Basically, giving up material for non-material compensation, normally out if the opening, can be considered a gambit.
So, giving up a pawn out if the opening for faster development would likely count. Many gambits don't regain the material deficit until later in the game. Though, some gambits may be considered dubious.
thanks martin. as you say, no gambit has to be sound and refuted or not, they do have one thing in common. the sac is made in an attempt to get some kind of perceived compensation. (even if it's a simple as space/mobility), but they, normally, have the word 'gambit' in the opening variation. The only exception, i know of, is the two knights fried liver attack and its traxler counter variation. (Perhaps it's because they are like 5-6 moves in? or because they are not pawn sacs?)
so does the term gambit in an opening share some rules of some kind? ie involving pawn sacs, no more than 5 moves?
as i can't see a reason why move 8, in my example above, doesn't have a gambit variation name. it clearly sacs off a pawn regardless of it's soundness? it's not like the alternative moves are all losing. bc4 looks sound.
Hi dear chess friend. Greetings from the great nation of Spain which used to rule the seas.
Martin was completely right, however in some gambits the best thing the other side can do is give back material, take for example the Kozul Gambit.
Usually in opening literature unless you win the pawn the next move it is considered a gambit. Even if the best thing to do is give it back or if you can win it back in some moves.
Another gambit in which the gambitter gets back the pawn is the 10.e5 move in the Spassky closed sicilian.
A gambit is that you are aware that you are tossing away a pawn, otherwise it's called a blunder.
What's the difference between a gambit and a poisoned pawn?
A poisoned pawn is one, that if taken, will cause the taking player to lose material or concede some other advantage.
A poisoned pawn is one, that if taken, will cause the taking player to lose material or concede some other advantage.
INCORRECT DUD, dont forget about the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn
Poisoned gambit? And what Mainline are you talking about? The Steinitz and the Classical together with the Winawer are all very popular.
There are some pretty crazy gambit lines in the Winawer. Who said the French Defense was boring?
Here's a gambit line where Black traps White's Queen, and White replies by trapping Black's Queen:
When is a gambit officially a gambit?
I mean who decides and what are the rules?
Typically sacing a pawn off early in an opening constitutes a gambit opening.
But how many moves?
I mean if you follow main lines best play and you end up sacing a pawn off in move 8, does that count?
If it's a main line and it's clearly a sac?
Example:
r1bqr1k1/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/8/1b2P3/2N1Q3/PPPB1PPP/2KR1BNR w -
C22: Center Game, Berger Variation, 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Bd2 O-O 7.O-O-O Re8
the sac being a main line move, it's clearly intentional.
8. Qg3,Rxe4
White never gets the pawn back before all known variations of the opening ends?
(or any form of real compensation for that matter i think?)
Does this make it a gambit? As i say, "When is a gambit officially a gambit?".
What are the rules?