I think "gambit" has a precise meaning in chess, that means to allow your opponent material where you can't legally take it back on exactly the next move.. eg. the queen's gambit.  
  
Also, 2. ...f6 would be better to be called the gambit move if any of them are, because f6 allows White the material, 3. ...Qe7 is just not taking back the material. Technically 3. ....Qe7 is declining White's "gambit".

Well, there are gambits, and there is just giving up a pawn and weakening your position (and if Black isn't going to take the knight or retrieve the pawn with 3...Qe7, he presumably has to do something about the threat of Qh5+).

Fromper wrote on 08/09/11 at 15:35:39:


Does not compute.

MNb wrote on 08/08/11 at 20:48:32:


I didn't answer the previous post by Jupp, sorry. But Mnb has a good point. It is easier to win against strong opponents with equal material. I agree though, that the Smith-Morra might not be unsound, though it is not less work to make it work than the Open variations, as been stated here before.

Back to Jupp. Chess is a lot about trade-offs. In the Open Sicilian, White trades a center pawn and semi-open c-file for a well-placed knight and a semi-open d-file. This has nothing to do with how high rated you are IMO. It is chess education. Even if you play the Closed Sicilian, there will be times you want to play d4 anyway as White. The trick is to know when, and an understanding of Open variations will inevitably help you.

I wouldn't be so dogmatic in classifying Open games as a first must, compared to your mentioned alternatives. They form a good basis for chess understanding. But you should know how to play lots of different positions well, as well as all phases of the game. Many endgames will teach you how to play well in open positions, much better compared to several lines in the main line Spanish e.g.

There aren't many openings out there that I can say I would definitely never play, as although I have a reputation for offbeat gambits (e.g. Göring, Scotch, Albin's, Portuguese/Jadoul, and Blackmar-Diemer) I occasionally wheel out something more mainstream for a change.  For example, I recently surprised one member of my local chess club with the continuation 1.d4 d5 2.c4!.

There are certain openings that I seriously doubt I would ever play though:
Fred Defence (1.e4 f5)
Damiano Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6)
Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5)
Jerome Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+)
Grob (1.g4)
Omega Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.e4)

TN wrote on 08/08/11 at 18:39:38:


That's true, but I think amateurs are better off just accepting that they won't have the time to master everything. Trying out every serious main line is a recipe for either becoming a strong professional player or total burnout, not something amateur players with normal, fallible memories and other commitments should try.

The more practical approach is to have a fairly narrow repertoire, but know and understand it very well. This should include playing mostly main lines and not be an excuse for sticking with dubious or non-critical lines, which I did for many years unfortunately.

Now I probably play too many different openings compared to what my "philosophy" dictates, but I just can't help myself; I love the variety!

I'm with TN and BPaulsen. I do have a pretty specific repertoire, but I will leave it from time to time, even in critical games. I consider my opening repertoire to be fairly staid, but I do experiment with openings that don't suck from time to time.