why should I play queens gambit?

gimme one good reason?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
gimme one good reason?

Pawns on c4 and d4 are easier to maintain than pawns on d4 and e4. It's hard to 'prove' that, but it's an intuition. Just thinking about it logically, most pieces are developed to intersect the four central squares. The Knights in particular can be developed in one move to do this. c4 is not a natural square for a built up attack with minor pieces, which makes it harder to undermine a pawn chain along the a2-g8 diagonal.

Also, a d5 pawn push (after say, a challenge by ..c5) is better supported by a pawn on c4. If supported by an e4 pawn then you have a locked centre. In fact, this last point may be the most important. Queens gambit leads (generally) to semi-closed positions, which allow pieces to manoeuvre around/through the centre. Personally i find semi closed the most desirable pawn structure (which is an extremely sweeping statement) as white often gets to take a little space out of blacks position. This converts some of the meagre advantage of going first into something tangible (ie, a little more space). That said, like every opening, it's down to style. It strikes me that most of the top GMs actually play everything these days, which suggests to me that they see no great advantage/disadvantage between the various systems (taking out all the smash and grab openings obviously..)

Why not just play it? There are so many ways to play the QG, i think it is it's versatility that appeals more than anything. Personally i think it's about time we stopped calling it a gambit. When was the last time you saw a player give up the c-pawn for an attack? It's almost unheard of these days..

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Personally i think it's about time we stopped calling it a gambit. When was the last time you saw a player give up the c-pawn for an attack? It's almost unheard of these days..

I play the queens gambit like a real gambit if I get the chance. It can get you similar positions to other gambit openings.

Originally posted by KnightStalker47
I play the queens gambit like a real gambit if I get the chance. It can get you similar positions to other gambit openings.

[pgn] 1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3.e4 {Rarely seen at top level, most opening books with tell you it's bad, but I like this move.} e5 4. Nf3 exd4 5. Bxc4 Nc6 [/pgn]

[pgn] 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4. Bc4 {It's black to move, th ...[text shortened]... or the c pawn is advantageous to white, because you don't have to worry about a d5 push.} [/pgn]

Yes thee two lines are a really good illustration of the difference between e4 and d4. The Queens gambit line you posted is a flank opening while the Scotch is a Classical opening. The tempo is an important difference but the effect it has on the white Queen is probably the most telling. QG invariably has the Queen developed on the Queenside...obviously the Scotch doesn't allow that (unless you transpose into a full d-pawn opening, which i guess is still possible..)

I agree that The QGA is perfectly playable at club level. Yes, it is possible for black to keep the pawn, but the theory is very complex and you need to be a strong player to handle it correctly. A lot of the time you need to be prepared to give the pawn back, which is requires good judgement and is often hard to do if you've spent 10-20 moves trying to keep it. Most people don't enjoy playing like that, I certainly don't..

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
gimme one good reason?

'Coz it's a way to get to the middle-game, and thence to the end-game, which are the important bits.

Originally posted by chessicle
'Coz it's a way to get to the middle-game, and thence to the end-game, which are the important bits.

gee i dunno, you need to learn too much theory, about eighteen different systems i think, all kinds of Indians, Bogos and Nimzos, Kings and Queens, all kinds of gambits Albin and Budapest, Benko, Dutch and irregular stuff as well.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Pawns on c4 and d4 are easier to maintain than pawns on d4 and e4. It's hard to 'prove' that, but it's an intuition. Just thinking about it logically, most pieces are developed to intersect the four central squares. The Knights in particular can be developed in one move to do this. c4 is not a natural square for a built up attack with minor pieces, which ...[text shortened]... last time you saw a player give up the c-pawn for an attack? It's almost unheard of these days..

thankyou, tis most interesting, my objection is that everyone has some pet system that they know and use against it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou, tis most interesting, my objection is that everyone has some pet system that they know and use against it.

Well i actually play 1.Nf3. This limits white ever so slightly in QG systems, but it has the advantage that you can still transpose into e4 openings. I might happily play 2.e4 against say 1..d6 or 1..g6. If 1..c5 you have the interesting option of going for something sharp like a Sicilian or you can drag a tactical player in to a highly strategic position by playing 2.c4 and going into a symmetrical English.

Yes people have systems against the QG, but if you delay you declaration by one move you can often get your opponent to state their intentions without committing to facing the system they want to play.. That said, i will often go into a QG type system anyway for the very reasons stated above. It's so flexible, why risk something dubious??

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou, tis most interesting, my objection is that everyone has some pet system that they know and use against it.

10-30 years play at club level , your fine, otherwise avoid it, complex knowledge to hold control over the center is required.

Originally posted by ISK
10-30 years play at club level , your fine, otherwise avoid it, complex knowledge to hold control over the center is required.

Come on, what is the alternative then? Play e4 and you have 300 years of Ruy Lopez theory. There is no getting around it, whatever you play there is theory that you need to learn..

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Come on, what is the alternative then? Play e4 and you have 300 years of Ruy Lopez theory. There is no getting around it, whatever you play there is theory that you need to learn..

1.c4! infcat, you could probably play 1.g3 2.Bg2 and 3.c4 against everything but there is no gaurantee you will get positions that you like

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1.c4! infcat, you could probably play 1.g3 2.Bg2 and 3.c4 against everything but there is no gaurantee you will get positions that you like

1.c4 is good. I used to play it but i don't find the English to be my cup of tea (excuse to pun). I really like the Catalan though...but if you are going to play that then you might as well play 1.d4 as it masks you intents a little..

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
gimme one good reason?

1. CP doesn't play it
(That's got to be a good reason right there)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
gimme one good reason?

Because you'll have to play against it someday.

Originally posted by moonbus
Because you'll have to play against it someday.

hmmm, but i play semi Slav and the Meran if i can get away with it.