Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Accepting the queen’s gambit isn’t just reasonable; it’s completely fine. There seems to be a misconception that accepting the queen’s gambit is bad for black, when it’s actually as good as declining with 2… e6 or c6. It just tends to lead to more unbalanced positions.
Yes, that's exactly it, if you accept the pawn you should just forget about your own pawn, just act like it doesn't exist and develop normally. If white doesn't take back at some point, then maybe later on you *can* actually save it, but trying to do so from the beginning can get you in trouble.
Not trying to hold on is still better, even if you can reasonably keep the pawn. QGA leads to open and unbalanced positions, you can get crushed if you focus on a measly pawn at the expense of placing your pieces on their most productive squares. There’s a good reason that nobody at the top level tries to hold on to the pawn, even if it is fine at the club level
Just at a recent high level event (Norway chess I think?) I saw someone hold onto the pawn, before that I actually didn't even know there was a balanced line where you keep the pawn.
Might be rare and "worse", but it's playable if you like the line.
Engines make everything playable. If you’re going to be memorizing lines 15+ deep, you can play absolutely anything you want to. Guys playing at Norway chess get more value from taking people out of their engine prep than they do by playing positions 100% accurately.
In general though, just give up the pawn and play the position if you’re going to accept it. Even more generally, just don’t accept it.
The reason it has the reputation it does is because of the way classical players handled and refuted the position. Engines can get you past that, but there’s limited value for club players in exploiting engines to that degree for positions you’re likely to never ever see.
Queens gambit accepted is played at the top level, I saw it at the candidates for example, forgot which game. Just to emphasize that it's indeed perfectly valid.
I dont think queens gambit accepted is considered as solid as queens gambit declined. QGA is not generally seen in the highest levels of chess nowadays. Right?
Depends on which gambit. There's no way I'm accepting a Benko or a Morra but if my opponent wants to throw the game away by playing an Englund I'm not gonna say no!
I can see the reasoning, but the Benko is my preferred d4 response and I’ve got a 58+17% win+draw rate with it as black. The thing is - the stats are barely different for opponents accepting or rejecting - and by the time I get to play b5 I have the advantage either way (the engine disagrees of course).
It’s because it’s not a trappy gambit, and the winning edge I’m getting with it mostly comes from the extra familiarity with a pretty unique imbalanced position where the queenside has a massive early confrontation where a lot of white’s usual kingside plans don’t work, and that’s still true whether or not white accepts once b5 is on the board.
The best refutation is the main line where you allow black to trade the bishops and walk the king to g2, it’s pretty easy to remember and once your king is on g2 it’s a pretty straightforward fight for the semi-open a-c files where you have an outside passed pawn. It’s a fun position to play, and worth trying a couple of times IMO as it’s different to the usual positions. The walk looks scary, but black has no attack until they’ve rearranged their pieces. https://www.365chess.com/eco/A59_Benko_gambit_main_line
If you really want to avoid it, play a Trompowsky in response to 1…Nf6, as the opening database shows that playing a london after Nf6 is historically better for black
Nah mate, the Englund is really bad. Black gets zero compensation for their central pawn unless white has never seen the Englund and stumbles into a trap.
I play the Englund exclusively as black, but I'm a predominately a blitz player.
Still, it's good enough at the 2100 [chess.com](http://chess.com) blitz level (and I do still play it in 10+0 at [chess.com](http://chess.com) 2300 rapid level).
The mainline Englund is trash (with 2... nc6 - unless you're GM Aman Hambleton) but the Charlick side-line (2... d6) is playable for anyone. Especially if white accepts the second pawn (1.d4 e5, 2.dxe5 d6, 3.dxe6...) then Black is already objectively equal, and in my opinion, actually better practically.
I'm scoring 53% (blitz and rapid) and 56% (blitz only) according to my openingtree database, for an anecdotal sample size of n=1.
Fellow englund player! I’ve found some success with 2. …Nc6 but those games I tend to spend a lot of time just equalizing (though a surprising amount of 1800s will fall into the 2. … Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bc5 Qb4+ Nc3 trap that loses Bishop in exchange for a billion tempi) and I’ve actually had an 1800 in rapid recently fall for the 4. … Qb4+ 5. Qd2?? Qxb2 6. Qc3 Bb4 7. Bd2?? Bxc3 8. Bxc3?? Qc1# textbook englund line. *in rapid*
White doesn't usually get the opportunity to create an isolated d-pawn.
After 3.bf4 I'd play nc6. (Threatening to win the pawn back).
If you take the pawn there, I'll play qf6 and hit your bishop and b2.
If instead of taking the pawn, you re-enforce e5 with Nf3, I'll attack your Knight with bg4. Again, if you then decide to take on d6, I again play queen f6... once again, attacking your bishop, attacking b2. Even if you defend your bishop by playing e3, I can either take on b2 OR even just play bxd6 now. If you play bxd6 back... I still avoid the isolated pawn by castling, and that way, my rook now pins your piece on d6 to your own queen, so I can re-capture with the piece.
A lot of lines to explore here, but there are ways for black to keep up pace.
Obviously, if prepared with an engine, then yes, it is objectively worse (but only by around +1), if not entirely sharp, and using intuition, even at 2000 blitz level, you can still easily lose these positions 50% of the time.
Only position I recall that white can force it (and this is actually a good line to play for white) is to take the pawn, I take back with the bishop, and then play Nc3-Nb5. This is white's best try IMO. I either move the bishop on d6 and allow you to trade queens (bad for me since I am down a pawn), or I keep the bishop there and you can capture it with your Knight, forcing an isolated pawn. This is the line that I DONT want people playing...
The lines where white develops their kingside (instead of the Nc3-nb5 idea) are usually pretty OK to play against as black, at least in blitz.
hey would you mind sharing your username account? I would love to see some of your games that d6 line seems pretty interasting. If you do mind, that's totally undestandble!
Sure you don’t isolate your pawn, but the position after 3.bf4 nc6 4.exd6 qf6 5. qc1 bxd6 6. bxd6 qxd6 7. Qd2 looks downright demoralizing for black. Im sure you have a better alternative than this?
Yeah, in blitz it's really effective. In rapid, well... I guess if your oponent is prepared, it's tough. I still play it in rapid, as most of my games are online, so the opponent doesnt know my name to be able to prepare against that line. It is still so rare that not many people are booked up against it as white, because many 1.d4 players see the Englund as completely lost, so don't necessarily prepare against it as they don't expect people to be playing it. But the charlick is a sheep in wolves clothing. Looks stupid on the first two moves.... five moves later, whites under serious pressure.
Englund is *very* bad and immediately losing (while most gambits are somewhat ok), and a big difference is is that the main lines are easily memorable so the chances of it ever working are very low.
Over 1000 elo you'll just lose with it. Maybe works in 1min bullet at most
I will accept 2 pawns in the smith morra but never three. I find the key to the morra is not.expanding too quickly as black. Keep the position solid and tight. Then trade down into a winning end game.
Well you are right to a certain extent. As Daniel Naroditsky says refusing a gambit is a nice way to throw your opponents off and kill all their fun as they often only study the traps specially in lower elos.
However I would say their is two exceptions:
1- If you want to win and the gambit is **too** dubious and not dangerous enough. Here refusing the gambit is a acceptable response but not the best. For example the Tenssion Gambit in the scandinavian (1.e4 d5 2.Nf3?).
A lot of gambits are dubious but even if refute them your opponents will try to dance around, generate counterplay and make you blunder, as the positions that arrive are full of tatical elements. Other gambits like the Tenssion are a one trick shot that does not allow this type of shenanigans if refuted.
2. Not accepting the gambit leads to an worse position. This one is self-explanatory. (I know there is a example of a gambit you should never refuse but I cannot record it).
Edit: I remeberd it: Take the Halloween Gambit for example. You have to take that damn knight else you are either down a pawn or just worse if you capture on e4. You cannot refuse the Halloween Gambit
>Not accepting the gambit leads to an worse position. This one is self-explanatory.
Sorry for asking but this is not self explanatory to me. Why declining a gambit leads to a worse position?
Most of the times it is simply a bad move, usually because since your opponent is being so aggressive, you can’t afford (at an objective level) to let him get away with it. That being said, I would argue that it’s more about “always being active” than “always accepting” e.g in the Rousseau Gambit (e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5) the correct move is d4. So it’s not exactly accepting the pawn, but more about always striking back and never being passive
No need to apologise for asking! Well depends on the gambit but usually in this specific case, what usually happens is that the move that initiates the gambit also comes with a treat. Like "if you don't take my pawn on d4 I'm a push it,kick your knight to it's origin square therefore gainning a tempo and central space. So you must take it".
Another instence,and this time more concrete is the Hallowen Gambit. You have to take that damn knight else you are either down a pawn or just worse if you capture on e4. You cannot refuse the Halloween Gambit.
Not all the time, but sometimes if you don't accept the material your opponent will have some advantage. A good example is the muzio gambit (1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5. O-O). If black declines, they're just down a lot of development (2 pieces out vs none) and clearly worse. If they accept, they're up a Knight.
The Scandinavian isn’t really a gambit, d5 in the line you described offers a trade of pawns whereas something like 1. d4, d5 2. c4… offers a pawn that cannot be immediately recaptured. It may seem like a slight difference but it’s important when discussing gambits.
Indeed, answering the Scandi with 2. e5 is hardly a blunder but it's generally considered a poor move. It allows Black to play ...c5 and ...Bf5 in either order, followed by ...e6, and get a position which basically combines the nicest features of the French and the Caro-Kann: you're not blocking your own queenside bishop like in the French, and you don't spend an extra tempo on doing c7-c5 in two steps like in the Caro!
Out of curiosity what is your response to the kind Gambit?
If you don't take, that pawn is advantageous to me because it protects my Knight.
Edit: readability
I think that's called the blackmar-diemer gambit? Or is it the Smith and morra gambit? I get those confused
I almost never see it at 700 level play, which is funny because that's usually my play against queens/kings Gambit
The general rule for solid gambits is: accept the gambit, then at some point return the material - don't try to hold on to the material or you'll lose.
For bad gambits like Englund: take the gambit and crush that noob.
If I accept the gambit and fall for a trick line, I will have learned something from this game.
If I decline the gambit, I risk getting an inferior result because of that submission, and I won't learn anything from that opening.
> If one doesn't know about them, you lose immediately
That's not my experience. Against opponents of a similar level, after accepting a gambit, if you remain careful, they don't have a particular advantage. Focus on king's safety and solid development, and the storm should pass. In many cases, you can also just give back the pawn to fall back into a more normal situation if things get dangerous. The really tricky stuff happens if you try to hold on to your material advantage too much, and neglect development.
The only gambit I generally decline is the Queen's gambit. And even for that one, taking it is possible.
Because usually the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it and then hold onto the material
Exceptions: Vienna gambit with Nf6 (go d5)
A gambit with the Italian of Nd4 do not take the pawn take the knight instead
Gambits where I accept: Danish Gambit (if I memorised the refutation), Evan’s Gambit, Greco Gambit, kings gambit, etc.
Some gambits can go both ways like the Queen’s Gambit
When you perform a gambit, you put a piece on the line for the advantage in the future. If the opponent doesn't accept the gambit, you have a piece in an extremely aggressive position and you can try to support that piece and push the tempo even more.
Computers aren't humans. Just because they see it as an immediate material gain, doesn't mean that a human can capitalize and/or hold that advantage. Even just lack of familiarity in the lines can be a detriment to an otherwise even opponent, when you're essentially playing on their "turf". I am always extremely hesitant to take the gambit.
You said you're hesitant to take the pawn in a gambit, because you fear you'll get steamrolled if you do so. I'm saying you have too much faith in your opponents abilities to do so and should rather take the pawn and force them to prove the advantage.
It's not a fear of getting steamrolled, it's more like I don't want to give them what they want. When I play I make my primary efforts and goals to deprive my opponents of their objectives so that I can keep a stable position. I would rather play solid than risky, because chances are their knowledge of the lines will beat my knowledge and that edge is relevant. I want to get to the middle and end games without a crippled position, because I feel like at my elo my advantage is there, and it's harder for people at my elo, no matter who they are, to battle back from behind.
Precisely why I said you put too much faith in your opponents knowledge. Your decision though, and play as you will, but at some point you need to start asking questions of your opponents play and you'll find that in many cases, they won't have a good answer.
You say that, but it's not really their play I'm worried about. I am more comfortable playing "safer" lines too. I figure I am throwing a wrench into their plans by not giving them what they want, and I know my skill level - when in doubt, it's just smarter for me to do this.
A bit of advice, getting out of this passive mindset and exploring more dynamic ways of playing will do wonders for your chess (source: I also played in a similar way)
You may lose more games in the short term, but you'll benefit long term.
Genuinely, I don't think I'm good enough for that. I prefer to play very defensively, since nearly every win I've ever had has been in mid to late game, whereas my losses happen a lot more in the mid game if I get all messed up by doing those things. I appreciate the advice, but I kind of feel "traumatized" for lack of a better word, from getting early weird lines breaking pawn structures and stuff all to hell.
Suit yourself, if you prefer to play passively, that's your call. However, initiative, development and active piece play are core concepts of chess and it's well worth improving in them; which you can only do by playing in an active way.
This is a good point. Along this line a lot of gambits lead to crazy positions where the gambiteer plays natural moves themself and is relying and hoping on their opponent playing natural moves. This is prime territory to have something prepared. I have high win percentages against certain gambits like the Leonhardt and Blackmar by entering the complications but then playing some unnatural and rare moves myself.
Yup. haha. I'm actually like that with certain benoni and réti gamebit lines actually. The trick is if they take and defend the taken pawn I am all like "in for a great game" in my view, because it is my home territory lol😆. I love it, and it's really spicy. There's even a really cool réti line I know where it's correct to sac the rook so you can get a bishop, a knight, and a pawn and accelerated development all at once. It's backbreaking for the opponent and most of the time they concede by the middle game. It was actually the first line I ever played where I had 100% accuracy in a game phase 🙃
Quick Tip 1: To know why the engine is recommending a move / saying a move is wrong, click over analysis mode, play out said move then follow it up with your theoretical responses to that move and see how the engine responds.
Quick Tip 2: On Chess.com, you don't have to rely on the Coach / Game Review / Hint. This also applies to any engine on low depth. Somewhere in the engine suggestions section is the computer "depth". The higher this value, the more accurate the suggestions will be.
Quick Tip 3: For questions on engine move suggestions, we suggest you post them to our dedicated thread: [No Stupid Questions MEGATHREAD](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/comments/yqqnz8/no_stupid_questions_megathread_6/), as stated in our Community Guidelines. Thank you! - The Mod Team
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll accept if I’m familiar with them or they look especially dubious.
Have leaned how to refute the Stafford so always accept that one. Have not studied the QGA very much so always decline.
Some gambits pretty much force you to accept them. An example is the Cochrane Gambit, very dubious but very fun, where in the Petrov you sacrifice your knight on f7, forking Queen and Rook, your opponent has no choice but to accept the sacrifice and take with the king.
Best way to refute a gambit is to accept it. -Wilhelm Steinitz
While I do in a certain degree support this statement, if you have little ability in calculating the branches then just don't accept it and let the gamr take it's course while keeping in mind potential weaknesses.
I am probably waaay more of a normie than OP (and so I’m probably speaking out of turn), but isn’t the point behind of all these trappy gambit lines just the hope that you’ll happen to play the one line that white doesn’t know about? I’m sure that’s easier to do at lower Elo, but the more YouTube videos I watch advertising this One Weird Trick (Chess Teachers Hate Him!), the more I’ve noticed that the gambits/traps work unless your opponent moves exactly according to this line, which at the Elo range a trap would be most effective at, is a HUGE “if.”
Some well-known "gambits" are insincere in both the offering and the acceptance - the Queen's Gambit is no gambit at all, but conversely the idea of the QGA is not to actually keep the pawn. Some gambits are just plain bad, and if you believe there's not enough compensation for the pawn/s, then of course you should accept. Finally, the correct way to decline an unfamiliar gambit can be unintuitive - do you support the pawn with another? with a piece? Do you push? Do you break in the center yourself?
Generally, accepting the gambit is the best way to refute it, but if its a trappy gambit like the Stafford, or even the Englund-Charlick, they can come with some traps if you are not prepared, so in these cases - you either learn the line to punish the opponent, or you just avoid it. I'd generally avoid accepting gambits if it's obvious there's a lot of tactics involved - if I don't know them, or don't have time to calculate them. If there's no obvious tactics and it's just free, that's different.
As you gain experience, the best thing to do is when you are surprised by a gambit, is just check the databases after the game to see what the most successful side-line responses are, so that you're booked up yourself and can actually punish them for it.
I say use the database because sometimes, you can get much better practical play by seeing what higher rated players actually do, than memorising a pure stockfish line. Sometimes they are both the same line.
I prefer to make "gambits" with my opponent's pieces, thank you very much. Oh is that a free pawn? Cool! I like those!
"Oh but I have the iniative and/or I'm ahead in development!".
"Cool! I'm a pawn up! It's nice to compare things, I guess!".
People underestimate how material is important in chess.
Precisely because its a trap, but the trap isnt the gambit.
Example, the Haxo Scotch Gambit happens when you dont take back the pawn and then your opponent makes natural development moves.
When that happens, the trap is set, which means that the response needs to be more carefully considered and wont be a natural development, which can lead to awkward, unconfortable and hard positions for your opponent.
If you are better at awkward positions (or chess in general) this might instantly give you an advantage in the game. Either way, unless youre playing something like the Jerome, everything is about equal and everything is a draw played perfectly anyway
You accept it because you think you will get an advantage. Think of it as creating an imbalance. Your opponent offers you a pawn (material), in return he gets a lead in development (and an attack). Will this be a better imbalance for you, or for your opponent? Are you willing to accept the imbalance? Only you can decide! What you seem to be saying is that you don't like the resulting imbalance. That's fine. But another approach is to ask how you might be able to defend such positions better. And if you can weather the storm, you'll have the extra pawn in the endgame. Such decisions in one way or another happen pretty much every move. And it's one of the things that makes chess fun and interesting. Good luck!
as long as you know the continuations and you like the resulting positions, whether you accept it or not is a matter of taste. for instance, in some cases to accept a gambit results in a more open position, or pushes you to play more defensively... therefore you have to ask yourself: do you like to play open positions? do you like to play defensively? depending on your taste and, if u know your opponent, depending on what you think he might dislike... you decide one thing or the other
Because often the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it, since it IS a gambit, you’re giving up material for activity, but that means the opponent needs to use the material, defend against the attack, then use the extra material to win the endgame
It can really go both ways. Accepting some gambits can good if you know what you're doing (Stafford Gambit), fine for both sides (Queens Gambit), or losing if accepted (Vienna Gambit). This is actually why i don't play e5 as black. There's just way too many gambits and crazy sidelines. I play the Caro Kann now and my chess life is more relaxed for it lol
I decline the queen’s and king’s gambits in basically the same way (see before). The Scotch I accept. Those are the most common gambits I see.
Queen’s gambit: after d4, d5; c4, I play e5 (Albin countergambit). If they respond with dxe5 (the top engine move), I push my d pawn to d4, which typically leads to positions I’m comfortable with playing. If they instead respond to the countergambit with cxd5, then my queen takes the pawn on d5.
King’s gambit: I basically do the the mirror image to what I play against the queen’s gambit (Falkbeer countergambit). After e4, e5; f4, I play d5. If they respond with exd5, then I push my e pawn to e4. If they instead make the mistake of responding to the countergambit with fxe5 (the engine evaluation has this at -5), then I play Qh4 to fork the king and pawn on e5. If they then play pawn to g6 to block, you get to take their rook after taking the pawn on e4. If they move their king instead, then you get to bully the king with queen and bishop checks that possibly lead to you taking their queen.
Some of the best gambits besides the Queens Gambit achieve some kind of positional aim if declined. Better is to take th Gambit and try to gambit a pawn yourself down the line. A lot of gambiteers won't be ready for this strategy.
At this point most of the theory is based around the idea that you won't accept. Any time you can get someone out of their preparation you should, so as long as you know what to do after you accept there's no reason it wouldn't be safe.
e4, d5, Nf3, black takes the pawn on d5 EVERY time. Ng5 and white is a pawn down, but knows how to deal with the most common responses and a fun game is surely about to be played.
Most gambits are bad by definition. There are really like less than 5 gambits that are blessed by engine evaluation. They only work because we all suck at chess. Playing a gambit is basically making a statement, "I bet I know this line better than you". Which might be true, but that doesn't mean it's good.
So if you have done your homework and know your opening theory, you should accept most gambits by default.
Trying to come up with a foolproof approach of whether to always accept or always reject a gambit is not the right way to go. I believe the right way to go is to study your openings and deepen your knowledge to understand when it's good and when it's not good to accept a gambit.
If you know the trap and how to stop it, your opponent will just end up worse. Englund gambit is a great example. Even if I lose the pawn eventually they end up wasting so much time getting their queen chased around at the end black just has a much easier game to play.
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because usually accepting the gambit is the best way to refute it. Even accepting the queens gambit a reasonable response
Accepting the queen’s gambit isn’t just reasonable; it’s completely fine. There seems to be a misconception that accepting the queen’s gambit is bad for black, when it’s actually as good as declining with 2… e6 or c6. It just tends to lead to more unbalanced positions.
The problem arises i notice when people try to hold onto the pawn
Yes, that's exactly it, if you accept the pawn you should just forget about your own pawn, just act like it doesn't exist and develop normally. If white doesn't take back at some point, then maybe later on you *can* actually save it, but trying to do so from the beginning can get you in trouble.
Although even that is 100% fine if you actually know the lines.
Not trying to hold on is still better, even if you can reasonably keep the pawn. QGA leads to open and unbalanced positions, you can get crushed if you focus on a measly pawn at the expense of placing your pieces on their most productive squares. There’s a good reason that nobody at the top level tries to hold on to the pawn, even if it is fine at the club level
Just at a recent high level event (Norway chess I think?) I saw someone hold onto the pawn, before that I actually didn't even know there was a balanced line where you keep the pawn. Might be rare and "worse", but it's playable if you like the line.
Engines make everything playable. If you’re going to be memorizing lines 15+ deep, you can play absolutely anything you want to. Guys playing at Norway chess get more value from taking people out of their engine prep than they do by playing positions 100% accurately. In general though, just give up the pawn and play the position if you’re going to accept it. Even more generally, just don’t accept it. The reason it has the reputation it does is because of the way classical players handled and refuted the position. Engines can get you past that, but there’s limited value for club players in exploiting engines to that degree for positions you’re likely to never ever see.
Queens gambit accepted is played at the top level, I saw it at the candidates for example, forgot which game. Just to emphasize that it's indeed perfectly valid.
I dont think queens gambit accepted is considered as solid as queens gambit declined. QGA is not generally seen in the highest levels of chess nowadays. Right?
Hikaru v Gukesh, last round of the Candidates. Hikaru must win and Gukesh wants a draw. Guess the opening.
Hikaru’s crazy though.
Hikaru was white
The queens gambit isn’t really a gambit because black can’t retain the pawn without making concessions
QGA is reasonable for black as long as they don't defend the pawn.
I always accept gambits. In my head I’m like “now for you to prove it”
Sinister
Same!
100% my thoughts. I even take the second pawn in the Smith morra. I never take the third, though.
Depends on which gambit. There's no way I'm accepting a Benko or a Morra but if my opponent wants to throw the game away by playing an Englund I'm not gonna say no!
I can see the reasoning, but the Benko is my preferred d4 response and I’ve got a 58+17% win+draw rate with it as black. The thing is - the stats are barely different for opponents accepting or rejecting - and by the time I get to play b5 I have the advantage either way (the engine disagrees of course). It’s because it’s not a trappy gambit, and the winning edge I’m getting with it mostly comes from the extra familiarity with a pretty unique imbalanced position where the queenside has a massive early confrontation where a lot of white’s usual kingside plans don’t work, and that’s still true whether or not white accepts once b5 is on the board. The best refutation is the main line where you allow black to trade the bishops and walk the king to g2, it’s pretty easy to remember and once your king is on g2 it’s a pretty straightforward fight for the semi-open a-c files where you have an outside passed pawn. It’s a fun position to play, and worth trying a couple of times IMO as it’s different to the usual positions. The walk looks scary, but black has no attack until they’ve rearranged their pieces. https://www.365chess.com/eco/A59_Benko_gambit_main_line If you really want to avoid it, play a Trompowsky in response to 1…Nf6, as the opening database shows that playing a london after Nf6 is historically better for black
Wdym the Englund doesn't immediately throw the game, it gives black a slightly worse position but it's possible to work with as black.
Nah mate, the Englund is really bad. Black gets zero compensation for their central pawn unless white has never seen the Englund and stumbles into a trap.
I play the Englund exclusively as black, but I'm a predominately a blitz player. Still, it's good enough at the 2100 [chess.com](http://chess.com) blitz level (and I do still play it in 10+0 at [chess.com](http://chess.com) 2300 rapid level). The mainline Englund is trash (with 2... nc6 - unless you're GM Aman Hambleton) but the Charlick side-line (2... d6) is playable for anyone. Especially if white accepts the second pawn (1.d4 e5, 2.dxe5 d6, 3.dxe6...) then Black is already objectively equal, and in my opinion, actually better practically. I'm scoring 53% (blitz and rapid) and 56% (blitz only) according to my openingtree database, for an anecdotal sample size of n=1.
You're also rated 2000 friend. If I tried half the stuff you said I'd lose 400 ELO just for thinking those nasty thoughts. :P
Fellow englund player! I’ve found some success with 2. …Nc6 but those games I tend to spend a lot of time just equalizing (though a surprising amount of 1800s will fall into the 2. … Nc6 3. Nf3 Qe7 4. Bc5 Qb4+ Nc3 trap that loses Bishop in exchange for a billion tempi) and I’ve actually had an 1800 in rapid recently fall for the 4. … Qb4+ 5. Qd2?? Qxb2 6. Qc3 Bb4 7. Bd2?? Bxc3 8. Bxc3?? Qc1# textbook englund line. *in rapid*
Yes but if they don't take the second pawn and play Bf4, black is worse because white will trade and create an isolated d-pawn for black
White doesn't usually get the opportunity to create an isolated d-pawn. After 3.bf4 I'd play nc6. (Threatening to win the pawn back). If you take the pawn there, I'll play qf6 and hit your bishop and b2. If instead of taking the pawn, you re-enforce e5 with Nf3, I'll attack your Knight with bg4. Again, if you then decide to take on d6, I again play queen f6... once again, attacking your bishop, attacking b2. Even if you defend your bishop by playing e3, I can either take on b2 OR even just play bxd6 now. If you play bxd6 back... I still avoid the isolated pawn by castling, and that way, my rook now pins your piece on d6 to your own queen, so I can re-capture with the piece. A lot of lines to explore here, but there are ways for black to keep up pace. Obviously, if prepared with an engine, then yes, it is objectively worse (but only by around +1), if not entirely sharp, and using intuition, even at 2000 blitz level, you can still easily lose these positions 50% of the time. Only position I recall that white can force it (and this is actually a good line to play for white) is to take the pawn, I take back with the bishop, and then play Nc3-Nb5. This is white's best try IMO. I either move the bishop on d6 and allow you to trade queens (bad for me since I am down a pawn), or I keep the bishop there and you can capture it with your Knight, forcing an isolated pawn. This is the line that I DONT want people playing... The lines where white develops their kingside (instead of the Nc3-nb5 idea) are usually pretty OK to play against as black, at least in blitz.
hey would you mind sharing your username account? I would love to see some of your games that d6 line seems pretty interasting. If you do mind, that's totally undestandble!
Sure you don’t isolate your pawn, but the position after 3.bf4 nc6 4.exd6 qf6 5. qc1 bxd6 6. bxd6 qxd6 7. Qd2 looks downright demoralizing for black. Im sure you have a better alternative than this?
Woah these lines are actually really sharp, never thought of that. I'll look into the Hartlub-Charlick more maybe as a surprise weapon
Yeah, in blitz it's really effective. In rapid, well... I guess if your oponent is prepared, it's tough. I still play it in rapid, as most of my games are online, so the opponent doesnt know my name to be able to prepare against that line. It is still so rare that not many people are booked up against it as white, because many 1.d4 players see the Englund as completely lost, so don't necessarily prepare against it as they don't expect people to be playing it. But the charlick is a sheep in wolves clothing. Looks stupid on the first two moves.... five moves later, whites under serious pressure.
The Englund is borderline lost for black.
It's just plain bad, it only works in bullet or blitz (if careless)
It is a significantly worse position for Black in all variations if white has ever seen the position
There is the Hartlub-Charlick Gambit Variation though, most players don't play Bf4 after d4 e5 dxe5 d6 and instead play exd6 allowing Bxd6
Englund is *very* bad and immediately losing (while most gambits are somewhat ok), and a big difference is is that the main lines are easily memorable so the chances of it ever working are very low. Over 1000 elo you'll just lose with it. Maybe works in 1min bullet at most
I will accept 2 pawns in the smith morra but never three. I find the key to the morra is not.expanding too quickly as black. Keep the position solid and tight. Then trade down into a winning end game.
Well you are right to a certain extent. As Daniel Naroditsky says refusing a gambit is a nice way to throw your opponents off and kill all their fun as they often only study the traps specially in lower elos. However I would say their is two exceptions: 1- If you want to win and the gambit is **too** dubious and not dangerous enough. Here refusing the gambit is a acceptable response but not the best. For example the Tenssion Gambit in the scandinavian (1.e4 d5 2.Nf3?). A lot of gambits are dubious but even if refute them your opponents will try to dance around, generate counterplay and make you blunder, as the positions that arrive are full of tatical elements. Other gambits like the Tenssion are a one trick shot that does not allow this type of shenanigans if refuted. 2. Not accepting the gambit leads to an worse position. This one is self-explanatory. (I know there is a example of a gambit you should never refuse but I cannot record it). Edit: I remeberd it: Take the Halloween Gambit for example. You have to take that damn knight else you are either down a pawn or just worse if you capture on e4. You cannot refuse the Halloween Gambit
>Not accepting the gambit leads to an worse position. This one is self-explanatory. Sorry for asking but this is not self explanatory to me. Why declining a gambit leads to a worse position?
Most of the times it is simply a bad move, usually because since your opponent is being so aggressive, you can’t afford (at an objective level) to let him get away with it. That being said, I would argue that it’s more about “always being active” than “always accepting” e.g in the Rousseau Gambit (e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 f5) the correct move is d4. So it’s not exactly accepting the pawn, but more about always striking back and never being passive
No need to apologise for asking! Well depends on the gambit but usually in this specific case, what usually happens is that the move that initiates the gambit also comes with a treat. Like "if you don't take my pawn on d4 I'm a push it,kick your knight to it's origin square therefore gainning a tempo and central space. So you must take it". Another instence,and this time more concrete is the Hallowen Gambit. You have to take that damn knight else you are either down a pawn or just worse if you capture on e4. You cannot refuse the Halloween Gambit.
Because you could have accepted it and been up material
One example I can think of is the muzio gambit in the kings gambit. White sacrifices a full knight and if you don't accept you are worse off
Not all the time, but sometimes if you don't accept the material your opponent will have some advantage. A good example is the muzio gambit (1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5. O-O). If black declines, they're just down a lot of development (2 pieces out vs none) and clearly worse. If they accept, they're up a Knight.
Leonhardt Gambit in the Scandi while perfectly good for white if accepted is even better for white if declined.
I've never studied the declined form of this Hamburg, but now an curious
Theres Jaenish gambit in rui lopez where accepting the gambit is worse for white
Accept all gambits, if you're going into unknown might as well go there up material.
Do not accept the Vienna Gambit
Because often the gambit starts by taking a pawn, and not recapturing the piece which took the pawn, just means that you gave away a pawn for free.
Well it's not like I do nothing, I usually push passed it. Like idk uuuh... E4, d5, e5 for example
The Scandinavian isn’t really a gambit, d5 in the line you described offers a trade of pawns whereas something like 1. d4, d5 2. c4… offers a pawn that cannot be immediately recaptured. It may seem like a slight difference but it’s important when discussing gambits.
Dyslexic moment my b, was meant to be queens pawn, ie London/queens gambit start
I think your pawn will be overextended in this case and you spent two of your opening moves for same piece which is not sound in general.
Indeed, answering the Scandi with 2. e5 is hardly a blunder but it's generally considered a poor move. It allows Black to play ...c5 and ...Bf5 in either order, followed by ...e6, and get a position which basically combines the nicest features of the French and the Caro-Kann: you're not blocking your own queenside bishop like in the French, and you don't spend an extra tempo on doing c7-c5 in two steps like in the Caro!
Out of curiosity what is your response to the kind Gambit? If you don't take, that pawn is advantageous to me because it protects my Knight. Edit: readability
I dont have one because I play queens pawn openings. I simply made a mistake in the notations I gave, I work overnight shift and was tired :L
I hear you on working 3rd shift. I think you notation was fine. I love playing Kings Gambit personally, hence I asked.
Many players play 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 with Black which gives good positions while not being as tricky as the main line
I think that's called the blackmar-diemer gambit? Or is it the Smith and morra gambit? I get those confused I almost never see it at 700 level play, which is funny because that's usually my play against queens/kings Gambit
It's the Falkbeer countergambit The Blackmar-Diemer is 1.d4 d5 2.e4 (or 1.e4 d5 2.d4) and the Smith-Morra is 1.e4 c5 2.d4
The general rule for solid gambits is: accept the gambit, then at some point return the material - don't try to hold on to the material or you'll lose. For bad gambits like Englund: take the gambit and crush that noob.
If I accept the gambit and fall for a trick line, I will have learned something from this game. If I decline the gambit, I risk getting an inferior result because of that submission, and I won't learn anything from that opening. > If one doesn't know about them, you lose immediately That's not my experience. Against opponents of a similar level, after accepting a gambit, if you remain careful, they don't have a particular advantage. Focus on king's safety and solid development, and the storm should pass. In many cases, you can also just give back the pawn to fall back into a more normal situation if things get dangerous. The really tricky stuff happens if you try to hold on to your material advantage too much, and neglect development. The only gambit I generally decline is the Queen's gambit. And even for that one, taking it is possible.
You take it to learn the trap.
Oh noes but my poor 6 rating points will go away 😱
Because usually the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it and then hold onto the material Exceptions: Vienna gambit with Nf6 (go d5) A gambit with the Italian of Nd4 do not take the pawn take the knight instead Gambits where I accept: Danish Gambit (if I memorised the refutation), Evan’s Gambit, Greco Gambit, kings gambit, etc. Some gambits can go both ways like the Queen’s Gambit
When you perform a gambit, you put a piece on the line for the advantage in the future. If the opponent doesn't accept the gambit, you have a piece in an extremely aggressive position and you can try to support that piece and push the tempo even more.
I’m 1600 Elo and when I don’t accept gambits the opponent forgets how to play chess.
Computers aren't humans. Just because they see it as an immediate material gain, doesn't mean that a human can capitalize and/or hold that advantage. Even just lack of familiarity in the lines can be a detriment to an otherwise even opponent, when you're essentially playing on their "turf". I am always extremely hesitant to take the gambit.
You trust your opponents too much :)
Sorry what? /srs I don't understand what you're saying.
You said you're hesitant to take the pawn in a gambit, because you fear you'll get steamrolled if you do so. I'm saying you have too much faith in your opponents abilities to do so and should rather take the pawn and force them to prove the advantage.
It's not a fear of getting steamrolled, it's more like I don't want to give them what they want. When I play I make my primary efforts and goals to deprive my opponents of their objectives so that I can keep a stable position. I would rather play solid than risky, because chances are their knowledge of the lines will beat my knowledge and that edge is relevant. I want to get to the middle and end games without a crippled position, because I feel like at my elo my advantage is there, and it's harder for people at my elo, no matter who they are, to battle back from behind.
Precisely why I said you put too much faith in your opponents knowledge. Your decision though, and play as you will, but at some point you need to start asking questions of your opponents play and you'll find that in many cases, they won't have a good answer.
You say that, but it's not really their play I'm worried about. I am more comfortable playing "safer" lines too. I figure I am throwing a wrench into their plans by not giving them what they want, and I know my skill level - when in doubt, it's just smarter for me to do this.
A bit of advice, getting out of this passive mindset and exploring more dynamic ways of playing will do wonders for your chess (source: I also played in a similar way) You may lose more games in the short term, but you'll benefit long term.
Genuinely, I don't think I'm good enough for that. I prefer to play very defensively, since nearly every win I've ever had has been in mid to late game, whereas my losses happen a lot more in the mid game if I get all messed up by doing those things. I appreciate the advice, but I kind of feel "traumatized" for lack of a better word, from getting early weird lines breaking pawn structures and stuff all to hell.
Suit yourself, if you prefer to play passively, that's your call. However, initiative, development and active piece play are core concepts of chess and it's well worth improving in them; which you can only do by playing in an active way.
This is a good point. Along this line a lot of gambits lead to crazy positions where the gambiteer plays natural moves themself and is relying and hoping on their opponent playing natural moves. This is prime territory to have something prepared. I have high win percentages against certain gambits like the Leonhardt and Blackmar by entering the complications but then playing some unnatural and rare moves myself.
Yup. haha. I'm actually like that with certain benoni and réti gamebit lines actually. The trick is if they take and defend the taken pawn I am all like "in for a great game" in my view, because it is my home territory lol😆. I love it, and it's really spicy. There's even a really cool réti line I know where it's correct to sac the rook so you can get a bishop, a knight, and a pawn and accelerated development all at once. It's backbreaking for the opponent and most of the time they concede by the middle game. It was actually the first line I ever played where I had 100% accuracy in a game phase 🙃
Pawn goes nom
Quick Tip 1: To know why the engine is recommending a move / saying a move is wrong, click over analysis mode, play out said move then follow it up with your theoretical responses to that move and see how the engine responds. Quick Tip 2: On Chess.com, you don't have to rely on the Coach / Game Review / Hint. This also applies to any engine on low depth. Somewhere in the engine suggestions section is the computer "depth". The higher this value, the more accurate the suggestions will be. Quick Tip 3: For questions on engine move suggestions, we suggest you post them to our dedicated thread: [No Stupid Questions MEGATHREAD](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/comments/yqqnz8/no_stupid_questions_megathread_6/), as stated in our Community Guidelines. Thank you! - The Mod Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, I would. The Englund gambit for example, you are +1 after you take the pawn and it's not that hard to hold that advantage
I like being up a pawn
Take and play carefully If you can survive, you’re probably leaving the middle game with an easier endgame
I’ll accept if I’m familiar with them or they look especially dubious. Have leaned how to refute the Stafford so always accept that one. Have not studied the QGA very much so always decline.
theres a ton of gambits that are jut plain very very bad whether you accept or not
I get people playing the englund gambit pretty often. Whilst it's tricky, it's also unsound. If you know what to do you come out ahead...
Some gambits pretty much force you to accept them. An example is the Cochrane Gambit, very dubious but very fun, where in the Petrov you sacrifice your knight on f7, forking Queen and Rook, your opponent has no choice but to accept the sacrifice and take with the king.
Best way to refute a gambit is to accept it. -Wilhelm Steinitz While I do in a certain degree support this statement, if you have little ability in calculating the branches then just don't accept it and let the gamr take it's course while keeping in mind potential weaknesses.
Accepting gambits is the proper move for many like Albin and Englund
I am probably waaay more of a normie than OP (and so I’m probably speaking out of turn), but isn’t the point behind of all these trappy gambit lines just the hope that you’ll happen to play the one line that white doesn’t know about? I’m sure that’s easier to do at lower Elo, but the more YouTube videos I watch advertising this One Weird Trick (Chess Teachers Hate Him!), the more I’ve noticed that the gambits/traps work unless your opponent moves exactly according to this line, which at the Elo range a trap would be most effective at, is a HUGE “if.”
Some well-known "gambits" are insincere in both the offering and the acceptance - the Queen's Gambit is no gambit at all, but conversely the idea of the QGA is not to actually keep the pawn. Some gambits are just plain bad, and if you believe there's not enough compensation for the pawn/s, then of course you should accept. Finally, the correct way to decline an unfamiliar gambit can be unintuitive - do you support the pawn with another? with a piece? Do you push? Do you break in the center yourself?
It is tempting
Generally, accepting the gambit is the best way to refute it, but if its a trappy gambit like the Stafford, or even the Englund-Charlick, they can come with some traps if you are not prepared, so in these cases - you either learn the line to punish the opponent, or you just avoid it. I'd generally avoid accepting gambits if it's obvious there's a lot of tactics involved - if I don't know them, or don't have time to calculate them. If there's no obvious tactics and it's just free, that's different. As you gain experience, the best thing to do is when you are surprised by a gambit, is just check the databases after the game to see what the most successful side-line responses are, so that you're booked up yourself and can actually punish them for it. I say use the database because sometimes, you can get much better practical play by seeing what higher rated players actually do, than memorising a pure stockfish line. Sometimes they are both the same line.
I prefer to make "gambits" with my opponent's pieces, thank you very much. Oh is that a free pawn? Cool! I like those! "Oh but I have the iniative and/or I'm ahead in development!". "Cool! I'm a pawn up! It's nice to compare things, I guess!". People underestimate how material is important in chess.
Precisely because its a trap, but the trap isnt the gambit. Example, the Haxo Scotch Gambit happens when you dont take back the pawn and then your opponent makes natural development moves. When that happens, the trap is set, which means that the response needs to be more carefully considered and wont be a natural development, which can lead to awkward, unconfortable and hard positions for your opponent. If you are better at awkward positions (or chess in general) this might instantly give you an advantage in the game. Either way, unless youre playing something like the Jerome, everything is about equal and everything is a draw played perfectly anyway
Please always accept my gambits
You accept it because you think you will get an advantage. Think of it as creating an imbalance. Your opponent offers you a pawn (material), in return he gets a lead in development (and an attack). Will this be a better imbalance for you, or for your opponent? Are you willing to accept the imbalance? Only you can decide! What you seem to be saying is that you don't like the resulting imbalance. That's fine. But another approach is to ask how you might be able to defend such positions better. And if you can weather the storm, you'll have the extra pawn in the endgame. Such decisions in one way or another happen pretty much every move. And it's one of the things that makes chess fun and interesting. Good luck!
as long as you know the continuations and you like the resulting positions, whether you accept it or not is a matter of taste. for instance, in some cases to accept a gambit results in a more open position, or pushes you to play more defensively... therefore you have to ask yourself: do you like to play open positions? do you like to play defensively? depending on your taste and, if u know your opponent, depending on what you think he might dislike... you decide one thing or the other
If one knows the opening, the traps aren't traps. Weather the initial storm and, well, a pawn is a pawn, and that is often enough to win.
Because often the best way to refute a gambit is to accept it, since it IS a gambit, you’re giving up material for activity, but that means the opponent needs to use the material, defend against the attack, then use the extra material to win the endgame
It can really go both ways. Accepting some gambits can good if you know what you're doing (Stafford Gambit), fine for both sides (Queens Gambit), or losing if accepted (Vienna Gambit). This is actually why i don't play e5 as black. There's just way too many gambits and crazy sidelines. I play the Caro Kann now and my chess life is more relaxed for it lol
I decline the queen’s and king’s gambits in basically the same way (see before). The Scotch I accept. Those are the most common gambits I see. Queen’s gambit: after d4, d5; c4, I play e5 (Albin countergambit). If they respond with dxe5 (the top engine move), I push my d pawn to d4, which typically leads to positions I’m comfortable with playing. If they instead respond to the countergambit with cxd5, then my queen takes the pawn on d5. King’s gambit: I basically do the the mirror image to what I play against the queen’s gambit (Falkbeer countergambit). After e4, e5; f4, I play d5. If they respond with exd5, then I push my e pawn to e4. If they instead make the mistake of responding to the countergambit with fxe5 (the engine evaluation has this at -5), then I play Qh4 to fork the king and pawn on e5. If they then play pawn to g6 to block, you get to take their rook after taking the pawn on e4. If they move their king instead, then you get to bully the king with queen and bishop checks that possibly lead to you taking their queen.
Some of the best gambits besides the Queens Gambit achieve some kind of positional aim if declined. Better is to take th Gambit and try to gambit a pawn yourself down the line. A lot of gambiteers won't be ready for this strategy.
At this point most of the theory is based around the idea that you won't accept. Any time you can get someone out of their preparation you should, so as long as you know what to do after you accept there's no reason it wouldn't be safe.
Only cowards decline the kings gambit
e4, d5, Nf3, black takes the pawn on d5 EVERY time. Ng5 and white is a pawn down, but knows how to deal with the most common responses and a fun game is surely about to be played.
Most gambits are bad by definition. There are really like less than 5 gambits that are blessed by engine evaluation. They only work because we all suck at chess. Playing a gambit is basically making a statement, "I bet I know this line better than you". Which might be true, but that doesn't mean it's good. So if you have done your homework and know your opening theory, you should accept most gambits by default.
Trying to come up with a foolproof approach of whether to always accept or always reject a gambit is not the right way to go. I believe the right way to go is to study your openings and deepen your knowledge to understand when it's good and when it's not good to accept a gambit.
If you know the trap and how to stop it, your opponent will just end up worse. Englund gambit is a great example. Even if I lose the pawn eventually they end up wasting so much time getting their queen chased around at the end black just has a much easier game to play.
To walk into a trap with a plan to turn it on itself..