About the Muzio, it struck my mind some time after but you are just to fast Wönderer
When I do not check what I say with Fritz, I sometimes make inaccuracies like this one or imagining that 'ø' is swedish when it is apparently only 'nordic' 

In fact, I had not carefully read what you wrote and I was not pretending to answer to anything, just flaunting my etymological knowledge

Time to show my erudition 
Apparently the meaning of the word "gambit" has changed over the ages.  Coming from the greek with a K initial, some horse joint, then "gamba" in low latin as the horse pastern, become the human leg in italian ("jambe" in french. You find back the same root in the english "gambol", and not "gamble". Though, refering to gambits... ) to do somebody a "gambetto" means to trip him up.
Apparently, at the time of Greco, it just meant some strategical trick implying a material sacrifice; hence the Muzio Gambit for the bishop's sac on f4, when you would rather refer to the "X variation of the King's gambit" for the rest. 
So it seems that Wønderer was just putting himself in the etymological context when he alluded to the Rxc3 in the Dragon.

Too many things to reply to...and so little time.

But at least count me as one, Topnotch! And the digestion was so pleasant -You know I like to quote people - that I posted the extract right away onto the main french chess forum, here:
http://www.france-echecs.com/index.php?mode=showComment&art=20040421193649143

The thread is quite interesting and, since you, Teyko, declined my offer to discuss about the Hubsch, and since I am a perfectionnist, as you may have already noticed, I was obliged to have this debate, in order to prepare the next update, with other passionate people, in french though.
Anyway, many of our chess players speak english, I suppose there exists reciprocity

By the way Topnotch, one question pierces my mind : To write so well, did Yermolinsky take english literature lessons with you ?

TopNotch, thanks for your clear explanation. You must have read "Richtig Opfern" - in English "The art of sacrifice" very carefully, as my hero was the very first to write this theory of sacrificing down.
So the whole question is: how much compensation does one get for the material sacrifice?
But this question is the same for both the opening and the middlegame stage. So Wonderer was right to compare the exchange sac in the Dragon with gambits.
In this context it is interesting, to realize that Bent Larsen 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 xxx 3.d4?! (Larsen) called a cheap trick, which could be compared with gambit play ...
And no one less than Robert James Fischer was hardly more positive on the Dragon than you on the BDG ...
I can only finish with repeating that one of the entertaining features of chess, is that people disagree on opening theory.
For the sake of clarity: I do not trust the BDG.

Please please please do not mention The Dragon and BDG in the same breath....The former is a recognised and respected opening system used at the highest level with success while the latter is - how can I put this delicately - GARBAGE   

On a more serious note I wonder how many of you digested the extract I posted by Alex Yermolinsky. Clearly some of you are unable to distinguish between  Gambit play and tactical play, so let me try to elucidate:

Simply stated a gambit is the sacrifice of a small amount of material in the opening, usually a pawn or two with the idea of gaining Time Space or Force as compensation for the invested material.

Tactical play on the other hand is a bit more complex in that while a gambit may lead to tactical play, tactical play is not necessarily initiated by a gambit. For example, one of you I think it was Wanderer,  compared the exchange Sac in the dragon to that of a gambit. Such reasoning is simply incorrect on many levels, allow me to explain:

A) The exchange sacrifice in the dragon is primarily a middlegame device, which black may or may not employ depending on circumstances. Gambits refer mainly to Openings and the early sacrifice of pawns, in most cases for gain of time. Some schools of thought state three tempi gained is worth a pawn in the opening, but this is quite a subjective rule.

B) The exchange sacrifice and similar such positional sacrifices rely primarily on structural compensation i.e the wrecking of the opponents pawn structure and sometimes Kings position, as opposed to Time Space or force.

Every player has to decide for himself the viability of his or her repertoire, Gambit or otherwise, and it is necessary to be objective.

Before I go further let me clarify another point. I never said all gambits are bad. On the contrary some gambits are quite promising, especially those where the taker of the gambit has to make a concession to keep his material, and herein lies the key point. 

Gambits such as the BDG do not force black to make any real concessions to keep his material, and for this precise reason is why it is suspect. For instance in The Catalan Opening white routinely gambits the c-pawn, and black if he decides to accept the challenge must permanently weaken his queenside with b5.  Many Master games have shown that the Queenside weakening associated with b5 provides white with enough compensation for his pawn.....In other words he gets a lasting initiative due to black's permanently weakened Queenside.

What about the BDG, what is white's compensation:

A) It isn't 'SPACE' since black is hardly cramped and has an equal share of the board.

B) It isnt 'Force' since you aren't winning any material, rather the contrary

C) That leaves 'TIME' and sure enough white does gain time in the BDG but time in chess is not a permanent advantage and usually needs to be combined with some other element such as listed in A) and B) above to be effective. In the absence of real compensation a 'Time' advantage usually evaporates the opponent consolidates his extra pawn and wins the endgame.       

For those of you who are not sure what I mean by 'TIME'
I offer the following definition:

Time in chess refers to how fast you develop your pieces in relation to your opponent i.e If you have developed 4 pieces to your opponents one, that is considered a gain in time.

Moving on, Gambits that do not force concrete concessions on the opponent and rely mainly on Time as compensation are not to be trusted.

I realise that as I write this I probably will fail to convince many of you as to the truth of what I say. People once set in their ways usually resist change unless something drastic happens to alter their philosophy.

No doubt Gambit Openings are an important part of a players tactical chess development. Beginners by playing and studying gambits begin to aquire a tactical awareness for the game and soon learn that the numeric value of the pieces such as 1 point for a pawn and 9 points for a Queen are not static values but vary dramatically dependant on the dynamics of the pieces and position. 

The danger comes for the aspiring player when he fails to recognise that there is more to Opening play than gambits. As GM John Emms put it, there comes a time when every chessplayer needs to put aside his Baby Openings and play Adult chess  

Do not get me wrong, as a surprise weapon some of these suspect gambits could prove dangerous as Teyko pointed out with his e.g of GM Mikhail Gurevich declining the BDG pawn. However if you make them your bread and butter, then you do yourself a disservice. Furthermore surprised GM's and IM's often decline suspect gambits against weaker opposition with the intention of avoiding complications and relying instead on superior technique to win. See the following e.g where white, a strong IM refused to take up the challenge against another crappy gambit and instead chose to tranpose into a harmless line of the exchange Caro Kann and won anyway .....Are we to conclude by Sznapik's refusal of the gambit  that it was good, or was it more a case of a surprised IM making a practical decision over the board. You decide:

[Event "Novi Sad ol (Men)"]
[Site "Novi Sad"]
[Date "1990.11.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Sznapik,Aleksander"]
[Black "Karadag,Cem"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "B13"]
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 c6 3.d4 cxd5 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 Nf6 6.Bf4 Bg4 7.Qb3 Qb6 8.Nd2 Qxb3 9.axb3 Nd7 10.Ngf3 f6 11.Bb5 Kf7 12.0-0 g5 13.Bg3 h5 14.h3 Bf5 15.Rfe1 Bh6 16.Nf1 a6 17.Be2 e6 18.b4 b5 19.N3d2 Bg6 20.Nb3 Rhe8 21.Na5 Nxa5 22.Rxa5 Nb6 23.Rea1 Na4 24.Nd2 h4 
25.Bh2 Rec8 26.Nb3 Bf8 27.Nc5 Bxc5 28.bxc5 Bc2 29.Bd6 Bb3 30.Ra3 Bc2 31.b4 Ke8 32.Kf1 Kd8 
33.Ke1 Be4 34.f3 Bg6 35.Kd2 Be8 36.Bd3 Bc6 37.Kc2 Kd7 38.R3xa4 bxa4 39.Bxa6 Rg8 40.Kb2 f5 41.Be5 Ke7 42.Bc7 g4 43.fxg4 fxg4 44.b5 Rxa6 45.bxa6 gxh3 46.gxh3 Kd7 47.Be5 Rg2+ 48.Kb1 Rg1+ 49.Kc2 Rg2+ 50.Kd3 Ra2 51.a7 Ba8 52.Ra6 Ra1 53.c6+ Bxc6 54.Rxc6  1-0

Alrighty then, time to bring this long post to an end by saying by all means have fun experimenting with your gambits but do not limit yourself to them.

Till next time remember the three elements by which all Gambit Openings are measured TIME, SPACE and FORCE. A thorough understanding of these three will serve you well in all your future chess battles.

Top                   

While yes as pointed out by many people 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 Nf6 4. e5  is a "good-old" Alapin Sicilian usually reached after 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4, but I'd rather learn a really good line against the Smith-Morra so that rather than ending up in a rather boring line that I don't normally play anyway (I prefer 2...d5 against the Alapin), I find that if you know the theory you can really annoy a Smith-Morra player.

Grandmasters seem to 1) prefer gambits in closed opening, Volga/Benko, Catalan with d5xc4, KID Sämisch with c7-c5, even the Ruy is a closed opening really despite 1.e4 e5, at least the main lines. and 2) give up the material a few moves later when development is almost finished or at least very predictable.

I wouldn't give TopNotch too much credit though, if you claim all gambits are bad you're bound to be right some time... 
Personally, I wouldn't want either side of a BDG or a Latvian, as I don't believe they are sound enough to play - but on the other hand, I'm far too lazy to study them enough to say they're refuted! (Especially since I don't play either 1.d4 *d5* or 1.e4 e5 *2.Nf3*) 


Finally, I must say that this whole thread is quite strange. If I was a member I would certainly object to a steady BDG coloumn, as would certainly every other member who wasn't a BDG fan.

Anyway, a further problem with the steady BDG idea, would be to find a GM who actually found it worth looking into and writing about. Otherwise, every issue would have a BDG section a la Nigel Davies 

(For example: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 [2.e4? (You should play 2.c4 or 2.Nf3.)] 2...g6 3.Nc3 d5! etc)


If the monthly update of each section dealt with the last month's important new games for that section, instead of just one opening article per month, I might be tempted to subscribe to a couple of the sections...

Found a transcript on the net, of TopNotch discussing with his trainer...   

http://www.chesscafe.com/mcgrew/mcgrew.htm