The compensation is there. Roman agress, MeWantCookie agrees, the Marshall may not be the best, but dxc6 is worse than Nf3.
Can you prove this? Because when i make relatively simple development moves for white (see eg. #17) i end up in endgames with an isolated white + d-pawn. See also what #16 says.
I dont see any compensation for black.
I dont see any compensation for black.
All white has to be aware of that in some lines he should not exchange queens because his queen is good in supporting his d-pawn. Eg. 10.exd4! in my line in #17.
I could prove it playing some game against you. Simply basing on Lichess games it is good out of 4 games with dcx6 white has only won one and drew 3. Pretty good result for black, specially when talking about 2200+
Ok, challenge me when you are ready.
hehe, fun stuff :)
Soooooo you play with the black pieces the most obscure gambit in the world and the best response white has is...
wait for it
to transpose to the exchange Slav.
xD
Still, black has some compensation , but I think we all know here that with accurate play this "thing" cannot be correct
But opening "correctness" never stopped any player in chess :) I mean look at what Caruana played against Giri in the candidates.
If u like it go for it
Soooooo you play with the black pieces the most obscure gambit in the world and the best response white has is...
wait for it
to transpose to the exchange Slav.
xD
Still, black has some compensation , but I think we all know here that with accurate play this "thing" cannot be correct
But opening "correctness" never stopped any player in chess :) I mean look at what Caruana played against Giri in the candidates.
If u like it go for it
I would like to point out that I really have no opinion on dxc6. Because I honestly don't care about pressing black gambit theory.
The reason I said bring ratings into it is because like it or not, most chess players identify with their rating. And there is correlation of strength when you judge them through the 150/200 rule. And since the majority of players are basically 1500ish, it is accurate to say that black will have some kind of compensation for most people. And sad to say it, the reason is because the average player doesn't actually analyse their games to obtain more understanding. They just play. And most of them hope to get their opponent into trap positions. (Because it's fun!) On here it's probably fair to raise the rating average up by about 100 points making it 1600. (I don't know what the server average is in case someone wants to point it out) This is why they try to establish master ranks around 2300/2400 instead of 2200/2300. If we use this information here, then it is easier to argue compensation when you are 2400+. I am just now starting to study positional chess. So I can't objectively speak on compensation with masters. Just as much I don't really expect anyone under 1800/1900 to really argue it with me. Obviously if you find someone with a rating profile that isn't established well you have to judge their general knowledge. Would I take into consideration those 1800ish players and admit when they are right? Of course I would, the rating is just a gauge. Some people try to dismiss online ratings. However that is their fault not mine.
On the Roman forum agreeing? Well that is probably a line of crap. Because if you read my previous posts you would have noticed I said, "Easy opening rep for the tournament player". This would insinuate that the rep is based on getting a certain set up. Not necessarily playing the best moves. Objectively many masters I speak to say that most black gambits are unsound. And THAT I agree with. That doesn't mean they are unplayable at certain levels. It just means that if you study chess at a certain level you have to admit when and where true compensation lies.
That should bring me back to the c6 gambit we are speaking of. I really don't have to study the gambit. Because it is rare, and it's easily avoided if I have not looked at it that day. On the other hand, I have accepted both that gambit and the scandinavian gambit. And I have pretty much 100% record against it even in blitz. So in all honesty I don't see the compensation in it either. But I am a realist. I know that I still have to consider the average player not just myself when I speak of compensation TO an average player. And believe me.. Those players are here, and they probably outnumber us "above average" players just like they do OTB.
I know most masters only care about master stuff, but that is why masters are grossly outnumbered. ;-) Sorry for the long post. Seemed some things needed established.
(BTW: I know someone who insists on playing gambits all the time. He even uses the Petrov gambit. EG: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe4?; Which I have told him loses a pawn with no compensation. His argument? He has beaten and drawn experts. End of his argument. Doesn't matter what his rating is. The fact that he has taken some out with an unsound gambit means to him it is perfectly viable.)
The reason I said bring ratings into it is because like it or not, most chess players identify with their rating. And there is correlation of strength when you judge them through the 150/200 rule. And since the majority of players are basically 1500ish, it is accurate to say that black will have some kind of compensation for most people. And sad to say it, the reason is because the average player doesn't actually analyse their games to obtain more understanding. They just play. And most of them hope to get their opponent into trap positions. (Because it's fun!) On here it's probably fair to raise the rating average up by about 100 points making it 1600. (I don't know what the server average is in case someone wants to point it out) This is why they try to establish master ranks around 2300/2400 instead of 2200/2300. If we use this information here, then it is easier to argue compensation when you are 2400+. I am just now starting to study positional chess. So I can't objectively speak on compensation with masters. Just as much I don't really expect anyone under 1800/1900 to really argue it with me. Obviously if you find someone with a rating profile that isn't established well you have to judge their general knowledge. Would I take into consideration those 1800ish players and admit when they are right? Of course I would, the rating is just a gauge. Some people try to dismiss online ratings. However that is their fault not mine.
On the Roman forum agreeing? Well that is probably a line of crap. Because if you read my previous posts you would have noticed I said, "Easy opening rep for the tournament player". This would insinuate that the rep is based on getting a certain set up. Not necessarily playing the best moves. Objectively many masters I speak to say that most black gambits are unsound. And THAT I agree with. That doesn't mean they are unplayable at certain levels. It just means that if you study chess at a certain level you have to admit when and where true compensation lies.
That should bring me back to the c6 gambit we are speaking of. I really don't have to study the gambit. Because it is rare, and it's easily avoided if I have not looked at it that day. On the other hand, I have accepted both that gambit and the scandinavian gambit. And I have pretty much 100% record against it even in blitz. So in all honesty I don't see the compensation in it either. But I am a realist. I know that I still have to consider the average player not just myself when I speak of compensation TO an average player. And believe me.. Those players are here, and they probably outnumber us "above average" players just like they do OTB.
I know most masters only care about master stuff, but that is why masters are grossly outnumbered. ;-) Sorry for the long post. Seemed some things needed established.
(BTW: I know someone who insists on playing gambits all the time. He even uses the Petrov gambit. EG: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe4?; Which I have told him loses a pawn with no compensation. His argument? He has beaten and drawn experts. End of his argument. Doesn't matter what his rating is. The fact that he has taken some out with an unsound gambit means to him it is perfectly viable.)
Lets point out: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?! 3.cxd5! (best move) c6?! 4.dxc6! (best move). This obeys the classical principle to accept the gambit pawn and then later give it back under good circumstances - or not to give it back at all, probably the case in this gambit. After 4...Nxc6 Nf3 i have 28 games in my database, from these games white scores +22/=5/-1. This line is just +/-
The main line is definitely 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?! cxd5 Nxd5! Nf3 g6 e4 Nb6 which transposes to Gruenfeld lines where black plays Nb6 instead of Nxc3. Like in some of the main lines with Nxc3 black attacks the white center with ..f5. Mamedyarov has played and won two games with it but both his opponents played exf5. in my opinion e4-e5 is better, when white has a long term space advantage.
It is true that according to my database strong players, when playing other strong players avoid 3.cxd5 (but not against patzers, eg. Kaspy always played cxd5) but the reason may be that the white player was not prepared and did not want to run in a preparation.
The main line is definitely 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6?! cxd5 Nxd5! Nf3 g6 e4 Nb6 which transposes to Gruenfeld lines where black plays Nb6 instead of Nxc3. Like in some of the main lines with Nxc3 black attacks the white center with ..f5. Mamedyarov has played and won two games with it but both his opponents played exf5. in my opinion e4-e5 is better, when white has a long term space advantage.
It is true that according to my database strong players, when playing other strong players avoid 3.cxd5 (but not against patzers, eg. Kaspy always played cxd5) but the reason may be that the white player was not prepared and did not want to run in a preparation.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.