thanks

kentusha

"kentusha" wrote in message
om...
thanks

kentusha

It means that if your opponent offers you a pawn (or more) in order to get
extra play, then the only way to refute this is to accept the pawn even
though there may be simple ways to equalise.

More probably, it may be the only way to play for a win, by creating an
unbalanced position, even if the offered gambit is quite sound.

Like all "golden rules" in chess, it is true in many, but not all cases.

Regards,
Arfur

It's a polite way of saying, "You coward!" to those who decline your gambit.

Bill Smythe

To refute something is to show that it doesn't work.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Laser (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intense beam of light but you can take
it anywhere!

"Arfur Million" wrote in message ...
"kentusha" wrote in message
om...
thanks

kentusha

It means that if your opponent offers you a pawn (or more) in order to get
extra play, then the only way to refute this is to accept the pawn even
though there may be simple ways to equalise.

More probably, it may be the only way to play for a win, by creating an
unbalanced position, even if the offered gambit is quite sound.

Like all "golden rules" in chess, it is true in many, but not all cases.

Regards,
Arfur

Thanks Arfur for the detailed answer, sorry I am still not 100%
certain what you mean.

Let me reiterate your answer, just to make sure I understand. For
example Evans Gambit, a pawn is offered to a bishop. The bishop could
move away, I believe this is what you mean by equalise, but it is
likely that taking the pawn could still lead to another advantage. I
presume a sound gambit is one that will likely trap the one who took
the gambit, ie in this case the bishop.

thanks

kentusha

"kentusha" wrote in message
om...
"Arfur Million" wrote in message
...
"kentusha" wrote in message
om...
thanks

kentusha

It means that if your opponent offers you a pawn (or more) in order to
get
extra play, then the only way to refute this is to accept the pawn even
though there may be simple ways to equalise.

More probably, it may be the only way to play for a win, by creating an
unbalanced position, even if the offered gambit is quite sound.

Like all "golden rules" in chess, it is true in many, but not all cases.

Regards,
Arfur

Thanks Arfur for the detailed answer, sorry I am still not 100%
certain what you mean.

Let me reiterate your answer, just to make sure I understand. For
example Evans Gambit, a pawn is offered to a bishop. The bishop could
move away, I believe this is what you mean by equalise, but it is
likely that taking the pawn could still lead to another advantage.

If the bishop retreats (say to b6) then probably Black has quite easy play,
and does not have a worse position. But how can Black play for an advantage
this way? True, there is now a weakness in White's pawn structure; but
White's development is OK and the position can be seen to be (about) equal
and play is not very complex.

On the other hand, if Black takes the pawn then the play becomes more
complicated - after c3 White threatens to build a big centre with d4 and to
play the queen to b3 attacking f7. Black must spend time in retreating the
bishop. BUT by playing like this Black has more opportunity of playing to
win - either by outplaying White in all the tactics, or by just holding on
grimly to the pawn until a nice endgame is reached. In order to play like
this, both players would need to memorise a certain amount of theory because
the play is so sharp.

So (in the case of the Evans), there is little doubt that taking the pawn is
the best way to play for a win --- but that doesn't necessarily mean that
the gambit is refuted (ie shown to be wrong) by taking it.

I
presume a sound gambit is one that will likely trap the one who took
the gambit, ie in this case the bishop.

Not really - a sound gambit is one that gives enough compensation for the
pawn. In the case of the Evans gambit the compensation is in the form of
rapid development and the ability to play a quick d4, together with threats
against f7. Certainly White gets some compensation for the pawn, but whether
it is enough or not I will leave to opening theoreticians and Grandmasters
(who don't play it very often).

Regards,
Arfur