There is obviously a big difference if White or Black plays the gambit. Playing the white pieces nearly every gambit looks playable - you complicate the position and if Black finds the right way, the position may be equal. If you are on the black side of the board things are completely different: playing gambits means you risk losing the game - one real sound afford may be the Marshall Gambit trying to prove White's move c3 is just a waste of time. But if you look at top-games you see that Black very often is simply fighting for equality in a slightly worse endgame (btw - the ...Nf6 Schliemann variation leads to the same result - no attack for Black, but compensation in the endgame in a fight for a draw). 

I don't practise the Benko, but respectfully think that it is an attempt to "freeze" the position on a positional basis - another draw attempt but no more.

Just two others from the Ruy (limited to lines taht are actually played by GM's):
-The Ng5 Karpov line in the open (I think one of the reasons the open sees so little action). I daresay it has been played more at a Wch than both Marshalls.
-The Schliemann seems to be unrefuted as GM's give it the occasional punt

What I would like to know: why do so many people, including Pavlovic, want to make strong general statements on gambits? Gambit play is just one opening strategy, nothing more, nothing less. Is this an emotional thing or something?

I find Pavlovic' remark amazing. Stigma already mentioned a few gambits with a fully sound reputation, even on the highest levels.
We should not draw conclusions too soon. Since 25 years or so 4.Qc2 against the NID is more popular than 4.e3. Nobody in his right mind will claim that 4.e3 is "not correct". So why the KG does receive that label is beyond me.
Another (eternal) question is which openings as White proved enough winning chances. From this point of view it seems to me that neither the KG nor the Rubinstein Variation vs. the NID is entirely sufficient on the highest level.
So I am afraid that HgMan's questions from his initial post cannot really be sensibly answered. If I really have to make a general statement it would be something like this. It seems to me that sound gambits for White on the highest level have a shorter lifetime because they peter out in drawish positions more quickly. At the other hand, if a gambit for Black proves to be sound all white players begin to avoid it. Fine examples are the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn and the Winawer Countergambit (3.Nc3 e5 in the Slav Complex).
I predict the same will happen to the gambit variations TalJechin was referring to.

HgMan wrote on 11/28/09 at 01:32:21:


Aren't there lots of gambits in the Catalan, which are almost all considered correct?

My impression is that gambits are becoming more common on the top levels. The difference being that now it's gambit variations not openings.

What do you say about the Volga-Benko Gambit 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 with clear strategic points (undermine white's d-pawn, open queenside for Black's pieces) and very tactical.

The Benko.