For me, it's because I immediately understood the main idea while studying my first chess book some 40 years ago: develop and attack. What's your take on the Italian game?
The Italian has changed a lot in 40 years.
Here is a flawless ICCF correspondence game with it
https://lichess.org/game/ZTg0IgLT#5
Thanks for sharing!! There's a lot of interesting stuff happening in that game!
I switched to Evan's Gambit after 20+ years playing the mainline Italian. I still think Italian is a great starter opening as you get all your pieces out without too much risk. There's also a lot of variety, can play d3 or for d4 or play an early e5 (combined with c3 & d4). I would never play the Ruy Lopez, too much to memorize.
The flaw is thinking two humans are playing that game on ICCF.
"I switched to Evan's Gambit"
* Evans Gambit is harmless now
https://lichess.org/game/edLyS4d0#7
@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ez8kM0EI)
> "I switched to Evan's Gambit"
> * Evans Gambit is harmless now
> https://lichess.org/game/edLyS4d0#7
why did it became harmless, because more people studied it ?
"why did it became harmless"
* Because of engine analysis.
@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/12lV9V4d)
> "why did it became harmless"
> * Because of engine analysis.
" the gambit is harmless because of stockfish " wouldnt that mean all gambits are harmles , because they can all be studied with stockfish ?
"wouldnt that mean all gambits are harmles"
* Most gambits are mistakes.
A few gambits remain viable: Queen's Gambit, Catalan, Two Knights Defense, Scotch Opening, Marshall Attack.