Talk:Gambit

Chess Stub‑class High‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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. 129.31.75.33 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]