Talk:Gambit

Give material back

I don't understand the paragraph below that appears in the article. What does it mean to "give material back"? What is a "sound gambit"? I really don't understand the next two sentences about "free development moves". Can somebody who does understand what is meant here please clarify this paragraph? Here it is:

"In modern chess, the typical response to a moderately sound gambit is to accept the material and give the material back at an advantageous time. For gambits that are less sound, the accepting player is more likely to try to hold onto his extra material. A rule of thumb often found in various primers on chess suggests that a player should get 3 moves of development for a sacrificed pawn, but it is unclear how useful this general maxim is since the "free moves" part of the compensation is almost never the entirety of what the gambiteer gains." Red Plum 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I rearranged the information to (hopefully) alleviate some of the confusion and provided short definitions where I felt was helpful. It's still far from 'clear,' though. TilonRespir (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguous

Is it true that 'Gambit' is a character of the famous TV-series, that had also starring the characters 'John Steed', 'Emma Peel', 'Purdey', ... ? In that case this could be added at the end of this article. Bob.v.R 18:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well relly it should be in the disambiguous, but only once it's confirmed.Wolfmankurd 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen's Gambit

Removed section in Queen's Gambit

"This is the most played "gambit", but it is technically not a gambit since white can guarantee the recovery of his pawn (most simply 2. ..dxc4 3. Qa4+ Nc6 4. e3, but usually more subtle lines).

The above would seem to be false. Cannot see anything technically none Gambit about the 'Queen's Gambit'. ChessCreator (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gambit (chess)

Seems there are many visits to this 'Gambit' topic, would perhaps be links from none chess related topics? Perhaps renaming to Gambit (chess) might help this? Example false link from Bill Sienkiewicz, Ultimate Spider-Man. ChessCreator (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe but I'm not sure. Perhaps Gambit (chess) and send Gambit to disambig. But the chess use is the granddaddy of the term. But on the other hand, there are many non-chess titles. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, on second thoughts keep 'Gambit' as it is. Better to remove the links incorrectly pointing here. ChessCreator (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Soundness

The Danish Gambit may not be such a great example to give as a sound gambit - there are arguably gambits are more sound, such as the Queen's Gambit, or the Scotch Gambit. In many lines of the Danish, the Black player can retain one extra pawn with an advantage, so its soundness is somewhat dubious. dawhipsta (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhaha, what kind of people are editing wikipedia here? Black can FORCE an advantage for an endgame where white has to play for a draw if you're playing the danish, how on earth is that gambit sound?

This is why wikipedia is not to be trusted, folks, 1200 rated people try to type as they know something.

Put in King's gambit or the evans gambit as a suggestion if you want a real gambit which is sound. Queen's gambit can't be called a gambit, you get the pawn back every single time83.249.118.124 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gambit type of opening?

Ok am I crazy or is limiting the term "gambit" to only be a type of opening kind of incorrect? It is true that there are many openings that ARE gambits, and that the word gambit is most often used when referring to an opening but the word gambit (at least these days) is not bound to this. If you listen to any live commentary videos of chess players, or read/listen to analysis from players (up to the GM level) you will often hear them saying things like "I decided to gambit the pawn" not only referring to an opening but also in the middle game, and even rarely in the endgame. And even though this usage is very similar to just saying "sacrifice" I can still see a distinction between the word gambit and sacrifice, aside from the fact that the word gambit is more chess-specific, the distinction seems to lie in the type of position that results in the material sacrifice. Usually it's still unclear after a gambit if the material sacrifice will work or somehow relies on how the opponent responds whereas the word sacrifice is a more clearcut material disadvantage which may or may not be sound play.

24.111.116.220 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Matt S.