Blitz Chess #11: This is Why You Should Accept Gambits

In the previous blitz game I showed, I was playing White against the Sicilian Defense so funnily enough, in this game, I played the Sicilian as Black and look where it got me. I lost the game in spectacular fashion and what's more, I could have gotten an advantage straight out of the opening because my opponent played a gambit and a dubious one at that, though a lot of gambits are quite reckless by nature.

I used to like gambits because they are very fancy and eye-catching especially if you win by throwing all your pieces at your opponent then later checkmating his king. But I have grown to see them as unstable and confusing. You need to be very precise when you play gambits and even when you are, if your opponent is able to maintain his position without making any unnecessary concessions, then you will be in for some big trouble at the end of it all. A few pieces or pawns could spell disaster so it would be wise not to feed them to your opponent just because you want to make a flashy entrance.

In this case, my opponent played the Wing Gambit of the Sicilian and it's one of the gambits I was pretty annoyed to play against during my younger years in chess because I couldn't shake it off. Then again, I just wasn't very knowledgeable on chess in general back then, much less so in the Sicilian so that's why I was purely and utterly irritated whenever I played against it. This game was no exception. I am further annoyed by the fact that I didn't take the free pawn right off the bat because of my hesitation or lack of conviction.

I made that first mistake of not taking the pawn and immediately gaining an advantage and that was further exacerbated when I pushed my bishop to the edge of the board, effectively disengaging it from the action and limiting its possible influence on the game. After a series of more inaccurate moves, my whole position crumbled down and I had no choice but to resign because there just wasn't anything going in my favor. But it could have all been made better by taking the gambit.

There is nothing wrong with taking a free pawn. It is not guaranteed that, because you took a gambit, you will suffer for it later in the end. All you need to do is to defend properly and make sure to snuff out all of your opponent's possible attacks. After all, you're not playing against Morphy or Tal, or anybody with the same caliber of calculative genius. Unless of course, you're playing against today's elites, then maybe think about it a little and then take the gambit.

Personally, I still play the Smith-Morra Gambit in the Sicilian, just because it has a slightly better chance although, I've also lessened playing it compared to before since I don't find it intuitive any longer. I would need to read resources about how to play the Smith-Morra properly and learn the intricate structures, patterns, and move orders. I don't like to do that. I would much rather stick to general chess fundamentals than learn some specific variation or line that I wouldn't often encounter.