My father and I used to play a lot of chess when I was a kid. I'd spend a lot of time trying to solve Bobby Fischers chess problems from his book. One day my father suggested I'd read Andre Bjerke's (Norwegian author) book "My Life with Chess" (my translation). In it he describes an old gambit where white gives up it's pawn, with nothing else in return than better dominance in center and better momentum in the game.

1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bc4 Bc5
4.b4

I remember my father and I would practice this opening over and over. Evans was a captain and from what I understand now this gambit was popular in the 19th century not so much anymore. The author Bjerke was a good chess player, at one time Norwegian champion, and if I remember right actually played this opening against Kasparov (or maybe it was Karpov, cannot remember). Kasparov took the gambit, and Bjerke knowing how to play this gambit ended up tying the game.

Evans Gambit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chess openings: Evans Gambit (C51)

Anyone else familiar with Evans Gambit?

I often played the Evan's Gambit (and several others) during the 70's. That is when I concentrated on playing gambits: something that is absolutely vital to development as a chess player.

The Evans Gambit is one of the most entertaining games of chess to play in my opinion,along with the Kings Gambit. I call them my pleasure openings. I do not play them when winning counts though.

Just curious to see how popular the Evan's Gambit is. Do you play it? What do you think of it?

A buddy of mine plays it religious. I really like it and am considering playing it if ever I was to pick up 1. e4 (which is highly unlikely).

Thoughts?

Evan's gambit was my default reply for 3.. Bc5 but i hated it when Black uses the 3..Nf6 continuation.
If black uses Sicilian, I like to play 2.d4, 3.c3 whatever that gambit is called.

but nowadays I don't play e4 anymore

If black plays 3... Nf6 it isn't the Evans Gambit I think there's stuff with 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 then, and I think it's called the Fried Liver Attack but black can then play 5... Na5 instead, which is better.

And if you play 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 that's the Morra Gambit. Black can just go into a c3-sicilian though with 3... d5, which put me off playing the Morra Gambit myself

Yes, I play it the most when the situation arises. I think that it is a good gambit; the ideas behind it are great, and plus you're only sacrificing a pawn.

I think it's refuted though in many ways. Same with Morra... with good play from black he just keeps the pawn and has a plus.

But isn't that true for almost all other gambits?

Yes, but some are more refuted than others The Queen's Gambit is not refuted at all, and I also prefer positional gambits that give the gambiteer long-term compensation like the Benko Gambit or the Wing Gambit. In the Morra and Evans you hope to crush your opponent, but if he survives the first, say, 20 moves, you have nothing and you're left with a lost endgame