user31625: For example, the Danish opening:
[FEN ""]
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2

where basically, White gives up two pawns for positional play. And if you don't know the theory, you can lose by falling into traps.
So, how can you deal with this kind of gambits/traps opening, when you don't know the theory?

user15223: You lose, basically. Assuming opponent is familiar with the theory and you aren't, then a single misstep will lose you the game. Don't enter sharp lines if you don't know the theory.
If you are already in the sharp line, then the safest play is to avoid the most critical continuations and seek to simplify the position as quickly as possible. For gambits the most critical continuations are generally to take the material and try to keep it, which means your best bets are probably to either decline the gambit or to return the material to reach a tenable endgame. For the gambit you've listed, that means do not play 3...dxc3; go instead for something like 3...d5 or 3...Nc6.

user17425: There are two approaches, accept the gambit or decline the gambit.

Accept the gambit.  Follow the usual best practices for calculating paying special attention to safety checks.

Decline the gambit.  Here 3. ..d5 instead of 3. ..dxc3 looks like a great move and probably what I would play.


Here is a thread on thought process / calculation that I recommend
What thought process should one use to find candidate moves?

31625: <p>For example, the Danish opening:</p>
<pre><code>[FEN &quot;&quot;]
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2
</code></pre>
<p>where basically, White gives up two pawns for positional play. And if you don't know the theory, you can lose by falling into traps.</p>
<p>So, how can you deal with this kind of gambits/traps opening, when you don't know the theory?</p>
 15223: <p>You lose, basically. Assuming opponent is familiar with the theory and you aren't, then a single misstep will lose you the game. <strong>Don't enter sharp lines if you don't know the theory</strong>.</p>
<p>If you are already in the sharp line, then the safest play is to avoid the most critical continuations and seek to simplify the position as quickly as possible. For gambits the most critical continuations are generally to take the material and try to keep it, which means your best bets are probably to either decline the gambit or to return the material to reach a tenable endgame. For the gambit you've listed, that means do not play 3...dxc3; go instead for something like 3...d5 or 3...Nc6.</p>
 17425: <p>There are two approaches, accept the gambit or decline the gambit.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Accept the gambit.  Follow the usual best practices for calculating paying special attention to safety checks.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Decline the gambit.  Here 3. ..d5 instead of 3. ..dxc3 looks like a great move and probably what I would play.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Here is a thread on thought process / calculation that I recommend</p>
<p><a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1609/what-thought-process-should-one-use-to-find-candidate-moves">What thought process should one use to find candidate moves?</a></p>
