Answers.Body: <p>Evans Gambit is NOT refuted despite what some stuffy theorists will say. In almost all lines black has to give back the pawn at one point or suffer a serious disadvantage.  Besides, even if the gambit was totally refuted it would be ridiculous for anyone (even a grandmaster) to learn all of the lines that lead to an advantage for black.</p>
  
  <p>The thing you have to remember when you play gambits is that humans are not computers.  Even if they are very familiar with the lines they are bound to make tiny mistakes, gambits might not work against computers but chess is a human game.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-11-23T14:19:10.103Z
Answers.Text: *"Evans Gambit is NOT refuted despite what some stuffy theorists will say"* the fact that it hasn't been played much (actually it hasn't played at all) at 2700+ level in the last 20 years pretty much says it all, though. This said, as in every line, of course people can find new ideas and revive old openings.
Answers.UserDisplayName: gented
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-11-30T00:58:01.367Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-11-30T00:58:01.367Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Atlec
Answers.Body: <p>White gains time to develop his pieces (mainly the dark squared bishop, at the expense of a pawn whose absence won't hurt until the endgame.</p>
  
  <p>The Evans has now been researched, and with correct play, Black can get to the endgame with an advantage. But before the "modern" understanding of theory, White could often get a winning middle game. Hence, the Evans can be used against inexperienced Black players, and in the "old days," opponents who were generally less well schooled than today's players. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-17T00:41:38.700Z
Answers.Text: When you say, "with correct play, Black WILL get to the endgame with an advantage," what line of play do you have in mind?
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-17T01:19:17.627Z
Answers.Text: @Ed Dean: Black does OK in most of these lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Gambit. But they've been discovered mostly in the last half century or so.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-17T01:38:10.610Z
Answers.Text: Doing OK is one thing, but your answer suggests Black can guarantee an advantageous endgame. If you really do mean the latter, I am curious how Black achieves that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-17T01:42:46.503Z
Answers.Text: @EdDean: Amended it to say "can." I've seen a bunch of "prepared" variations from time to time, most of them complicated, and Black usually out ahead because of the extra pawn, but with a bit of angst.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-17T02:43:39.140Z
Answers.Text: @TomAu, the description in the second paragraph of your post would fit well for an unsound gambit. However, I believe that Evans Gambit is sound enough to the point where black does not get an advantage with correct play from both sides. Of course, I could be wrong. If you know of a line that refutes the Evans Gambit, I would be very interested to know.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-17T04:10:09.177Z
Answers.Text: If anyone has a refutation for the Evan's Gambit, please email it to me marked *Top Secret* and whatever you do, don't post it here for everyone to see... ;)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-17T00:11:33.620Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-07-17T01:41:16.990Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-07-17T01:41:16.990Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Tom Au
Answers.Body: <p>Black's choice of where to put the Bishop on move 5 is awkward, and any choice will give White some compensation:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p><code>5... Ba5</code> would give White the possibility of <code>Ba3</code> at some point to cut off the King from castling and the Bishop won't be very useful after White castles out of the pin on c3.</p></li>
  <li><p><code>5... Bc5</code> allows <code>6. d4</code>, taking control of the center with tempo after which White can develop quickly and try to attack.</p></li>
  <li><p><code>5... Be7</code> is rather passive and blocks a square for the g8-Knight, and White can develop very naturally and aggressively.</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>The reason White is better off than before move 4 is that the c3-pawn supports d4. d4 is very strong especially when White can gain a tempo on the Bishop.</p>
  
  <p>Declining it with <code>4... Bb6</code> is not unheard of, but <code>4... Bxb4</code> is generally considered more challenging.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-16T20:39:31.520Z
Answers.Text: I don't see the point of `5...Bc5` because then I believe your back to square one (no pun intended).  Do you have any comments on by queen to `b3` point I made?
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-16T20:41:02.333Z
Answers.Text: Not quite. The c3-pawn supports the move d4, which was not the case before the pawn sacrifice. d4 is very strong because White takes control of the center, gains a tempo on the Bishop, and has several good development plans. Qb3 is sometimes possible without playing the gambit as well, though.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Spencer
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-16T20:44:19.197Z
Answers.Text: Can't white play `c3` before `b4`?
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-16T20:47:46.583Z
Answers.Text: Yes, but it has its downsides. Consider the two situations:
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4 Now White has already played both c3 and d4 and Black's Bishop must move.
  
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 White has not yet played d4, and Black can choose a developing move rather than being forced to move the Bishop. Play often continues 4...Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ followed by a trade of pieces.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Spencer
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-07-16T20:37:31.687Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-07-17T02:53:26.677Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-07-17T02:53:26.677Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David Spencer
Body: <p>When I see the <code>Evans Gambit</code>, I don't see the point of it, maybe because I am a beginning player.  It seems that after:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  
  1. e4  e5
  2. Nf3 Nc6
  3. Bc4 Bc5
  4. b4  Bxb4
  5. c3  Bc5
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Since the bishop can go back to <code>c5</code>, it seems we are just back to the beginning and white has already lost a pawn.  After watching some videos on this, I have seen that white can build a strong attack if the queen moves to <code>b3</code> which can then backup the bishop on <code>c4</code> and eye the <code>a1-h8</code> diagonal, and the critical <code>f7</code> square.  Is this it's main purpose (especially if it is accepted)?  If it is, why is it accepted more than declined?</p>
  
Tags: <opening><evans-gambit>
Title: What is the main purpose of the Evans gambit?
ThreadText: # What is the main purpose of the Evans gambit?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-07-16)
  
  When I see the Evans Gambit, I don't see the point of it, maybe because I am a beginning player.  It seems that after:
  [FEN ""]
  
  1. e4  e5
  2. Nf3 Nc6
  3. Bc4 Bc5
  4. b4  Bxb4
  5. c3  Bc5
  
  Since the bishop can go back to c5, it seems we are just back to the beginning and white has already lost a pawn.  After watching some videos on this, I have seen that white can build a strong attack if the queen moves to b3 which can then backup the bishop on c4 and eye the a1-h8 diagonal, and the critical f7 square.  Is this it's main purpose (especially if it is accepted)?  If it is, why is it accepted more than declined?
  
  **Tags:** opening, evans-gambit
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2012-07-16. Score: 11 | Accepted answer
  
  Black's choice of where to put the Bishop on move 5 is awkward, and any choice will give White some compensation:
  
  * `5... Ba5` would give White the possibility of `Ba3` at some point to cut off the King from castling and the Bishop won't be very useful after White castles out of the pin on c3.
  * `5... Bc5` allows `6. d4`, taking control of the center with tempo after which White can develop quickly and try to attack.
  * `5... Be7` is rather passive and blocks a square for the g8-Knight, and White can develop very naturally and aggressively.
  
  The reason White is better off than before move 4 is that the c3-pawn supports d4. d4 is very strong especially when White can gain a tempo on the Bishop.
  
  Declining it with `4... Bb6` is not unheard of, but `4... Bxb4` is generally considered more challenging.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I don't see the point of `5...Bc5` because then I believe your back to square one (no pun intended).  Do you have any comments on by queen to `b3` point I made?  
  > **username_7**: Not quite. The c3-pawn supports the move d4, which was not the case before the pawn sacrifice. d4 is very strong because White takes control of the center, gains a tempo on the Bishop, and has several good development plans. Qb3 is sometimes possible without playing the gambit as well, though.  
  > **username_0**: Can't white play `c3` before `b4`?  
  > **username_7**: Yes, but it has its downsides. Consider the two situations:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4 Now White has already played both c3 and d4 and Black's Bishop must move.  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 White has not yet played d4, and Black can choose a developing move rather than being forced to move the Bishop. Play often continues 4...Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ followed by a trade of pieces.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-11-30. Score: 5
  
  Evans Gambit is NOT refuted despite what some stuffy theorists will say. In almost all lines black has to give back the pawn at one point or suffer a serious disadvantage. Besides, even if the gambit was totally refuted it would be ridiculous for anyone (even a grandmaster) to learn all of the lines that lead to an advantage for black.
  
  The thing you have to remember when you play gambits is that humans are not computers. Even if they are very familiar with the lines they are bound to make tiny mistakes, gambits might not work against computers but chess is a human game.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: *"Evans Gambit is NOT refuted despite what some stuffy theorists will say"* the fact that it hasn't been played much (actually it hasn't played at all) at 2700+ level in the last 20 years pretty much says it all, though. This said, as in every line, of course people can find new ideas and revive old openings.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2012-07-17. Score: 3
  
  White gains time to develop his pieces (mainly the dark squared bishop, at the expense of a pawn whose absence won't hurt until the endgame.
  
  The Evans has now been researched, and with correct play, Black can get to the endgame with an advantage. But before the "modern" understanding of theory, White could often get a winning middle game. Hence, the Evans can be used against inexperienced Black players, and in the "old days," opponents who were generally less well schooled than today's players.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: When you say, "with correct play, Black WILL get to the endgame with an advantage," what line of play do you have in mind?  
  > **username_3**: @Ed Dean: Black does OK in most of these lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_Gambit. But they've been discovered mostly in the last half century or so.  
  > **username_4**: Doing OK is one thing, but your answer suggests Black can guarantee an advantageous endgame. If you really do mean the latter, I am curious how Black achieves that.  
  > **username_3**: @EdDean: Amended it to say "can." I've seen a bunch of "prepared" variations from time to time, most of them complicated, and Black usually out ahead because of the extra pawn, but with a bit of angst.  
  > **username_5**: @TomAu, the description in the second paragraph of your post would fit well for an unsound gambit. However, I believe that Evans Gambit is sound enough to the point where black does not get an advantage with correct play from both sides. Of course, I could be wrong. If you know of a line that refutes the Evans Gambit, I would be very interested to know.  
  > **username_6**: If anyone has a refutation for the Evan's Gambit, please email it to me marked *Top Secret* and whatever you do, don't post it here for everyone to see... ;)  
  
  ---
  
  