ok

MNb wrote on 04/18/13 at 10:05:03:


True,

even within the broad category of gambit there a substantial differences. But my issue had more to do with Markovich's definition of a sound move.

That's the sort of problem. The only truly objective measure is win/loss/draw. And nearly everything halfway sane will be a draw

Perhaps you could define some objective measure based on how 'tight' the subsequent path to a draw is in terms of moves retaining it? First X moves from a computer or something.

That still wouldn't really correspond to human play of course.

I agree, but isn't it even more true when speaking about gambits ?

Markovich wrote on 04/11/13 at 00:50:18:

I completely agree. But you say “a move” … that’s not an (idea in an) opening. I would like to add the final following  comment.
In his book, « Strategic play in the opening », I.M Volodia Vaisman gives some useful explanations in chapter 14 titled « Gambit Play » :
“In the battle of the opening each side try to obtain the best development, the best control of the centre, space advantage, more harmonious placed pieces, and so on. In general, it’s impossible to obtain all this without leaving something to your opponent. This is why some players use to play gambits … in order to have some tempo/space bonus advantage.
Unlike all concrete and calculable sacrifices, gambits aim for long term compensations where the proof of the correction is analytically impossible to do. This is why a sacrifice represents a technical way while a gambit is rather a way of play. As most part of the compensations are temporary and short-lived it’s important to develop and convert them in advantages.”

So trying to prove sufficient compensation or not is somewhat irrelevant. You play gambit or not, you like it or not, you win with it or not, but finding the ultimate truth is a never ending story.

MNb wrote on 04/10/13 at 14:29:04:


Sorry to say that, but I believe more Esserman's authority than your !
Among titled players ... they declined it most of the time by 3...d3 or transpose in to a 2.c3 sicilian .... so where are fallacies ?

Michel Barbaut wrote on 04/10/13 at 14:19:59:

Save me your silly strawman. It's not funny as a joke either.
Great. Esserman is one titled chessplayer who thinks the Morra Gambit is sound. Know what? I think the same. But I don't close my eyes for the fact that this is far from consensus among titled players. So I prefer not to rely on Esserman's authority - an authority you cherry picked.
That's three logical fallacies in one post of yours.
Congratulations.

MartinC wrote on 04/10/13 at 08:37:04:

This implies that White doesn't have sound moves anymore after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6. Or possibly your definition is sloppy.
No double standards please. If White can prove sufficient compensation in the Morra Gambit, even if this means a forced draw, it's sound. If Black can prove a slight edge it's unsound. As we can agree that this matter is not settled yet we might call it dubious.
For Black we may drop the bar a little lower. The Noteboom is sound according to Scherbakov as White cannot prove more than a slight edge. Accortding to this standard the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit is sound too, at least according to Bronznik.

Schaakhamster wrote on 04/10/13 at 11:48:58:

This summarizes my objection to the Morra Gambit.