its bad dont play it
Why is this called a gambit?
Sort:
It's a Gambit for Black, as Black is the one sacrificing a pawn.
Jun 26, 2021
0
#4
Uživatel KamikazeJohnson napsal:
It's a Gambit for Black, as Black is the one sacrificing a pawn.
Yeah i think so also... its just a variation of Budapest gambit so they call it gambit too...
Jun 26, 2021
0
#5
FoxWithNekoEars wrote:
Uživatel KamikazeJohnson napsal:
It's a Gambit for Black, as Black is the one sacrificing a pawn.
Yeah i think so also... its just a variation of Budapest gambit so they call it gambit too...
A countergambit?
Jun 26, 2021
0
#6
I think it's because you have to play 8 more games against me so I can try to adopt you
Jun 26, 2021
0
#7
hvenki wrote:
I think it's because you have to play 8 more games against me so I can try to adopt you
.....
Jun 27, 2021
0
#8
melvinbluestone wrote:
As soon as black plays 2...e5, it's a gambit, as there's no way to regain the pawn immediately. I think the OP is wondering why it gets called a gambit again, with another name, after 6.Nc3. White is not gambiting a pawn with that move. Well, Chess.com's nomenclature in their DB is a bit screwy, to say the least.
The idea that in certain openings the advantage of the bishop pair or good pawn structure can be given up, or "gambited", makes perfect sense. However, I never saw an opening called a 'gambit" based on these strategic ideas. That would be like calling the exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez (4.Bxc6) a gambit, as white is giving up the bishop pair right in the opening.
Yes, I wasn't talking about the Budapest just 6. nc3 from white
Jun 27, 2021
0
#9
pfren wrote:
White is gambitting a crippled pawn structure, and Black is gambitting the bishop pair.
And technically, the Budapest is having a very tough time after 4.e3! Nxe5 5.f4.
The idea is similar to the Alekhine variation, but the pawn at e3 (instead of e4) severely limits Black's counterplay at the Black squares.
Makes sense, but wouldn't e3 create a weak pawn that black could exploit in a potential endgame?
Jun 28, 2021
0
#10
instead of 5. ng6 in that line, could you play nec6 instead or would that make it too hard to develop for black?
Jun 29, 2021
0
#11
pfren wrote:
DaBabysBurner έγραψε:
instead of 5. ng6 in that line, could you play nec6 instead or would that make it too hard to develop for black?
FM Plichta gives this line as the better choice in a course he has authored, and tried to Improve on previous analysis from Gm Slagado Lopez. However, he just gives one short line where Black is allowed to develop with ...g6 and ..Bg7. In reality, Black's task is much tougher.
alright, thanks for clarifying. I find that most people my level play 4. nf3 instead of 4. e4 or e3 and I can usually transpose into a Rubinstein variation where i know more theory (than in the other variations) or just play 4. bc5 and have a decent game, but i'll keep that in mind if I face 4. e3
I was preparing for a game and decided to play the Budapest gambit (not talking about the Budapest lol) as I knew I would be able to get it on the board against a player that's only played it once
Apparently 6. nc3 is called the "Kornl Richter gambit" as opposed to 6. nbd2 the main line of the Rubinstein variation. My hypothesis is that white is "gambiting" a bad pawn structure, although I'm not actually sure why it's called a gambit. Why is it?