user109: When I see the Evans Gambit, I don't see the point of it, maybe because I am a beginning player.  It seems that after:
[FEN ""]

1. e4  e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4  Bxb4
5. c3  Bc5

Since the bishop can go back to c5, it seems we are just back to the beginning and white has already lost a pawn.  After watching some videos on this, I have seen that white can build a strong attack if the queen moves to b3 which can then backup the bishop on c4 and eye the a1-h8 diagonal, and the critical f7 square.  Is this it's main purpose (especially if it is accepted)?  If it is, why is it accepted more than declined?

user17: White gains time to develop his pieces (mainly the dark squared bishop, at the expense of a pawn whose absence won't hurt until the endgame.
The Evans has now been researched, and with correct play, Black can get to the endgame with an advantage. But before the "modern" understanding of theory, White could often get a winning middle game. Hence, the Evans can be used against inexperienced Black players, and in the "old days," opponents who were generally less well schooled than today's players. 

user1998: Evans Gambit is NOT refuted despite what some stuffy theorists will say. In almost all lines black has to give back the pawn at one point or suffer a serious disadvantage.  Besides, even if the gambit was totally refuted it would be ridiculous for anyone (even a grandmaster) to learn all of the lines that lead to an advantage for black.
The thing you have to remember when you play gambits is that humans are not computers.  Even if they are very familiar with the lines they are bound to make tiny mistakes, gambits might not work against computers but chess is a human game.

user396: Black's choice of where to put the Bishop on move 5 is awkward, and any choice will give White some compensation:

5... Ba5 would give White the possibility of Ba3 at some point to cut off the King from castling and the Bishop won't be very useful after White castles out of the pin on c3.
5... Bc5 allows 6. d4, taking control of the center with tempo after which White can develop quickly and try to attack.
5... Be7 is rather passive and blocks a square for the g8-Knight, and White can develop very naturally and aggressively.

The reason White is better off than before move 4 is that the c3-pawn supports d4. d4 is very strong especially when White can gain a tempo on the Bishop.
Declining it with 4... Bb6 is not unheard of, but 4... Bxb4 is generally considered more challenging.

109: <p>When I see the <code>Evans Gambit</code>, I don't see the point of it, maybe because I am a beginning player.  It seems that after:</p>

<pre><code>[FEN ""]

1. e4  e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4  Bxb4
5. c3  Bc5
</code></pre>

<p>Since the bishop can go back to <code>c5</code>, it seems we are just back to the beginning and white has already lost a pawn.  After watching some videos on this, I have seen that white can build a strong attack if the queen moves to <code>b3</code> which can then backup the bishop on <code>c4</code> and eye the <code>a1-h8</code> diagonal, and the critical <code>f7</code> square.  Is this it's main purpose (especially if it is accepted)?  If it is, why is it accepted more than declined?</p>
 17: <p>White gains time to develop his pieces (mainly the dark squared bishop, at the expense of a pawn whose absence won't hurt until the endgame.</p>

<p>The Evans has now been researched, and with correct play, Black can get to the endgame with an advantage. But before the "modern" understanding of theory, White could often get a winning middle game. Hence, the Evans can be used against inexperienced Black players, and in the "old days," opponents who were generally less well schooled than today's players. </p>
 1998: <p>Evans Gambit is NOT refuted despite what some stuffy theorists will say. In almost all lines black has to give back the pawn at one point or suffer a serious disadvantage.  Besides, even if the gambit was totally refuted it would be ridiculous for anyone (even a grandmaster) to learn all of the lines that lead to an advantage for black.</p>

<p>The thing you have to remember when you play gambits is that humans are not computers.  Even if they are very familiar with the lines they are bound to make tiny mistakes, gambits might not work against computers but chess is a human game.</p>
 396: <p>Black's choice of where to put the Bishop on move 5 is awkward, and any choice will give White some compensation:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><code>5... Ba5</code> would give White the possibility of <code>Ba3</code> at some point to cut off the King from castling and the Bishop won't be very useful after White castles out of the pin on c3.</p></li>
<li><p><code>5... Bc5</code> allows <code>6. d4</code>, taking control of the center with tempo after which White can develop quickly and try to attack.</p></li>
<li><p><code>5... Be7</code> is rather passive and blocks a square for the g8-Knight, and White can develop very naturally and aggressively.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>The reason White is better off than before move 4 is that the c3-pawn supports d4. d4 is very strong especially when White can gain a tempo on the Bishop.</p>

<p>Declining it with <code>4... Bb6</code> is not unheard of, but <code>4... Bxb4</code> is generally considered more challenging.</p>
