in the Queen ́s it seems to be very much about positional play first, activity only when everything ́s in place. I ́m very willing to be corrected on this - fascinating things, gambits, and never a dull moment! :)
> Sometimes it’s about structure, long term goals. Activity yes, but later on.
That ́s not how I ́ve understood the videos I ́ve watched about the King ́s Gambit - get all your pieces out fast and throw them en masse and coordinated at the enemy King seems to be the concensus, unless you get the Falkbeer as a reply. But in the Queen ́s it seems to be very much about positional play first, activity only when everything ́s in place. I ́m very willing to be corrected on this - fascinating things, gambits, and never a dull moment! :)
@Wasted_Youth said in #7:
> That ́s not how I ́ve understood the videos I ́ve watched about the King ́s Gambit - get all your pieces out fast and throw them en masse and coordinated at the enemy King seems to be the concensus, unless you get the Falkbeer as a reply.
That's one particular gambit. The point is that not all gambits have the same aims.
> But in the Queen ́s it seems to be very much about positional play first, activity only when everything ́s in place.
The Queen's Gambit? That is misnamed because it isn't a gambit.
> I ́m very willing to be corrected on this - fascinating things, gambits, and never a dull moment! :)
Absolutely. One of the most depressing things I've ever read on this forum was when players were saying they don't play gambits any longer because Stockfish labels them as inaccurate. If players sell their souls to a piece of programming which plays the game in a totally different way to the human players do, we might as well all give up playing.
> That ́s not how I ́ve understood the videos I ́ve watched about the King ́s Gambit - get all your pieces out fast and throw them en masse and coordinated at the enemy King seems to be the concensus, unless you get the Falkbeer as a reply.
That's one particular gambit. The point is that not all gambits have the same aims.
> But in the Queen ́s it seems to be very much about positional play first, activity only when everything ́s in place.
The Queen's Gambit? That is misnamed because it isn't a gambit.
> I ́m very willing to be corrected on this - fascinating things, gambits, and never a dull moment! :)
Absolutely. One of the most depressing things I've ever read on this forum was when players were saying they don't play gambits any longer because Stockfish labels them as inaccurate. If players sell their souls to a piece of programming which plays the game in a totally different way to the human players do, we might as well all give up playing.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Brian-E said in #8:
> That's one particular gambit. The point is that not all gambits have the same aims.
Yes, absolutely.
> The Queen's Gambit? That is misnamed because it isn't a gambit.
Again, yes. So we should maybe recommend it to the OP as the most solid "gambit"?
> One of the most depressing things I've ever read on this forum was when players were saying they don't play gambits any longer because Stockfish labels them as inaccurate.
3rd time yes :) I laugh every time I open a KG analysis which starts with an "inaccuracy" on 2.f4. But as Levy never fails to mention: we ́re humans, not Stockfish, and if Nakamura could draw against Carlsen and Spassky could beat Fischer with it, it ́s good enough for me!
> That's one particular gambit. The point is that not all gambits have the same aims.
Yes, absolutely.
> The Queen's Gambit? That is misnamed because it isn't a gambit.
Again, yes. So we should maybe recommend it to the OP as the most solid "gambit"?
> One of the most depressing things I've ever read on this forum was when players were saying they don't play gambits any longer because Stockfish labels them as inaccurate.
3rd time yes :) I laugh every time I open a KG analysis which starts with an "inaccuracy" on 2.f4. But as Levy never fails to mention: we ́re humans, not Stockfish, and if Nakamura could draw against Carlsen and Spassky could beat Fischer with it, it ́s good enough for me!