There are many good gambits, from tactical ones such as the Fried Liver Attack, the Evans Gambit, or the King's Gambit, to positional ones such as the Volga Gambit. But there are many bad gambits, such as The Omega Gambit(1.d4 Nf6 2.e4?) or gambits with one trap in mind, and nothing else (Blackburne-Shilling Gambit). Are there more of such gambits?
latvian, halloween, wing, englund, elephant, freds, colorado, danish gambit, tennison, and budapest gambit of the top of my head. These gambits are unsound and a proper response will have the gambiter in a worse position.
Some gambits I do like are kings gambit, smith morra, evans, queens, scotch, benko, lisitsin, staunton, fried liver(Na5), froms.
I just want to save 2 gambits from being classified as "bad", the fried liver and the king's. 3 cooks fried an GM with the fried liver, the fried liver is +1.67, and the king's gambit's only "refutation" is the keene's defense, weakening the kingside (1.e4 e5 2.f4 Qh4+).
You could say the froms is good, but in fact, if white plays accurately, black would lose fast, analysis says the froms is +0.81. I accidently triped over an analysis of the omega gambit and it appears to be -0.66, while the kings is -0.79, so, you see, reputations isn't everything. There's another one, on my analysis board, the halloween is -0.59, see? The smith morra is not a great gambit with -0.21.
I just cannot understand the blackmar-diemer gambit, cause when theres an option to gambit a wing pawn, why gambit the center pawn? The 1.d4 d5 2.e4 is -0.97, and the 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 is -0.72.
The old benoni is +0.88 if you don't accept the pawn, and the modern is +0.96 if you don't accept the sac. Apperantly the benko gambit is one of the most inaccurate gambit, it says +1.20, although it is good for human play. The Duras is +1.90 if black used it, so it's useless, the most inaccurate one is the traxler counterattack, which is +2.57 if black used it.
Firstly and i have decent chess experience so i can tell you. The fried liver with the knight sac on F7 Is borderline winning. For human play it mostly is, but technically black can POSSIBLY hold a draw. White is always better in this line, and for refutations like after E pawn takes the D pawn, and black moves the knight to A4, White gets a pawn up and is slightly better. Kings gambit Is simply worse but playable. Its about -0.5 so with correct play white should draw, though in human play white has chances. Danish while unsound at first is actually extremely suprising. its only -0.4 i believe being down to pawns. Saving line for black is NF6, after E pawn push, Black checks with the bishop on B5 i believe from memory, and your trying to exchange all the pieces. In an endgame its losing but as white if you know the theory its playable and very tricky. England Gambit is fairly bad, only two traps and black is just worse, Halloween gambit is truly terrible. I could go on with the lines but i shall make my definition. Good gambits include the italian gambit(Italian game and after sacrificing the center pawn your still not even worse its 0.0 with good chances), The Renowned Queens gambit(Obviously not really a gambit), Evans gambit, scotch gambit etc, and honestly ill put danish here cause white is worse but very playable. These all have in common that you get good compensation, good winning chances, etc. Trap gambits Is what it says, Englund gambit is an example, Or traxler(Traxler unlike Gotham says is truly awful, never play it). gambits like these hope to trap you and if you dont fall into it, Your opponent is simply much worse. And the lowest of the low are halloween gambit, latvian, Mosquito etc. They quite literally are just garbage