Delete
Sort:
Nov 25, 2020
0
#2
Is the Hungarian gambit really a gambit because it’s easy to win back your pawn?
Nov 25, 2020
0
#3
Actually I meant Budapest. Most people argue that it isn’t a true gambit. Most people define a gambit as giving up material for rapid development and attack potential. The Queen’s Gambit really is more positional than attacking. So while technically you gambit a pawn, it’s not really in the spirit of what gambits are all about.
Nov 25, 2020
0
#4
Yes, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 is a true gambit, but only if White plays it like a gambit. White can choose to regain the pawn immediately or they can play it in gambit style.
Queens gambit is a gambit because its called a gambit.
llama45 wrote:
lol, this kid is 11 years old.
Guess I'll remove my funny post and keep it rated PG for the toddlers.
Im not a toddler idiot
I watched Pulp fiction already
When you cannot take back immediately or have guarantee to gain other ways of compensation, it is indeed a gambit. There are several ways in which black can hold onto the pawn, or white launches a kingside attack without ever taking back material.
Nov 25, 2020
0
#9
See at @exploringwa? I told you people people would argue about it. Some people take the strict definition side and some take the intent argument. It’s like those who argue that the constitution should be taken literally vs. those who say that you should look at what it’s goals were. Nobody is right, which is why they argue about both endlessly.
Nov 25, 2020
0
#10
Is offering to resign sportsmanship? Is trash talking in chat gamesmanship?
Nov 25, 2020
0
#11
Very interesting question but the answer is Yes, It is. If black accepts, it perfectly fits in the definition of a Gambit.
not a true gambit
Nov 26, 2020
0
#13
I used Forumfish to analyze what was going to be said early on in this thread and it perfectly predicted the arguments that would be made. Forums are dead. It did make one mistake: it suggest that on move #26 sausage would be mentioned.
Delete