Why is there almost no gambit that is in top engine moves?

#1: A) Because gambits are inherently bad. In the end, material is what determines a Chess game's result.

B) One of the best gambits that seems to not have been mentioned so far is the Alekhine-Chatard Attack. Perhaps this is a sound gambit. Curiously, in this line, Stockfish defeated AlphaZero in twenty-two moves while playing with White. While Black can probably survive with best play by both sides---as it is a gambit---it does not seem to have been analyzed that deeply.

#11
The Alekhine-Chatard Attack may well be sound, here is an ICCF correspondence game.

Everything you can do in a gambit you can do with on gambit openings.

@Arseniy_Rybasov said in #1:

the most gambits we know, like Danish Gambit, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, King's Gambit, Wing Gambit (in Sicilian), Halloween Gambit, Muzio Gambit, Nakhmanson Gambit and much more others are not recommended or even losing by computer. why does this happen?

Gambits sacrifice something for something else, usually material for activity, and rely on knowing the "refutation" to get out of them. Computers can find the refutation for any gambit. Also, the concept of "making the opponent uncomfortable" has no meaning against a computer.

That being said, the main problem here is that machines optimize for reducing risk, not finding beautiful moves or adapting their play to their stupid human opponent to make the game more entertaining.

If a gambit was the top engine move it would simply be treated as a normal move in the main line. It wouldn’t be called a gambit

@Matvei-e2e4 said in #15:

If a gambit was the top engine move it would simply be treated as a normal move in the main line. It wouldn’t be called a gambit

That doesn't work like that. Gambit is an opening where you sacrifice material for non-material compensation. And the fact that it is actually a top engine move doesn't matter a little.

@Arseniy_Rybasov said in #16:

If a gambit was the top engine move it would simply be treated as a normal move in the main line. It wouldn’t be called a gambit

That doesn't work like that. Gambit is an opening where you sacrifice material for non-material compensation. And the fact that it is actually a top engine move doesn't matter a little.

You were the one to ask why most gambits aren’t top engine moves. Now you said it doesn’t matter whether a gambit is a top engine move or not

@Matvei-e2e4 said in #17:

If a gambit was the top engine move it would simply be treated as a normal move in the main line. It wouldn’t be called a gambit

That doesn't work like that. Gambit is an opening where you sacrifice material for non-material compensation. And the fact that it is actually a top engine move doesn't matter a little.

You were the one to ask why most gambits aren’t top engine moves. Now you said it doesn’t matter whether a gambit is a top engine move or not

I meant that the definition of the gambit doesn't rely on how strong is the move.

Exactly, for humans it doesn’t really matter whether their move is always the top engine one that’s why when they sacrifice things there usually isn’t enough compensation for the position to be equal

I think it's impossible to give a proper answer to this. Let's take Scotch game mainline Nxd4 (+0.1) vs Scotch gambit Bc4 (-0.1). In this position it's impossible for a human to tell which is more advantageous (without deep experience in ensuing positions) but as engines can see far into the "future", they're pretty much assessing that position and they find the line keeping the pawn with Nxd4 better. It just seems that openings which don't gambit a pawn just happen to lead to better endgame positions. It's also important to point out that these (Stockfish) evaluations might change in the future. Maybe one day it will just say 0.0 for both mainline scotch and the gambit, which it likely is anyway.

But why is it that the non-gambits lead to better positions? - just happens to be that way..