The Chicago Gambit

Unfortunately, I have to agree with everyone else here that this gambit is just a little too unsound to be considered a good addition to the repetoire.  It just doesnt seem to offer enough compensation for losing a minor piece so early.

This gambit is even wilder than the Halloween Attack.

All gambits and sacrifices are 'gimmicks'. The entire hypermodern school of chess was considered a 'gimmick' when it first saw the light. The quote above could be attributed to Capablanca talking about Reti (who, btw, beat Capa with the Reti Opening, a line Capa had dismissed as 'gimicky' and

Instead of claiming that "all gambits and sacrifices are 'gimmicks'", perhaps you should take your own advice. I suggest that you run this unsound gambit on Fritz and Rybka for yourself rather than 'sneer' at analysis that others here have given.

With all due respect Mr. Fischer, why don't you play some chess here, then we would be able to give your opinions some credence. Perhaps you don't play so good now that you are dead? (I find that I play better these days, than when I was living!)

p.s. Great game post #61 ... way to go Roy! (Ilovegambits is no rabbit).

Not much point unless you are excellent with position, but even then you would probably still want the 2 points

With all due respect, Mr. Ray_Brooks, please argue in favor of the gambit if you have such a problem. And if you can successfully do so, I promise not to dismiss it because you either have or have not played a game here.

*Off Topic*

That's very good of you Mr. Fischer, very understanding. However, I do struggle to come to terms with your authoritarian attitude, given that the evidence of your authority is scant in the extreme. Do you play chess? or are word games more your thing?

*On Topic*

It's my belief that many of these gambits are very playable OTB (especially blitz/rapid) offering good practical chances, but not to be recommended when one plays turn-based/ computers/ Masters.

ALL MOUTH AND NO TROUSERS - "adj. British. Blustering and boastful, showing off without having the qualities to justify it."

I think when one side is defending their viewpoint by posting pictures of men without trousers its getting quite silly.  Furthermore, the pro-chicago gambit side seems to be wavering and

A: have gotten into ad hominem

B: no longer are calling the gambit sound

That's hilarious! 

How about this one:

ad hominem - adj. Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

(Little do you know that your posts say more about you than they do about me, friend... )

IF A PAWN FOR TWO MOVES IS QUESTIONABLE WHY WOULD A CENTER PAWN BE WORTH A KNIGHT?

this opening is good just because  of its name.  Just kidding, but it seems like a great psychological tactic against someone who has never played against it before.  I for one would probably get demolished the first time i will play against it.  To each his own...

[ MM78 ... I was amazed to read Pillsbury lost to this opening! Do you know if it was his final tournament, or nearly so? I wonder because his results toward the end of his unfortunately short life were played despite cognitive difficulties from chronic disease, which eventually took his life. Syphillis I believe.]{R.I.P.}

       About this opening 'gambit', it seems very hard to justify. Even a pawn gambit must gain advantage(s) of more than just 2 tempi to compensate. {Tho other favorable factors may make a 2 tempo gain sufficient. Advantages such as open lines, center strong/mobile, cramping/discoordination of opponent, etc.}

     I consider a 3 tempo gain favorable to the gambiteer. Thus feel a pawn sac must yield 2.5 tempi to be considered compensated fully, but perhaps no real advantage. HERE WT sac's a whole KNIGHT for One Pawn! Surely the N must be worth more than a pawn, even a center pawn.

     This early in a game it is usually quite dangerous to sac a piece even for 3 pawns, then hoping all three may survive to an endgame, nor his extra piece provide him a winning attack. In This Case, WT gets only One little pawn for his piece, which makes it SO easy for BL to sac back a piece for just a pawn, defensively, if need be. Or have it as an extra piece in his own attacking plans. It is usually not too hard to find opportunity to sac back a piece for TWO pawns, still leaving him ahead materially.

     BL could even trade his material plus for his own tempo gains if needed. Such as, if WT uses a move to attack a knight on c6 and BL ignores it to make a developing move instead; then WT uses a second move to actually Capture the N, he has used two tempi to do so. And BL gained time on him by making the developing move. Then if BL plays ...bxc6 or ...dxc6 he gains another tempo since the recapturing move serves dual purpose, that of opening a line to free the Bc8 to develop. However, I don't believe it would be necessary to trade back a N just to gain tempo.

      Ironically, WT might even need to Sac the pawn he won so as to open a file to attack upon... if he can even generate a significant attack while having less pieces than his opponent. He does have a lot of space to work with.

***

     I do want to try a few games of blitz with this, to see how great the Shock Value might be from it (surely greater than the Schach Value~!? ).

Or if opponents will take extra time to plan out their response. It does seem that they might become dangerously cramped by the extra-pawns center, if playing aimlessly.

Regards All, The Baron   }8-D

*********************************************************************************************

The halloween gambit is better:

This doesn't look as sound as the sac in the Petroff--

1.e4, e5; 2.Nf3, Nf6; 3.Nxe5, d6; 4.Nxf7

and that sac is unsound.  Interesting for 2, 3, or 5 minute chess, but definitely not OTB.  If you call this the Chicago Gambit, the main line will read "readily accepted."

People have played this against me although only after 3.Bc4 Nf6 (two knights)

I would never do it.

In the begining of chess it may had work but nowadays a good player will hold this two points advantage till the end.

Let us take it this way - some very strong players give a handicap and win against opponents (as far as I remember Deep Rybka 3 against Kasparov?). Why cannot we look upon the Chicago Gambit as such? Besides it has a fun factor of the unexplored. True, you will lose with it against a strong player.

Just example variations (mind you, I am not trying to prove any point):

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5? Nxe5 4.d4 Ng6 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.e5 d5 7.Bd3 (looks more promising than 7.exd6 dxc4 8.Qe2+ Be6 9.fxg7 Bxg7 10.O-O Qxd4 11.Rd1 Qe5 12.Qf3 O-O 13.Nc3  Rd1 14. Be3 Rxd1+ 15.Rxd1 b6 and black has a good game)

7... Nd7 8.f4 Ne7 (8... Qh4+ 9.g3 Qd8 10.f5) 9.f5 c5 10.e6 (10... fxe6 Qh5+ and white has the better game) Nf6 11.exf7+ Kxf7 12.O-O Nc6 13.c4  cxd4 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.b3 Ne5 and black has a comfortable game. 

I imagine the Chicago Gambit got its name from the D.T. Phillips (not Harold Meyer Phillips as Wikipedia and chessgames.com says) - Pillsbury game in which Phillips beat Pillsbury in Chicago in 1899.  It doesn't look like a sound gambit.  The Chessbase Big Database 2012 has 9 games with this opening, with 7 wins for Black and 2 wins for White.  I have played it a few times as White, but with weaker players.

The link is to the Phillips-Pillsbury game

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1288574