Loss of pawns
Sort:
Yes, they're called gambits. I don't play them but I see no reason why they aren't openings, they open the game after all... more so than others, in one meaning of the word.
The other player would actually thank you for doing it, alot of them.
Even I like stealing a pawn if theres nothing else to do.
Yeah i have to admit to being a pawn snatcher but gambits are usually very hard to hold the material advantage.
On principle, the pawn has to be worth less or equal to the developmental, positional, and/or tempo values gained in sacrificing it. A pawn is nothing if you can't use the advantage. That's why the Benoni is so nasty. If people take the c pawn they are stuck with a barricaded, crap pawn if you can't just straight up retake it. I sacrifice my c pawns for d pawns all the time as black and I've had a lot of success.
I know there are a lot of king's gambit players on this site. Maybe you should try playing one and see how "free" the f pawn is
There are 3 main factors in any chess game as far as evaluation go: Material, Position and Time (development is a factor of the second two). Most people, when they see two other people having a game, quickly look to see how many pieces are taken and use that as their only guideline in assessing which player is "ahead". Positional factors and time (the gain and loss of tempos) are immensely important in chess... the better you get the more you understand their importance. You should be wary when your opponent seemingly offers you "free" material - sometimes it can even be a diversion (like he offers you a rook just so your Queen goes away and grabs it, and sure enough, she abandoned protecting a critical square and it leads to a forced mate).
Are openings that sacrifice a few pawns at the start real openings?
Because a loss of pawn isnt 100% perfect, and you know how you like
keeping your startups as pristine as possible - a pawn lost is still a pawn
lost... what do you think?