Answers.Body: <p>I could give you a meaningless answer with lots of mindless fluff and diagrams that fail to answer what you're actually asking. </p>
  
  <p>Or I could give you a very simple answer quoted from the greatest player of all time that gets right to the point: </p>
  
  <p>"Concentrate on material gains. Whatever your opponent gives you take, unless you see a good reason not to." </p>
  
  <p>RJF</p>
  
  <p>To elaborate on what Fischer said, If you refuse material without understanding why, you will become one of those players who are still stuck at 1200 after tens of thousands of games played because you sit back and do nothing the entire game never improving and never understanding why. However, if you take the material you will either be rewarded for calculating correctly or you will get a lesson from a much stronger player. Either way you will improve. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-14T04:44:21.277Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-11-14T04:44:21.277Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Savage47
Answers.Body: <p>Since you are after general considerations:</p>
  
  <p><strong>Accepting a gambit.</strong> The advantage here of course is that you are gaining a material advantage, which, if you can hold onto it, provides well for your long-term prospects in the game. But what makes something an established gambit, rather than a mistake or a blunder, is that the offer of material is supposed to be offset by some sort of positional compensation, e.g. a lead in development, as in, say, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Gambit" rel="nofollow">Danish Gambit</a>:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Or better control of the center in, say, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Gambit_Accepted" rel="nofollow">Queen's Gambit</a>:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Or open lines for pieces (like those bishops surveying two nice, long diagonals in the Danish Gambit).</p>
  
  <p>So the potential disadvantage of accepting a given gambit is that you may be left with positional problems by which your opponent can punish you, perhaps by winning back the sacrificed material and then some, or worse, mating your king directly. Whether the compensation for your opponent outweighs the extra material you'll be getting is something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.</p>
  
  <p><strong>Declining a gambit.</strong> Here the main advantage, in my opinion at least, is simply that you're not giving your opponent the kind of position that he or she wants. For example, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence,_Smith%E2%80%93Morra_Gambit" rel="nofollow">Smith-Morra Gambit</a> in the Sicilian Defense is very rarely played at the highest levels of the chess world, because the consensus among strong players is that white just doesn't get enough dynamic positional compensation (development lead, initiative) for the extra central pawn that black gets. But at lower levels, it can be much more dangerous to defend for black. Thus, if you're one to prefer slightly quieter positions rather than potentially needing to sweat under pressure for a while, one possible reaction to the Smith-Morra is to decline it by pushing d3 instead of capturing white's c pawn:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 (3... d3 4.Bxd3) 4.Nxc3
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Now white is not going to get the sort of development that was envisioned (for instance, the white pawn that now remains on c3 takes away the square which was intended for the knight).</p>
  
  <p>The main disadvantage of this approach is obvious: no free material. And one shouldn't be afraid of ghosts in chess. If material is offered, one should certainly be cautious, but if at the end of your thinking you believe it is worth any trade-offs, then you should take it. Sometimes you will be wrong and get punished for your greed, but mistakes can be made at any juncture in the game, so this isn't a problem particular to gambit play. And besides, some gambits cannot be reasonably refused, e.g. the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrov%27s_Defence#3.Nxe5" rel="nofollow">Cochrane Gambit</a> in the Petroff Defense:</p>
  
  <pre><code>[FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>This is just like in many middlegames, where an attack will be launched with a sacrifice that cannot be refused, and one has no choice but to grab the material and hang on for dear life. So there is something to be said for not always declining aggressive gambits, because accepting can be good training for defending complicated positions, which aids one's overall development as a player.</p>
  
  <p><strong>In sum.</strong> As stated above, the decision as to whether the material offered in any given gambit is worth whatever positional trade-offs are involved is one that has to be made case-by-case. But hopefully I've given some useful general food for thought here.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-11-01T14:41:49.647Z
Answers.Text: Note: the two comments above concerned animated GIF diagrams that were in place in this post before the site's replayer was implemented.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-22T16:21:18.567Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for the great explanation. This was very well thought out.  The Danish Gambit looks very interesting as I have not played this one before.  By the way how, did you make the chess diagrams?
Answers.UserDisplayName: xaisoft
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-22T16:26:29.867Z
Answers.Text: @xaisoft: Thanks. I used http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/chess-diagram-generator.php for the diagrams.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-22T15:40:06.570Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-11-01T14:40:02.473Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-11-01T14:40:02.473Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Body: <p>Most of the time I see gambits are declined, but what are the advantages or disadvantages of accepting or declining gambits?  I know this depends on the type of gambit, but I am looking for a more general answer that might apply to all gambits.</p>
  
Tags: <opening><strategy><gambits>
Title: What are some advantages/disadvantages of accepting/declining gambits?
ThreadText: # What are some advantages/disadvantages of accepting/declining gambits?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-22)
  
  Most of the time I see gambits are declined, but what are the advantages or disadvantages of accepting or declining gambits? I know this depends on the type of gambit, but I am looking for a more general answer that might apply to all gambits.
  
  **Tags:** opening, strategy, gambits
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2012-05-22. Score: 14 | Accepted answer
  
  Since you are after general considerations:
  
  **Accepting a gambit.** The advantage here of course is that you are gaining a material advantage, which, if you can hold onto it, provides well for your long-term prospects in the game. But what makes something an established gambit, rather than a mistake or a blunder, is that the offer of material is supposed to be offset by some sort of positional compensation, e.g. a lead in development, as in, say, the [Danish Gambit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Gambit):
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2
  
  ```
  
  Or better control of the center in, say, the [Queen's Gambit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Gambit_Accepted):
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4
  
  ```
  
  Or open lines for pieces (like those bishops surveying two nice, long diagonals in the Danish Gambit).
  
  So the potential disadvantage of accepting a given gambit is that you may be left with positional problems by which your opponent can punish you, perhaps by winning back the sacrificed material and then some, or worse, mating your king directly. Whether the compensation for your opponent outweighs the extra material you'll be getting is something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
  
  **Declining a gambit.** Here the main advantage, in my opinion at least, is simply that you're not giving your opponent the kind of position that he or she wants. For example, the [Smith-Morra Gambit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence,_Smith%E2%80%93Morra_Gambit) in the Sicilian Defense is very rarely played at the highest levels of the chess world, because the consensus among strong players is that white just doesn't get enough dynamic positional compensation (development lead, initiative) for the extra central pawn that black gets. But at lower levels, it can be much more dangerous to defend for black. Thus, if you're one to prefer slightly quieter positions rather than potentially needing to sweat under pressure for a while, one possible reaction to the Smith-Morra is to decline it by pushing d3 instead of capturing white's c pawn:
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 (3... d3 4.Bxd3) 4.Nxc3
  
  ```
  
  Now white is not going to get the sort of development that was envisioned (for instance, the white pawn that now remains on c3 takes away the square which was intended for the knight).
  
  The main disadvantage of this approach is obvious: no free material. And one shouldn't be afraid of ghosts in chess. If material is offered, one should certainly be cautious, but if at the end of your thinking you believe it is worth any trade-offs, then you should take it. Sometimes you will be wrong and get punished for your greed, but mistakes can be made at any juncture in the game, so this isn't a problem particular to gambit play. And besides, some gambits cannot be reasonably refused, e.g. the [Cochrane Gambit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrov%27s_Defence#3.Nxe5) in the Petroff Defense:
  
  ```
  [FEN ""]
  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7
  
  ```
  
  This is just like in many middlegames, where an attack will be launched with a sacrifice that cannot be refused, and one has no choice but to grab the material and hang on for dear life. So there is something to be said for not always declining aggressive gambits, because accepting can be good training for defending complicated positions, which aids one's overall development as a player.
  
  **In sum.** As stated above, the decision as to whether the material offered in any given gambit is worth whatever positional trade-offs are involved is one that has to be made case-by-case. But hopefully I've given some useful general food for thought here.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for the great explanation. This was very well thought out.  The Danish Gambit looks very interesting as I have not played this one before.  By the way how, did you make the chess diagrams?  
  > **username_2**: @username_0: Thanks. I used http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/chess-diagram-generator.php for the diagrams.  
  > **username_2**: Note: the two comments above concerned animated GIF diagrams that were in place in this post before the site's replayer was implemented.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-11-14. Score: 0
  
  I could give you a meaningless answer with lots of mindless fluff and diagrams that fail to answer what you're actually asking.
  
  Or I could give you a very simple answer quoted from the greatest player of all time that gets right to the point:
  
  "Concentrate on material gains. Whatever your opponent gives you take, unless you see a good reason not to."
  
  RJF
  
  To elaborate on what Fischer said, If you refuse material without understanding why, you will become one of those players who are still stuck at 1200 after tens of thousands of games played because you sit back and do nothing the entire game never improving and never understanding why. However, if you take the material you will either be rewarded for calculating correctly or you will get a lesson from a much stronger player. Either way you will improve.
  
  
  ---
  
  