royalknight101 wrote:
its a gambit, just not a very traditional one
Why do they believe that it's a gambit when someone can always get back their pawn?
In the King's / Halloween / Italian / Wing Gambit you don't have such an opportunity.
The Queen's Gambit is not a gambit. Change my mind.
Sort:
Tails204 wrote:
royalknight101 wrote:
its a gambit, just not a very traditional one
Why do they believe that it's a gambit when someone can always get back their pawn?
In the King's / Halloween / Italian / Wing Gambit you don't have such an opportunity.
I believe this is called a sound gambit. Gambits don’t always have to be unnecessarily risky or dangerous. They’re simply a sacrifice of a pawn or piece in exchange for a better position, not always a wild trap.
correct, the queen's gambit isn't really a gambit
Aug 8, 2021
0
#5
Tails204 wrote:
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.
I play this opening a lot and there is a lot of joking with whether or not this opening is a gambit or not. Clearly, it "sacrifices" a pawn and therefore it was named a "gambit" back when the opening was first discovered and named (pre-1600 since that is when Greco was studying openings like this in his games collection; btw, I mean pre YEAR 1600 and not rating 
)
Modern consensus has been that the Queen's Gambit is not a "true gambit" since the pawn can always be won back (or a larger advantage via initiative or other compensation if White plays optimally while letting Black keep the "extra" pawn).
Now we get into the debate of what defines a "gambit" opening. It isn't how sound it is...is it? Some "gambit" openings seem to be getting a reputation that they are sound; should we change the names for those openings? If one defines a "gambit" purely by offering material...then 2. c4 offers material and the Queen's Gambit should be called a gambit.
I just consider this opening a "gambit", but not a "true gambit" (connotation of being an unsound sacrifice attempting to catch the unprepared xD)
I think it’s safe to say there’s a large range of gambits
In terms of the kind of compensation you get
Tails204 escreveu:
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.
You're right lol
Aug 8, 2021
0
#9
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
Tails204 wrote:
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.
I play this opening a lot and there is a lot of joking with whether or not this opening is a gambit or not. Clearly, it "sacrifices" a pawn and therefore it was named a "gambit" back when the opening was first discovered and named (pre-1600 since that is when Greco was studying openings like this in his games collection; btw, I mean pre YEAR 1600 and not rating )
Modern consensus has been that the Queen's Gambit is not a "true gambit" since the pawn can always be won back (or a larger advantage via initiative or other compensation if White plays optimally while letting Black keep the "extra" pawn).
Now we get into the debate of what defines a "gambit" opening. It isn't how sound it is...is it? Some "gambit" openings seem to be getting a reputation that they are sound; should we change the names for those openings? If one defines a "gambit" purely by offering material...then 2. c4 offers material and the Queen's Gambit should be called a gambit.
I just consider this opening a "gambit", but not a "true gambit" (connotation of being an unsound sacrifice attempting to catch the unprepared xD)
Botez Gambit is better.
Aug 8, 2021
0
#12
Tails204 wrote:
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.
White can reclaim the pawn, but in some lines, black can greatly improve his position while white burns time trying to win the pawn back.
Example:
White won the "gambit" pawn back. But now black has connected passed pawns on the a and b files.
White has to play with care, or black will steamroll over him.
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
Tails204 wrote:
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.
White can reclaim the pawn, but in some lines, black can greatly improve his position while white burns time trying to win the pawn back.
Example:
White won the "gambit" pawn back. But now black has connected passed pawns on the a and b files.
White has to play with care, or black will steamroll over him.
Funny how this is +0.4 and this is a known variation. Who cares about the connected pawns. It's not an endgame. Because of the light square bishop, because white can make a huge pawn storm, and because white can remove the a pawn with good play and destroy the b pawn later, I would actually like to play white here.
even if it's not the endgame, black can still push the a- and b-pawns very soon, and white has to be very careful
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
mrfreezyiceboy wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
Tails204 wrote:
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.
White can reclaim the pawn, but in some lines, black can greatly improve his position while white burns time trying to win the pawn back.
Example:
White won the "gambit" pawn back. But now black has connected passed pawns on the a and b files.
White has to play with care, or black will steamroll over him.
Funny how this is +0.4 and this is a known variation. Who cares about the connected pawns. It's not an endgame. Because of the light square bishop, because white can make a huge pawn storm, and because white can remove the a pawn with good play and destroy the b pawn later, I would actually like to play white here.
even if it's not the endgame, black can still push the a- and b-pawns very soon, and white has to be very careful
ha! White can just block the a pawn with the light squared bishop and they will be all right.
still not so simple though, because black will bring pieces to the queenside, and the lsb alone will not be enough if you get too carried away in the center and kingside
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
Tails204 wrote:
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.
I play this opening a lot and there is a lot of joking with whether or not this opening is a gambit or not. Clearly, it "sacrifices" a pawn and therefore it was named a "gambit" back when the opening was first discovered and named (pre-1600 since that is when Greco was studying openings like this in his games collection; btw, I mean pre YEAR 1600 and not rating )
Modern consensus has been that the Queen's Gambit is not a "true gambit" since the pawn can always be won back (or a larger advantage via initiative or other compensation if White plays optimally while letting Black keep the "extra" pawn).
Now we get into the debate of what defines a "gambit" opening. It isn't how sound it is...is it? Some "gambit" openings seem to be getting a reputation that they are sound; should we change the names for those openings? If one defines a "gambit" purely by offering material...then 2. c4 offers material and the Queen's Gambit should be called a gambit.
I just consider this opening a "gambit", but not a "true gambit" (connotation of being an unsound sacrifice attempting to catch the unprepared xD)
Good explanation! Yes, this name is determined only by an old (and wrong) tradition. And perhaps the title "Queen's Gambit" would have sounded appropriate five hundred years ago, but now it is completely irrelevant. It's definitely not a real gambit, but it's a gambit nonetheless, haha.
talliholic wrote:
tails u kinda annoying tbh
I'm just a man who wants to be honest with other people. There's nothing annoying unless someone's trying to prove wrong opinions - and I don't want to be such a person.
Aug 8, 2021
0
#18
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
White can reclaim the pawn, but in some lines, black can greatly improve his position while white burns time trying to win the pawn back.
Example:
White won the "gambit" pawn back. But now black has connected passed pawns on the a and b files.
White has to play with care, or black will steamroll over him.
Funny how this is +0.4 and this is a known variation. Who cares about the connected pawns. It's not an endgame. Because of the light square bishop, because white can make a huge pawn storm, and because white can remove the a pawn with good play and destroy the b pawn later, I would actually like to play white here.
Easier said than done. Many grandmasters have lost as white from that position.
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Stil1 wrote:
White can reclaim the pawn, but in some lines, black can greatly improve his position while white burns time trying to win the pawn back.
Example:
White won the "gambit" pawn back. But now black has connected passed pawns on the a and b files.
White has to play with care, or black will steamroll over him.
Funny how this is +0.4 and this is a known variation. Who cares about the connected pawns. It's not an endgame. Because of the light square bishop, because white can make a huge pawn storm, and because white can remove the a pawn with good play and destroy the b pawn later, I would actually like to play white here.
Easier said than done. Many grandmasters have lost as white from that position.
Funny that black's win rate is 33% in that position and that 187 titled players played that position. Think before you talk again.
33% doesn't mean it's a sure win for white though. also not all 187 of those titled players were necessarily grandmasters, the best of the best
Aug 9, 2021
0
#20
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Funny that black's win rate is 33% in that position and that 187 titled players played that position. Think before you talk again.
That position, at the grandmaster level:
14 wins for white, 19 wins for black, 16 draws.
28% white wins, 32% black wins, 38% draw.
Sorry to break it to you, but that position is mostly even, with white losing slightly more than black.
Going into it, black can reasonably expect to draw or win, while white can reasonably expect to draw or lose.
Also: don't act like an arrogant know-it-all.
Especially at your rating.
There are players on these forums who are far beyond your level, and you'll go farther if you attempt to learn from them, rather than argue with them.
It's not a real gambit because you can always get back your pawn, and if you'll do that, you won't lose anything (if you did it in other gambits, you would lose the advantage).
I've never played this opening, and my opinion may be wrong. I hope you can explain to me why they consider this opening as a gambit.