Talk:Gambit

On 5 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Chess gambit. The result of the discussion was not moved.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's true that it's technically not a gambit in that White can immediately regain the pawn with 3. Qa4+ and 4. Qxc4Chessmasterguy (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Chessmasterguy[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did not see your comment, but just added the "dubious" tag to the gambit. I don't think it is that sound. I just looked in my database which as 3.5 million games wtih an average ration of 2242. The average rating of the players playing the Danish gambit is only 1919, so it does not appear that it is played at the top level, so I don't think it is sound. I don't know what is the best example of a true gambit. As noted, the queens gambit is not really a gambit. I suspect the King's Gambit is one of the sounder ones, though I'm not convinced that is sound either. But it is sounder than the Danish. Drkirkby (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts about the soundness of the Danish Gambit with 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2, not because of 5...d5 which leads to an equal endgame with best play, but because of 5...Bb4+ and 5...Nf6. In neither case it is clear that White has enough for two pawns. I believe that the version with 4.Nxc3 is sound, but some sources disagree with me. I don't think the Queen's Gambit is a very good example either for reasons that others have given. The Scotch Gambit would be a very good example in my opinion- it is a "true" gambit since White is forced to sacrifice a pawn speculatively after 4...Bb4+ or 4...Bc5 5.c3 dxc3, but in both cases gets very good compensation, while Black's best responses are near-universally regarded to involve returning the pawn (4...Nf6, 4...Bc5 5.c3 Nf6). The Staunton Gambit (1.d4 f5 2.e4) is another gambit that is near-universally considered sound. Tws45 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

Etymology paragraph needs some work

I've marked the second paragraph of the lead section as needing a citation, and really it should probably also have textual attribution (i.e., state who made the claim that the etymology of "gambit" is as it is). These sorts of etymologies are notoriously fraught with controversy. I'll also say that from an initial check just on the Oxford English Dictionary, it provides attestations of "gambit" in English going back to the 17th century (though I presume the statement in the article is referring to the use of the term metaphorically outside of chess, in which case it does correspond to an 1855 attestation). Anyway, I think it need citing and a bit of polishing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gambit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528071317/http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa04g10.htm to http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa04g10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gambetto (ancient italian word)

It doesn't mean leg. It's an ancient form of the word "sgambetto" which means "tipping". Since in english "tipping" is quite an ambiguous word, i might add this to make it more clear.

sgambetto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.118.25 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so vague

I have chose to remove the items in the see also section because of their vague connections to this page ; please debate my conclusions if you find the edit unsatisfactory and I will explain my reasons for doing so ; hopefully we are able to come to some agreement that pleases both of us Solitaire addict jabberwocky (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English variety

Ok the original edit by an IP established the spelling "defence", though curiously the IP was based in the US. Later Krakatoa (talk · contribs) introduced the US spelling "center". So based on the article history I'm leaning towards using US spellings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This discussion was split oppose–support 5–3, not counting the nominator, but this is, of course not a vote. However, supporters failed to stand any arguments that were not conclusively dismissed by the opposition. Cobblet's comment is especially elucidating. (non-admin closure) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gambit → Chess gambit
Gambit (disambiguation) → Gambit

– The Pageviews show that the chess gambit is not the primary topic here with the Marvel character having around 5x as much views. The disambiguation page should probably be the primary with the amount of topics listed there. Gonnym (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per the long term significance of the chess concept. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Chess has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, long term significance. 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes the chess meaning is the only use I've heard of but in addition to views and there are it seems unrelated uses like the forum and unit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is the original, well established and still current meaning of the word "gambit". All other uses of the word are derivative of this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A search on Google Books is, surprisingly, evenly split between the chess and X-Men meanings. No evidence has been presented toward the claim of the chess opening's long-term significance; being the original source of the name is ... not determinative per WP:DPT. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chess has been around a lot longer than X-Men. Presumably Google Books includes comics? YorkshireExpat (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would you accept as evidence for long-term significance? Its use has historically remained ubiquitous in the chess world, as well as by direct analogy. Remsense留 04:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The word first appeared in English in a 1656 chess book, The Royall Game of Chesse-play. For two hundred years, "gambit" was not even used in a metaphorical sense.[1] Before the creation of the Marvel character in 1990, the word's primary meaning was indisputably associated with chess, and even today, the chess definition of "gambit" remains primary in Merriam-Webster. The Marvel character is part of pop culture; at this moment we cannot speak of it having demonstrated any long-term significance compared to the centuries-old chess term. It would be more appropriate to speak of long-term significance if the Marvel franchise is still around in 50 years' time. Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I would add that the word 'gambit' is regularly used in politics articles when something risky is going on. This type of usage is entirely predicated on the original chess meaning, and has nothing to do with X-Men. The article already has a paragraph on this, and a quick search on recent news articles will prove it. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note WP:D has updated advice on how to analyze statistics. Page views alone are not sufficient to demonstrate usage, and for example we have https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Gambit and https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Gambit_%28disambiguation%29 which tell us more about how readers actually navigate. Right now it shows that in October '23, we could identify 378 clickstreams towards the hatnote over a total incoming traffic of 6.2k (~6%) and total identifiable outgoing traffic of 1.6k (~24%). This isn't conclusive at all, and a more coherent argument needs to be made about why it's better for the average reader to see the disambiguation list as opposed to this page. --Joy (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the chess sense remains the primary topic either directly or by analogy. Remsense留 20:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.