Editing Gambit

{{Short description|Sacrificial chess opening}}
{{other uses}}
{{Chess diagram
| tright
| fen=rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4PP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2
| footer=King's Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4. If Black takes the pawn (...exf4), White has a stronger attack in the opening.
}}

A '''gambit''' (from Italian {{lang|it|gambetto}}, the act of tripping someone with the leg to make them fall) is a [[chess opening]] in which a player [[sacrifice (chess)|sacrifices]] {{chessgloss|material}} with the aim of achieving a subsequent {{chessgloss|positional play|positional}} advantage.<ref>{{cite book|last=Brace|first=Edward R.|year=1979|title=An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess|publisher=Hamlyn|page=114|isbn=0-600-32920-8}}</ref>

The word ''[[wikt:gambit|gambit]]'' is also sometimes used to describe similar tactics used by politicians or business people in a struggle with rivals in their fields, for example: "The [[2017 United Kingdom general election|early election]] was a risky gambit by [[Theresa May]]."

{{AN chess|pos=toc}}

== Terminology ==
The Spanish word ''gambito'' was originally applied to chess openings in 1561 by [[Ruy López de Segura]], from an Italian expression ''dare il gambetto'' (to put a leg forward in order to trip someone). In English, the word first appeared in [[Francis Beale (writer)|Francis Beale]]'s 1656 translation of a [[Gioachino Greco]] manuscript, ''The Royall Game of Chesse-play'' ("illustrated with almost one hundred Gambetts"<ref>{{cite book |last=Greco |first=Gioachino |author-link=Gioachino Greco |translator-last=Beale |translator-first=Francis |translator-link=Francis Beale (writer) |title=The Royall Game of Chesse-play |publisher=[[Henry Herringman]] |date=1656 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cPxYAAAAYAAJ |access-date=6 January 2024}}</ref>). The Spanish ''gambito'' led to French ''gambit'', which has influenced the English spelling of the word. The metaphorical sense of the word as "opening move meant to gain advantage" was first recorded in English in 1855.<ref>{{cite web |last1=O'Conner |first1=Patricia T. |last2=Kellerman |first2=Stewart |url=https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/09/gamut-gambit.html |title=Run the gambit? |website=Grammarphobia |date=18 September 2017 |access-date=6 January 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Harper |first=Douglas |title=Gambit|url=https://www.etymonline.com/word/gambit|website=Online Etymology Dictionary |access-date=11 June 2019}}</ref>

Gambits are more commonly played by [[White and Black in chess|White]]. Some well-known examples of a gambit are the [[King's Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.f4) and [[Evans Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4). A gambit employed by Black may also be named a gambit, e.g. the [[Latvian Gambit]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5), or [[Englund Gambit]] (1.d4 e5); but is sometimes named a "countergambit", e.g. the [[Albin Countergambit]] (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5) and [[Greco Countergambit]] (the original name for the Latvian Gambit). Not all opening lines involving the sacrifice of material are named as gambits, for example the main line of the [[Two Knights Defense]] (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5) in which Black sacrifices a pawn for active play is known as the "Knorre Variation", though it may be ''described'' as a "gambit". On the other hand, the [[Queen's Gambit]] (1.d4 d5 2.c4) is not a true gambit as Black cannot hold the pawn without incurring a disadvantage. As is often the case with chess openings, nomenclature is inconsistent.

== Strategy ==

{{col-begin|width=auto; float:right; clear:right}}
{{col-break}}
|{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
|pd|pd|pd|  |pd|pd|pd|pd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|  |  |pd|pl|  |  |  | 
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|pl|pl|  |  |pl|pl|pl|pl
|rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl
| Queen's Gambit Accepted
}}
{{col-break}}
{{Chess diagram small
|tright
|
|rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd
|pd|pd|pd|  |  |pd|pd|pd
|  |  |  |  |pd|  |  | 
|  |  |  |pd|  |  |  | 
|  |  |pl|pl|  |  |  | 
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|pl|pl|  |  |pl|pl|pl|pl
|rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl
| Queen's Gambit Declined
}}
{{col-end}}

Gambits are described as being "offered" to an opponent, and that offer is then said to be either "accepted" or "declined".

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 on to their extra material. A rule of thumb often found in various primers on chess suggests that a player should get three moves (see [[tempo (chess)|tempo]]) of {{chessgloss|development}} for a sacrificed pawn, but it is unclear how useful this general maxim is since the "free moves" part of the [[compensation (chess)|compensation]] is almost never the entirety of what the gambiteer gains. Often, a gambit can be declined with no disadvantage.

== Soundness ==
A gambit is said to be 'sound' if it is capable of procuring adequate concessions from the opponent. There are three general criteria in which a gambit is often said to be sound:
# Time gain: the player accepting the gambit must take time to procure the sacrificed material and possibly must use more time to reorganize their pieces after the material is taken.
# Generation of differential activity: often a player accepting a gambit will decentralize their pieces or pawns and their poorly placed pieces will allow the gambiteer to place their own pieces and pawns on squares that might otherwise have been inaccessible. In addition, bishops and rooks can become more active simply because the loss of pawns often gives rise to open {{chessgloss|files}} and {{chessgloss|diagonals}}. Former world champion [[Mikhail Tal]] once reportedly told [[Mikhail Botvinnik]] that he had sacrificed a pawn because it was simply in the way.<ref>{{cite book |title=Russian Silhouettes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3iJBCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA20 |first=Genna |last=Sosonko |date = 6 June 2014|author-link=Genna Sosonko |access-date=31 January 2016 |publisher=New in Chess|isbn = 9789056914851}}</ref>
# Generation of positional weaknesses: finally, accepting a gambit may lead to a compromised [[pawn structure]], holes or other positional deficiencies.

An example of a sound gambit is the [[Scotch Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4. Here Black can force White to sacrifice a pawn speculatively with 4...Bb4+, but White gets very good compensation for one pawn after 5.c3 dxc3 6.bxc3, or for two pawns after 6.0-0 inviting 6...cxb2 7.Bxb2, due to the development advantage and attacking chances against the black king. As a result, Black is often advised not to try to hold on to the extra pawn. A more dubious gambit is the so-called [[Halloween Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5{{chesspunc|?!}} Nxe5 5.d4. Here the investment (a knight for just one pawn) is too large for the moderate advantage of having a strong center.

== Examples ==
{{main|List of chess gambits}}
* [[King's Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.f4
* [[Queen's Gambit]]:  1.d4 d5 2.c4
* [[Evans Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
* [[Rousseau Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5
* [[Smith–Morra Gambit]]: 1.e4 c5 2.d4 intending 2...cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3
* [[Two Knights Defense]]:  1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 with 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 likely to follow
* [[Blackmar–Diemer Gambit]] (BDG):  1.d4 d5 2.e4 dxe4 3.Nc3 followed by 4.f3
* [[From's Gambit]]: 1.f4 e5
* [[Staunton Gambit]]: 1.d4 f5 2.e4
* [[Budapest Gambit]]:  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5
* [[Scotch Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4
* [[Latvian Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5
* [[Danish Gambit]]:  1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3. c3
* [[Blackburne Shilling Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4{{chesspunc|?!}}
:This is not a true gambit by Black, since after 4.Nxe5{{chesspunc|!?}} Qg5{{chesspunc|!}} Black wins material. White can play a gambit themselves with 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.0-0! Qxe5 7.Bxg8 Rxg8 8.c3 Nc6 9.d4, when White's two pawns and rolling pawn center, combined with Black's misplaced king, give White strong compensation for the sacrificed bishop.
* [[Elephant Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5!?
* [[Englund Gambit]]: 1.d4 e5?!
* [[Italian Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d4
* [[Fried Liver Attack]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7 Kxf7
* [[Albin Countergambit]]: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
* [[Benko Gambit]]:  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5
* [[French Defense|Milner Barry Gambit]]: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7 8.Nc3 Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4
* [[Vienna Gambit]]: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book
 | author=Schiller, Eric
 | author-link=Eric Schiller
 | year=2002
 | title=Gambit Chess Openings
 | publisher=Simon & Schuster
 | isbn=978-1-58042-038-9}}

==External links==
{{wikibooks|Chess Opening Theory|}}
{{Wiktionary|gambit}}
* [https://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa04g10.htm Guide to Chess Gambits (Part 1)]
* [https://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa04g31.htm Guide to Chess Gambits (Part 2)]
* [http://www.mjae.com/diemer1.html Emil Diemer (1908–1990) et les gambits] sur le site [http://www.mjae.com Mieux jouer aux échecs]
* [http://www.mjae.com/letton1.html Le gambit letton] sur le site [http://www.mjae.com Mieux jouer aux échecs]
* [http://www.mjae.com/bogart1.html Le gambit Humphrey Bogart] sur le site [http://www.mjae.com Mieux jouer aux échecs]
* [http://www.mjae.com/fajarowicz.html Le gambit Fajarowicz] sur le site [http://www.mjae.com Mieux jouer aux échecs]
* [http://www.mjae.com/boden-kieseritzky.html Le gambit Boden] sur le site [http://www.mjae.com Mieux jouer aux échecs]
* [http://www.mjae.com/gedult.html David Gedult (1897-1981) et les gambits] sur le site [http://www.mjae.com Mieux jouer aux échecs]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20210218014244/http://studimonetari.org/edg Scacchi: Enciclopedia pratica dei Gambetti] {{in lang|it}}

{{Chess}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Chess openings|*Gambit]]
[[Category:Chess terminology]]