- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

WIN with the Tan Gambit! (Collab w/@SolangeloForever)

#2

It seems playable. Here is a correspondence game with it

https://lichess.org/tbo6B9JX#6

It seems playable. Here is a correspondence game with it https://lichess.org/tbo6B9JX#6
#3

Haha, but sac the pawn in the opening sounds very dangerous

Haha, but sac the pawn in the opening sounds very dangerous
#4

not really dangerous, tan gambit and white accepting it means no central tension and as a result the games usually open up and trade pieces to get into endgame, nothing could be more harmless and boring, suitable for the average d4 player

not really dangerous, tan gambit and white accepting it means no central tension and as a result the games usually open up and trade pieces to get into endgame, nothing could be more harmless and boring, suitable for the average d4 player
#5

Sure! This is in reality a line to play for draw ONLY.

Why is it called Tan Gambit? Because some Patzer called Tan played it in a Simul against Alekhine and immediately erred with 5...Bf5? which makes it a lot easier for white to win the onesided game.

Sure! This is in reality a line to play for draw ONLY. Why is it called Tan Gambit? Because some Patzer called Tan played it in a Simul against Alekhine and immediately erred with 5...Bf5? which makes it a lot easier for white to win the onesided game.
#6

@ColossusChess said in #5:

Sure! This is in reality a line to play for draw ONLY.
Why is it called Tan Gambit? Because some Patzer called Tan played it in a Simul against Alekhine and immediately erred with 5...Bf5? which makes it a lot easier for white to win the onesided game.

With optimal play from both sides, the Tan Gambit is a draw - most people who play d4 aren't generally looking for anything tactically ambitious.

The reason I mentioned winning in the title is precisely because many players, especially in shorter blitz games, are caught off guard by the opening, and would be more likely to play inaccuracies that would add up over time, allowing black to capitalize on the advantage. :)

@ColossusChess said in #5: > Sure! This is in reality a line to play for draw ONLY. > Why is it called Tan Gambit? Because some Patzer called Tan played it in a Simul against Alekhine and immediately erred with 5...Bf5? which makes it a lot easier for white to win the onesided game. With optimal play from both sides, the Tan Gambit is a draw - most people who play d4 aren't generally looking for anything tactically ambitious. The reason I mentioned winning in the title is precisely because many players, especially in shorter blitz games, are caught off guard by the opening, and would be more likely to play inaccuracies that would add up over time, allowing black to capitalize on the advantage. :)
#7

@GukeshChampionX said in #3:

Haha, but sac the pawn in the opening sounds very dangerous

It's only a pawn, and white generally does give it back eventually to catch up in development!

@GukeshChampionX said in #3: > Haha, but sac the pawn in the opening sounds very dangerous It's only a pawn, and white generally does give it back eventually to catch up in development!
#9

@g6firste6second said in #4:

not really dangerous, tan gambit and white accepting it means no central tension and as a result the games usually open up and trade pieces to get into endgame, nothing could be more harmless and boring, suitable for the average d4 player

It's not meant to be a dangerous gambit :) Dangerous gambits often involve memorizing many different lines of theory. If you want something more dangerous, although not too great to play if your opponent knows theory, you could try the England Gambit.

The Tan is more just about gaining an advantage in development - just like you said, harmless!

@g6firste6second said in #4: > not really dangerous, tan gambit and white accepting it means no central tension and as a result the games usually open up and trade pieces to get into endgame, nothing could be more harmless and boring, suitable for the average d4 player It's not meant to be a dangerous gambit :) Dangerous gambits often involve memorizing many different lines of theory. If you want something more dangerous, although not too great to play if your opponent knows theory, you could try the England Gambit. The Tan is more just about gaining an advantage in development - just like you said, harmless!
#10

@greenteakitten said in #9:

It's not meant to be a dangerous gambit :) Dangerous gambits often involve memorizing many different lines of theory. If you want something more dangerous, although not too great to play if your opponent knows theory, you could try the England Gambit.

The Tan is more just about gaining an advantage in development - just like you said, harmless!
Well Englund Gambit is a crazy opening, I don't really understand the logic behind 1.d4 e5 unless your opponent doesnt know the infamous fxg1N+!! trap!
Was trapped in that way 4 straight games before coming to my senses lol

@greenteakitten said in #9: > It's not meant to be a dangerous gambit :) Dangerous gambits often involve memorizing many different lines of theory. If you want something more dangerous, although not too great to play if your opponent knows theory, you could try the England Gambit. > > The Tan is more just about gaining an advantage in development - just like you said, harmless! Well Englund Gambit is a crazy opening, I don't really understand the logic behind 1.d4 e5 unless your opponent doesnt know the infamous fxg1N+!! trap! Was trapped in that way 4 straight games before coming to my senses lol