Talk:Gambit

message: 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)
thread_title:  Give material back 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Queen's Gambit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Gambit (chess)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Soundness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gambit type of opening? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology paragraph needs some work 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gambetto (ancient italian word) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is it so vague  

message: Ok the original edit by an IP established the spelling "defence", though curiously the IP was based in the US. Later  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)
thread_title:  English variety 

message: :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)
replies: text: Note: WikiProject Chess has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 January 2024