Jump to content

Gambit: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
5,346,356 edits
Altered url. URLs might have been anonymized. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | #UCB_CommandLine
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Chess opening in which a player sacrifices material with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position}}
{{Short description|Sacrificial chess opening}}
{{other uses}}
{{other uses}}
{{Chess diagram
{{Chess diagram
| tright
| tright
| fen=rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4PP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2
|
| footer=King's Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4. If Black takes the pawn (...exf4), White has a stronger attack in the opening.
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
|pd|pd|pd| |pd|pd|pd|pd
| | | | | | | |
| | | |pd| | | |
| | |pl|pl| | | |
| | | | | | | |
|pl|pl| | |pl|pl|pl|pl
|rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl
| Queen's Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4. If Black takes the pawn (...dxc4), White can play e2–e4 to take control of the center, while threatening to recapture the black pawn (Bxc4).
}}
}}


A '''gambit''' (from ancient Italian ''sgambetto'', meaning "to trip") is a [[chess opening]] in which a player [[sacrifice (chess)|sacrifices]] {{chessgloss|material}} with the aim of achieving a subsequent {{chessgloss|positional play|positional}} advantage.<ref>Edward R. Brace, ''An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess'', Hamlyn, 1979, p. 114. {{ISBN|0-600-32920-8}}.</ref> The word "[[wikt:gambit|gambit]]" is also sometimes used to describe similar tactics used by politicians or business people in a struggle with rivals in their respective fields, for example "The early election was a risky gambit by [[Theresa May]]".
A '''gambit''' (from Italian {{lang|it|gambetto}}, the act of tripping someone with the leg to make them fall) is a [[chess opening]] in which a player [[sacrifice (chess)|sacrifices]] {{chessgloss|material}} with the aim of achieving a subsequent {{chessgloss|positional play|positional}} advantage.<ref>{{cite book|last=Brace|first=Edward R.|year=1979|title=An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess|publisher=Hamlyn|page=114|isbn=0-600-32920-8}}</ref>
The word ''[[wikt:gambit|gambit]]'' is also sometimes used to describe similar tactics used by politicians or business people in a struggle with rivals in their fields, for example: "The [[2017 United Kingdom general election|early election]] was a risky gambit by [[Theresa May]]."


{{AN chess|pos=toc}}
{{AN chess|pos=toc}}


== Terminology ==
== Terminology ==
The word "gambit" was originally applied to chess openings in 1561 by Spanish priest [[Ruy López de Segura]], from an Italian expression ''dare il gambetto'' (to put a leg forward in order to trip someone). López studied this maneuver, and so the Italian word gained the Spanish form ''gambito'' that led to French ''gambit'', which has influenced the English spelling of the word. The broader sense of "opening move meant to gain advantage" was first recorded in English in 1855.<ref>{{cite web|title=Gambit|url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/gambit|website=Online Etymology Dictionary |access-date=11 June 2019}}</ref>
The Spanish word ''gambito'' was originally applied to chess openings in 1561 by [[Ruy López de Segura]], from an Italian expression ''dare il gambetto'' (to put a leg forward in order to trip someone). In English, the word first appeared in [[Francis Beale (writer)|Francis Beale]]'s 1656 translation of a [[Gioachino Greco]] manuscript, ''The Royall Game of Chesse-play'' ("illustrated with almost one hundred Gambetts"<ref>{{cite book |last=Greco |first=Gioachino |author-link=Gioachino Greco |translator-last=Beale |translator-first=Francis |translator-link=Francis Beale (writer) |title=The Royall Game of Chesse-play |publisher=[[Henry Herringman]] |date=1656 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cPxYAAAAYAAJ |access-date=6 January 2024}}</ref>). The Spanish ''gambito'' led to French ''gambit'', which has influenced the English spelling of the word. The metaphorical sense of the word as "opening move meant to gain advantage" was first recorded in English in 1855.<ref>{{cite web |last1=O’Conner |first1=Patricia T. |last2=Kellerman |first2=Stewart |url=https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/09/gamut-gambit.html |title=Run the gambit? |website=Grammarphobia |date=18 September 2017 |access-date=6 January 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Harper |first=Douglas |title=Gambit|url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/gambit|website=Online Etymology Dictionary |access-date=11 June 2019}}</ref>


Gambits are most commonly played by [[White and Black in chess|White]]. Some well-known examples of a gambit are the [[King's Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.f4) and [[Evans Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4). A gambit employed by Black may also be named a gambit, e.g. the [[Latvian Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), or [[Englund Gambit]] (1.d4 e5); but is sometimes named a "countergambit", e.g. the [[Albin Countergambit]] (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5) and [[Greco Countergambit]] (the original name for the Latvian Gambit). Not all opening lines involving the sacrifice of material are named as gambits, for example the main line of the [[Two Knights Defence]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5) in which Black sacrifices a pawn for active play is known as the "Knorre Variation", though it may be ''described'' as a "gambit". On the other hand, the [[Queen's Gambit]] (1.d4 d5 2.c4) is not a true gambit as Black cannot hold the pawn without incurring a disadvantage. As is often the case with chess openings, nomenclature is inconsistent.
Gambits are more commonly played by [[White and Black in chess|White]]. Some well-known examples of a gambit are the [[King's Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.f4) and [[Evans Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4). A gambit employed by Black may also be named a gambit, e.g. the [[Latvian Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), or [[Englund Gambit]] (1.d4 e5); but is sometimes named a "countergambit", e.g. the [[Albin Countergambit]] (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5) and [[Greco Countergambit]] (the original name for the Latvian Gambit). Not all opening lines involving the sacrifice of material are named as gambits, for example the main line of the [[Two Knights Defense]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5) in which Black sacrifices a pawn for active play is known as the "Knorre Variation", though it may be ''described'' as a "gambit". On the other hand, the [[Queen's Gambit]] (1.d4 d5 2.c4) is not a true gambit as Black cannot hold the pawn without incurring a disadvantage. As is often the case with chess openings, nomenclature is inconsistent.


== Strategy ==
== Strategy ==

{| class="toccolours" style=" margin: 0 0 1em 1em; border:none; font-size: 95%; clear: right; padding:0" align="right"
{{col-begin|width=auto; float:right; clear:right}}
|+
{{col-break}}
|-
|{{Chess diagram small
|{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|
|
|
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
Line 41: Line 35:
| Queen's Gambit Accepted
| Queen's Gambit Accepted
}}
}}
{{col-break}}
| {{Chess diagram small
{{Chess diagram small
|
|tright
|
|
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
Line 54: Line 49:
| Queen's Gambit Declined
| Queen's Gambit Declined
}}
}}
{{col-end}}
|}


Gambits are described as being "offered" to an opponent, and that offer is then said to be either "accepted" or "declined".
Gambits are described as being "offered" to an opponent, and that offer is then said to be either "accepted" or "declined".
Line 62: Line 57:
== Soundness ==
== Soundness ==
A gambit is said to be 'sound' if it is capable of procuring adequate concessions from the opponent. There are three general criteria in which a gambit is often said to be sound:
A gambit is said to be 'sound' if it is capable of procuring adequate concessions from the opponent. There are three general criteria in which a gambit is often said to be sound:
# Time gain: the player accepting the gambit must take time to procure the sacrificed material and possibly must use more time to reorganize his pieces after the material is taken.
# Time gain: the player accepting the gambit must take time to procure the sacrificed material and possibly must use more time to reorganize their pieces after the material is taken.
# Generation of differential activity: often a player accepting a gambit will decentralize his pieces or pawns and his poorly placed pieces will allow the gambiteer to place his own pieces and pawns on squares that might otherwise have been inaccessible. In addition, bishops and rooks can become more active simply because the loss of pawns often gives rise to open {{chessgloss|files}} and {{chessgloss|diagonals}}. Former world champion [[Mikhail Tal]] once reportedly told [[Mikhail Botvinnik]] that he had sacrificed a pawn because it was simply in the way.<ref>{{cite book |title=Russian Silhouettes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3iJBCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA20 |first=Genna |last=Sosonko |date = 6 June 2014|author-link=Genna Sosonko |access-date=31 January 2016 |publisher=New in Chess|isbn = 9789056914851}}</ref>
# Generation of differential activity: often a player accepting a gambit will decentralize their pieces or pawns and their poorly placed pieces will allow the gambiteer to place their own pieces and pawns on squares that might otherwise have been inaccessible. In addition, bishops and rooks can become more active simply because the loss of pawns often gives rise to open {{chessgloss|files}} and {{chessgloss|diagonals}}. Former world champion [[Mikhail Tal]] once reportedly told [[Mikhail Botvinnik]] that he had sacrificed a pawn because it was simply in the way.<ref>{{cite book |title=Russian Silhouettes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3iJBCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA20 |first=Genna |last=Sosonko |date = 6 June 2014|author-link=Genna Sosonko |access-date=31 January 2016 |publisher=New in Chess|isbn = 9789056914851}}</ref>
# Generation of positional weaknesses: finally, accepting a gambit may lead to a compromised [[pawn structure]], holes or other positional deficiencies.
# Generation of positional weaknesses: finally, accepting a gambit may lead to a compromised [[pawn structure]], holes or other positional deficiencies.


Line 74: Line 69:
*[[Evans Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
*[[Evans Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
*[[Rousseau Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5
*[[Rousseau Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5
*[[Sicilian Defence, Smith–Morra Gambit|Smith–Morra Gambit]]: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 intending 2. ..cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3
*[[Smith–Morra Gambit]]: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 intending 2...cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3
*[[Two Knights Defence]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 with 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 likely to follow
*[[Two Knights Defense]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 with 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 likely to follow
*[[Blackmar–Diemer Gambit]] (BDG): 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 followed by 4.f3
*[[Blackmar–Diemer Gambit]] (BDG): 1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 followed by 4.f3
*[[From's Gambit]]: 1.f4 e5
*[[From's Gambit]]: 1.f4 e5
Line 84: Line 79:
*[[Danish Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3. c3
*[[Danish Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3. c3
*[[Blackburne Shilling Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4{{chesspunc|?!}}
*[[Blackburne Shilling Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4{{chesspunc|?!}}
:This is not a true gambit by Black, since after 4.Nxe5{{chesspunc|!?}} Qg5{{chesspunc|!}} Black wins material. White can (and from this position should) play a gambit himself with 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.0-0! Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Nc6 9.d4, when White's two pawns and rolling pawn center, combined with Black's misplaced king, give White strong compensation for the sacrificed bishop.
:This is not a true gambit by Black, since after 4.Nxe5{{chesspunc|!?}} Qg5{{chesspunc|!}} Black wins material. White can play a gambit themselves with 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.0-0! Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Nc6 9.d4, when White's two pawns and rolling pawn center, combined with Black's misplaced king, give White strong compensation for the sacrificed bishop.
*[[Elephant Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5!?
*[[Elephant Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5!?
*[[Englund Gambit]]: 1.d4 e5?!
*[[Englund Gambit]]: 1.d4 e5?!
*[[Italian Gambit]]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d4
*[[Italian Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4
*[[Fried Liver Attack]]: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7
*[[Fried Liver Attack]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7
*[[Albin Countergambit]]: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5
*[[Albin Countergambit]]: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
*[[Benko Gambit]]: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5
*[[Benko Gambit]]: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5
*[[French Defence|Milner Barry Gambit]]: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 8.Nc3 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4
*[[French Defense|Milner Barry Gambit]]: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 8.Nc3 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4
*[[Vienna Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4

==See also==
* [[Cannon fodder]]
* [[Hail Mary pass]]
* [[Sacrificial lamb]]
* [[Trojan horse]]


==Notes==
==Notes==

Latest revision as of 17:01, 26 April 2024

For other uses, see Gambit (disambiguation).
abcdefgh
8
a8 black rook
b8 black knight
c8 black bishop
d8 black queen
e8 black king
f8 black bishop
g8 black knight
h8 black rook
a7 black pawn
b7 black pawn
c7 black pawn
d7 black pawn
f7 black pawn
g7 black pawn
h7 black pawn
e5 black pawn
e4 white pawn
f4 white pawn
a2 white pawn
b2 white pawn
c2 white pawn
d2 white pawn
g2 white pawn
h2 white pawn
a1 white rook
b1 white knight
c1 white bishop
d1 white queen
e1 white king
f1 white bishop
g1 white knight
h1 white rook
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
King's Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4. If Black takes the pawn (...exf4), White has a stronger attack in the opening.

A gambit (from Italian gambetto, the act of tripping someone with the leg to make them fall) is a chess opening in which a player sacrifices material with the aim of achieving a subsequent positional advantage.[1]

The word gambit is also sometimes used to describe similar tactics used by politicians or business people in a struggle with rivals in their fields, for example: "The early election was a risky gambit by Theresa May."

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

Terminology

[edit]

The Spanish word gambito was originally applied to chess openings in 1561 by Ruy López de Segura, from an Italian expression dare il gambetto (to put a leg forward in order to trip someone). In English, the word first appeared in Francis Beale's 1656 translation of a Gioachino Greco manuscript, The Royall Game of Chesse-play ("illustrated with almost one hundred Gambetts"[2]). The Spanish gambito led to French gambit, which has influenced the English spelling of the word. The metaphorical sense of the word as "opening move meant to gain advantage" was first recorded in English in 1855.[3][4]

Gambits are more commonly played by White. Some well-known examples of a gambit are the King's Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4) and Evans Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4). A gambit employed by Black may also be named a gambit, e.g. the Latvian Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), or Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5); but is sometimes named a "countergambit", e.g. the Albin Countergambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5) and Greco Countergambit (the original name for the Latvian Gambit). Not all opening lines involving the sacrifice of material are named as gambits, for example the main line of the Two Knights Defense (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5) in which Black sacrifices a pawn for active play is known as the "Knorre Variation", though it may be described as a "gambit". On the other hand, the Queen's Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4) is not a true gambit as Black cannot hold the pawn without incurring a disadvantage. As is often the case with chess openings, nomenclature is inconsistent.

Strategy

[edit]

Gambits are described as being "offered" to an opponent, and that offer is then said to be either "accepted" or "declined".

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 on to their extra material. A rule of thumb often found in various primers on chess suggests that a player should get three moves (see tempo) 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. Often, a gambit can be declined with no disadvantage.

Soundness

[edit]

A gambit is said to be 'sound' if it is capable of procuring adequate concessions from the opponent. There are three general criteria in which a gambit is often said to be sound:

  1. Time gain: the player accepting the gambit must take time to procure the sacrificed material and possibly must use more time to reorganize their pieces after the material is taken.
  2. Generation of differential activity: often a player accepting a gambit will decentralize their pieces or pawns and their poorly placed pieces will allow the gambiteer to place their own pieces and pawns on squares that might otherwise have been inaccessible. In addition, bishops and rooks can become more active simply because the loss of pawns often gives rise to open files and diagonals. Former world champion Mikhail Tal once reportedly told Mikhail Botvinnik that he had sacrificed a pawn because it was simply in the way.[5]
  3. Generation of positional weaknesses: finally, accepting a gambit may lead to a compromised pawn structure, holes or other positional deficiencies.

An example of a sound gambit is the Scotch Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4. Here Black can force White to sacrifice a pawn speculatively with 4...Bb4+, but White gets very good compensation for one pawn after 5.c3 dxc3 6.bxc3, or for two pawns after 6.0-0 inviting 6...cxb2 7.Bxb2, due to the development advantage and attacking chances against the black king. As a result, Black is often advised not to try to hold on to the extra pawn. A more dubious gambit is the so-called Halloween Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5?! Nxe5 5.d4. Here the investment (a knight for just one pawn) is too large for the moderate advantage of having a strong center.

Examples

[edit]
Main article: List of chess gambits
This is not a true gambit by Black, since after 4.Nxe5!? Qg5! Black wins material. White can play a gambit themselves with 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.0-0! Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Nc6 9.d4, when White's two pawns and rolling pawn center, combined with Black's misplaced king, give White strong compensation for the sacrificed bishop.

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Brace, Edward R. (1979). An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess. Hamlyn. p. 114. ISBN 0-600-32920-8.
  2. ^ Greco, Gioachino (1656). The Royall Game of Chesse-play. Translated by Beale, Francis. Henry Herringman. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
  3. ^ O’Conner, Patricia T.; Kellerman, Stewart (18 September 2017). "Run the gambit?". Grammarphobia. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
  4. ^ Harper, Douglas. "Gambit". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 11 June 2019.
  5. ^ Sosonko, Genna (6 June 2014). Russian Silhouettes. New in Chess. ISBN 9789056914851. Retrieved 31 January 2016.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Chess Opening Theory
Look up gambit in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gambit&oldid=1220906234"