At least the start of this thread wasn't so bad. 

How splendid it is that we have finally found something really important to talk about.  And given the profound significance of this, it's easy to see why some of the posts here have been so contentious.  I can hardly wait to see how this titanic intellectual conflict is resolved.

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 08/09/11 at 19:20:00:


After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, I petition to change 3...a6 to the "Morphy Gambit".  It is quite controversial in view of 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 

You are contradicting yourself.

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 08/09/11 at 20:35:51:


Uhohspaghettio wrote on 08/09/11 at 22:00:02:


Those same many players would not want to call 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Ne7 a gambit either.
You can't have it both ways.

Anyhow, another example of a gambit which isn't a gambit: 1.e4 d6 2.d4 f5 is often called Balogh's Countergambit.

I have always described a gambit as a material sacrifice in the opening to gain an advantage in time or position.

This is very close to the dictionary definitions of what a gambit is too. I won't bother to clutter up the place with these definitions since everyone can look at them and decide for themselves.

One effect of this definition is pedagogical: when I teach gambits I point out that the main object of a gambit is not merely to regain material. 

The Queen's Gambit isn't usually a true gambit, but it can be played as a true gambit when White decides to play 3.e4 lines.

Uhoh's definition fails for the reasons that Girkassa and others pointed out.

Girkassa wrote on 08/09/11 at 20:05:35:


With all due respect Girkassa, it's kind of irrelevant what you would call a gambit or what "your" definition of a gambit is, it doesn't matter. 

This is how a gambit is in chess, I think it's a good way because it's completely objective. Otherwise you get into subjective issues. I mean what the heck is "foreseeable future"? I hope that others don't get ideas like you and openings are new mislabelled in future going against the established and traditional way of labelling them. (...and I hope someone doesn't find an exception already).  

Your preconceptions of what a gambit "should be" are a bit arbitrary to be honest and depend on principles of chess that aren't proper for objective naming. You may find the "queen's gambit" misleading, but that's missing the point: Opening names aren't supposed to tell you anything about an opening's analysis. 

Just because many players may agree the Queen's Gambit is "misleading" (and that's only because it's unusual for a gambit to work like that) that doesn't mean they would want it to be called anything else.

A few years ago, my list would probably be much longer than my current one, and at several occasions I have played openings that I originally thought I would never play. So I will never say never, but currently I still believe I won’t play any of the following openings:

With White:
- King's Gambit
- Goring Gambit (gives Black a very comfortable choice between easy equality with 4…d5 and interesting play with 4…dxc3; I might live with one of them, but not both) 
- Morra Gambit
- Blackmar-Diemer
- Orangutang (okay, I have actually played it a couple of times, but that’s long time ago!)
- Grob

With Black:
- Damiano
- Latvian Gambit
- Elephant Gambit
- Englund Gambit
- Chigorin QGD
- Tarrasch QGD (except by transposition when White is committed to e3)
- Albin
- Budapest
- Owen’s Defense

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 08/09/11 at 19:20:00:

I have never heard this definition. Do you not consider the Danish Gambit to be a gambit?