Gambit - Soundness

Soundness

A gambit is said to be 'sound' if it is capable of procuring some concession from the opponent. There are three general criteria in which a gambit is often said to be sound:

• Time gain: the player accepting the gambit must take time to procure the sacrificed material and possibly must use more time to reorganize his pieces after the material is taken.

• Generation of differential activity: Often a player accepting a gambit will decentralize his pieces or pawns and his poorly placed pieces will allow the gambiteer to place his own pieces and pawns on squares that might otherwise have been inaccessible. In addition, bishops and rooks can become more active simply because the loss of pawns often gives rise to open files and diagonals. Former world champion Mikhail Tal, one of the most extraordinary attacking players of the 20th century, once said that he had sacrificed a pawn just because "it was in his way."

• Generation of positional weaknesses: Finally, accepting a gambit may lead to a compromised pawn structure, holes or other positional deficiencies.

A good example of a sound gambit is the Danish Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 (3...d5 would be a way of declining the gambit) 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2. White has sacrificed two pawns in exchange for a lead in development (his bishops are raking Black's kingside) and the possibility of a quick attack. A more dubious gambit is the so-called Halloween Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5?! Nxe5 5.d4. Here the investment (a knight for just one pawn) is too large for the moderate advantage of having a strong center.