The Chicago Gambit
Sort:
give me 5 bucks and ill give u 1.......sameO
As to the specifics of this particuliar opening, I believe it is garbage. But it did get me thinking about a way to evalute material gambits and sacrifices:
A game of chess is like a good cooking recipe. Your ingredients are your material, the time to cook would be tempo and the chef would be a skilled player.
Any of the 3 being bad can yield a crappy dinner. I am sure that a chef can beat a cook in a competition with less desirable ingedients, but what level that is I am not sure.
As we all start with 39 points (8 pawns, 2 rooks, 1 queen and 12 minor pieces) and the value of the gambit is 2 points, I would venture 2/39=5.13% differential in material. I don't believe the tempo actual adds to white's game so I will place a value of 0% on that. So for a player to successfully use this, he must be a player who at a minimum is 5.13% better.
In a game where a 1700 player is playing, I would venture that would be 87 rating points different. In a game where a 1600 player is involver that would be 62 points.
When Batgirl posted the Muzio, which will win you alot of games BTW, time/tempo can be evaluated. White is well ahead in development and has ample compensation in a game of equal players.
Another compensating factor would be position, which I would treat as a function of material and tempo. Some positions cannot be overcome, ie broken pawn structures and weak black squares come to mind. Some positions can be overcome with tempo like your king being on an open file.
Overall, the value of material can be overcome by time and combinations. Tempo is harder to overcome because once time is lost, it may not be recoverable. A rating difference may be harder to quantify but still is important due to skill, intelligence and hard-work.
Summing this up, material is not everything but should be protected and not thrown into the wind like this opening does.
Ned63 wrote:fischer wrote:
Why do people search for gimmicks to win games instead of relying on good old-fashioned hard work (playing decent lines)?
I don't understand how a perfectly legitimate move can be considered a gimmick. I'll agree with the assertions of much better players than me that it is theoretically unsound, but a move like this can take people out of their comfort zone i.e. opening lines played a million times. IMHO - that's no bad thing.
Giving away a piece "can take people out of their comfort zone"? It's "no bad thing" to create a losing position for yourself??
Sheesh, the above post is a gimmick... 
I know someone who plays this OTB. They do so despite continual losses. Enough said.
fischer wrote: Ned63 wrote:fischer wrote:
Why do people search for gimmicks to win games instead of relying on good old-fashioned hard work (playing decent lines)?
I don't understand how a perfectly legitimate move can be considered a gimmick. I'll agree with the assertions of much better players than me that it is theoretically unsound, but a move like this can take people out of their comfort zone i.e. opening lines played a million times. IMHO - that's no bad thing.
Giving away a piece "can take people out of their comfort zone"? It's "no bad thing" to create a losing position for yourself??
Sheesh, the above post is a gimmick...
fischer,
If you'd bothered to read the other postings in this thread, you'd see that this opening caught Pilsbury out - and he was a pretty fine player by all accounts.
I understand that English is probably not your first language, so I'll forgive your lack of comprehension on the point I was actually making.
The only gimmick in this thread is your username and profile picture. This, coupled with a single unrated game and a grand score of 1200 gives you the gimmick and the laughing stock prize.
I feel obliged to point out that the one game 'Fischer' played was against the WGM and he only resigned on move 30 something with pretty even material. I think there may have been a smothered mate coming several moves later. He certainly looks a good player to me.
Ned63 wrote:
fischer,
If you'd bothered to read the other postings in this thread, you'd see that this opening caught Pilsbury out - and he was a pretty fine player by all accounts.
Yes, I did bother. I also bothered to read that the game took place in a simul. In addition, I bothered to run it on Fritz which confirmed it to be a loser.
I understand that English is probably not your first language, so I'll forgive your lack of comprehension on the point I was actually making.
You're funny. 
The only gimmick in this thread is your username and profile picture. This, coupled with a single unrated game and a grand score of 1200 gives you the gimmick and the laughing stock prize.
Did you bother to see that my opponent was Yelena Dembo, an International Master?
mxdplay4 wrote:I feel obliged to point out that the one game 'Fischer' played was against the WGM and he only resigned on move 30 something with pretty even material. I think there may have been a smothered mate coming several moves later. He certainly looks a good player to me.
Absolutely correct about that game. Yelena was about to crush me, so I tipped my hat to her and then tipped my King.
No matter if "fischer" is a good player or not, he can probably admit that his name and picture are a bit disingenuous. All the same, that's irrelevant to the fact that the Chicago gambit is beyond unsound. I took a look at the Pillsbury game and in my opinion Pillsbury was in no way "caught out" by the opening. The game went on quite a while and it's not clear at all that White's eventual advantage came from the opening choice.
fischer,
I did see who your opponent was in your single game. I don't doubt that you are a very good player. However, it would be good if you could play a few more games on here and give everyone else the practical benefit of your vast experience instead of just pontificating.
I don't think I could have been clearer in my original posting. I acknowledged the wisdom of players far superior to me (and thats a lot of players) that this opening is very unsound, and I subscribe to these views.
ChessLover96> This is a little known opening called the Chicago Gambit, which I have analysed a lot recently.
You didn't present any analysis. Why not? It might have been interesting.
CheeeLover96> The idea being to sacrifice the 2 pts for a lead in development, an attack, and a good center. The lines are unclear right now, but White can get a massive slaughter if Black disrespects the Gambit.
This gambit doesn't grant White a lead in development. It gives him a central pawn advantage, which provides a springboard for an attack. With passive or poor play, White will lose. With accurate, aggressive play he has practical drawing chances.
Ned63> a move like this can take people out of their comfort zone i.e. opening lines played a million times. IMHO - that's no bad thing.
There are many options to take opponents outside their opening preparation. For example, 1.f4, 1.b4, 1.g4, 1.b3, 1.g3, 1.e4 2.f3, 1.a3, etc. While these moves are not objectively as strong as a mainline d4 or e4 opening, they likewise do not cede Black a significant advantage. They are much better options.
This is an poor opening choice, but if I played it, here's how I might continue:
Fischer, if you had any gonads, you would play Ned63 as your first rated game. Or are you so proud of your 1200 rating you might be afraid it might go down?
likesforests wrote:
ChessLover96> This is a little known opening called the Chicago Gambit, which I have analysed a lot recently.
You didn't present any analysis. Why not? It might have been interesting.
CheeeLover96> The idea being to sacrifice the 2 pts for a lead in development, an attack, and a good center. The lines are unclear right now, but White can get a massive slaughter if Black disrespects the Gambit.
This gambit doesn't grant White a lead in development. It gives him a central pawn advantage, which provides a springboard for an attack. With passive or poor play, White will lose. With accurate, aggressive play he has practical drawing chances.
Ned63> a move like this can take people out of their comfort zone i.e. opening lines played a million times. IMHO - that's no bad thing.
There are many options to take opponents outside their opening preparation. For example, 1.f4, 1.b4, 1.g4, 1.b3, 1.g3, 1.e4 2.f3, 1.a3, etc. While these moves are not objectively as strong as a mainline d4 or e4 opening, they likewise do not cede Black a significant advantage. They are much better options.
This is an poor opening choice, but if I played it, here's how I might continue:
I think Nc6 is a better line as the knight on g6 seems to be in the way / or a potential target. I would play white in 5 minute in the set-up presented.
Fotoman> I think Nc6 is a better line as the knight on g6 seems to be in the way / or a potential target. I would play white in 5 minute in the set-up presented.
This is how I wish the thread had begun... with variations! Then the discussions become more interesting. It's ironic that in the Phillips-Pillsbury game the chessgames.com commentators concluded, "Like tpstar said, all there is to this opening for black to play is [4]. ... Ng6! and the game may as well be over. Where is whites threat? There is none. Silliest opening Ive seen yet."
Fotoman wrote:Fischer, if you had any gonads, you would play Ned63 as your first rated game. Or are you so proud of your 1200 rating you might be afraid it might go down?
Glad to know you're thinking of my gonads. (Also, I don't have a rating here since I haven't played any rated games.)
kushtyman wrote: I think this opening would be useful in Blitz games to gain quick advantage, tempo and auprise element but I would never play it in longer games.
Even for Blitz it's very weak.
I've found something really funny on Wikipedia : An apocryphal tale is told of the anonymous inventor of the gambit. On his deathbed, when asked what subtle idea lay behind the gambit, his last words were reportedly: "I hadn't seen the king's pawn was defended. 
My oppinion about this oppening: Its very unsound and bad looking.
Indeed white has speedy development, but he is down a piece.
And I think , if booth players have approximately the same rating, black will always win.
fischer wrote: Fotoman wrote:Fischer, if you had any gonads, you would play Ned63 as your first rated game. Or are you so proud of your 1200 rating you might be afraid it might go down?
Glad to know you're thinking of my gonads. (Also, I don't have a rating here since I haven't played any rated games.)
You are glad? LOL, you wish. I think you are afraid to be humiliated by a 1500 player. Win a couple of games, your credibility is zero.
Haven't played any rated games, DUH. -100 rating points for stupid responses.
i like that opening