Wikipedia

Talk:List of chess gambits

Latest comment: 5 months ago by Dayshade in topic Relevance of list of gambits
Learn more about this page


This article needs gutting

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So much junk, so many unsourced names someone on chess.com invented last week.... I'm going to source anything I can to the Oxford Companion of chess and delete everything else. This article as it is is garbage. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Benoni Gambit

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

There has been some debate as to whether the Old Benoni a.k.a. Benoni Gambit 1.d4 c5 should be included as a gambit.


The argument against:

  • After 2.cxd5 black can regain the material with Qa5+.


The argument for:

  • Widely recognised and referred to as a gambit. Chess.com reads "The Old Benoni, also known as the Benoni Gambit".[1] According to Lichess.org/analysis, 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 is "A43 Benoni Defense: Benoni Gambit Accepted".
  • The Chess Opening Theory wikibook refers to c5 as a gambit. "If White accepts the gambit with 2. dxc5...".[2]
  • If we are to exclude gambits simply because there is a means of regaining the material by force then we would also need to exclude, for example, the Sturm gambit for the same reason. The Sturm gambit begins 1.f4 d5 2.c4 and if black accepts the 'gambit' with 2...dxc4 then there is the follow up 3.Qa4+ regaining the pawn. Just as in the Benoni, this doesn't occur in practice since it is not a good continuation for the gambitter.
  • At the top level Qa5+ is almost never played since it is not good for black. Instead the gambit is left to stand with e6 and Na6 the most common replies. Ref: Lichess master database - only 4/70 games continue with Qa5+.

2A00:23C7:AAC:1A01:7920:F4A5:67C4:A6FB (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

None of these are reliable sources, wikibooks is user-generated as are chess.com forums, and nor is lichess an authority on opening names. My preferred reference, the Oxford Companion to Chess, gives "Benoni Defence" rather than Benoni Gambit but it's possible other standard references do use the term "Benoni Gambit". I might resume my project of referencing anything I can find in reputable sources and deleting everything else, cause there's way too much junk in this article. Even better, delete this whole sorry mess because "gambit" is not an accepted subclassification of chess openings, it's just a word. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
1.d4 c5 is just the Old Benoni, a name I suspect it's had for 80 years or longer. A gambit is an offer of material in the hopes of obtaining compensation, but there's no offer of material here because White can't win a pawn. What you described as a "free pawn" isn't free since it is easy to regain it with 2...Qa5+ or 2...e6. I don't think 2...Qa5+ is bad for Black, but certainly other moves including 2...e6 are better. The Chess Opening Theory wikibook holds no weight here whatsoever, but the name "Benoni Gambit Accepted" is found in some other online sources which might satisfy WP:RS. "At the top level ..." -- at the top level 2.dxc5 is almost never played because it is not a good continuation for White. All that said, I don't think I've ever contributed anything significant to this article and it isn't important to me. Generally I think that people who are willing to put effort into an article should get greater say in the direction the article takes (subject to obvious constraints of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc.), and I'm not going to fight about it. Quale (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Interesting quote in Wade's Playing Chess (1974). . "This is the Benoni Gambit (or as the Americans call it, the Benko Gambit)." The Benko Gambit is indeed a relatively recent name for an opening that's been known at least since the 1930s; it seems the old school players like Wade called it the "Benoni Gambit". I think this demonstrates clearly enough that "Benoni Gambit" is not a standard name for 1.d4 c5. The chess.com source is a self-published effort by Ryan Charlette, who's "just some guy". He has no standing as a chess writer or chess expert. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
There are a few different points here.
Firstly, what is the correct name for the opening? Personally, I think "Old Benoni" is still correct and hence why I have listed it as such. However, whether the opening contains the name "gambit" is not a deciding factor on whether it is a gambit (consider Fried Liver, Traxler) - I agree with MaxBrowne2 here.
Secondly, is the issue of whether black is even gambitting. We may consider that the Benoni Gambit only occurs after 2...e6 (or indeed any move other than Qa5+) when black has truly given up material, which as pointed out previously is the normal continuation especially at master level. Indeed, resources such as lichess only refer to the "gambit accepted" line and not the "gambit declined" lines. I would still argue though that the gambit begins after 1.d4 c5 - and I again refer to the Sturm Gambit as an example of another opening which is still considered a gambit after 1.f4 d5 2.c4 even though the material can be regained by force with 2...dxc5 3.Qa4+. Another example is the Brentano Gambit in the Ruy Lopez where black can recapture the material by force.
Finally, a gambit need not be regularly accepted at the top level to be considered a gambit. Consider the Queen's Gambit where 2...dxc4 only occurs in 12% of master games or the Vienna Gambit in which 3...exf4 occurs in 0% of games (for transparency, the Benoni Gambit is accepted in 4% of games).2A00:23C7:AAC:1A01:1D7E:35CD:CB87:90B6 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I just don't think a piece by a random chess.com member is a sufficiently reliable (or credible) source for what is clearly a non-standard name for 1.d4 c5. The standard references call it "Benoni Defense" or "Old Benoni". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't think anyone is disagreeing on this point. "Old Benoni" is definitely the most common name for this opening. The question is whether the Old Benoni should be considered a gambit. I would argue as per the above that it should. 146.162.241.241 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well one good outcome from this is I did some research and improved the Benoni Defense article. I have a problem with the whole existence of this article because the word "gambit" is so ill defined. If you define it as "opening which has the word gambit in it", then it includes the Queen's Gambit, which isn't really a gambit. If you define it as "opening which involves the sacrifice or offer of material", then it includes the Two Knights Defense, in which the main line (5...Na5) involves a pawn sacrifice. Either way I'm not sure 1.d4 c5 can be defined as a gambit. Might have another try at getting this article deleted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well Amen to that. Although I do think this list does a pretty good job at capturing openings with an essence of gambit and there aren’t many repositories online to look this up. I think it would be a shame to lose it. I’ve certainly discovered gambits on this page which I will now play in real life. Like g5 in the Ruy Lopez. 86.153.140.159 (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Structural improvement

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wouldn't it make more sense to divide the article according to whether it is a gambit for black or white, or at least to declare this in each case? 138.246.3.70 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Relevance of list of gambits

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I surveyed the 1.e4 gambits listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_gambits. Several are outright blunders leading to losing games. Several have no games in the chessbase or have no master games in the database. I removed these gambits and for the remaining gambits I added annotations for master games in the database. Below is a pdf list of "good gambits"for ECO B00 to C99 I would like to edit the list but I have never done an edit before. Medecin.du.rein (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Welcome. Some of the list of chess openings articles are in rough shape, including this one. I don't think anyone would object to you trying to improve this list, in fact most of the editors at WP:CHESS would probably welcome it. You could also add a section to the chess project talk pages WT:CHESS which might be seen by editors who are not watching this talk page.
To improve this list article, you could start by making small edits, or you can be bold and try more extensive changes. It's been a long time since I was new at Wikipedia so I don't have as much good advice getting started as I would like, but I think the help pages are pretty good at assisting with the mechanics of editing. Quale (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can do the edits for you. Should I just delete the ones that don't appear in the pdf, like the "Scorpion-Horus"? Dayshade (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did a survey of the gambits from ECO B00 to C99, that is, the 1.e4 gambits, to supplement Grandmaster Simon Williams and IM Robert Palliser's book "Grandmaster Gambits". (In this book and chessable course they call Schaeffer's gambit, "The Hillbilly gambit".)
I used chessbase's Mega DataBase 2025 of about 11,000,000 games. (I did not use the correspondence database). The gambits were deleted for 3 reasons---1. No games in the database 2. No master games in the database or 3. The gambit was a blunder leading to a losing position as judged by a strong engine like Stockfish 17.1. Scorpion-Horus had 3 games in the database but none were by masters; the assessment. equal over plus and the fact that Black won two games and drew one suggested that this was not a serious gambit. The Dudweiler Gambit led to a losing position as judged by Stockfish, suggesting this was not a serious gambit so I deleted it. I added a few gambits that I could not find, like the Stafford gambit and the Gajewski gambit. I did not survey the ECO A00 to A99 or D00 to E99. The other question is "what is the difference between a gambit and a trap?". I looked at the Blackburne-Shilling gambit and found 3 masters who fell into the trap after 4.Nxe5. The most common move, 4.Nxd4 yielded an advantage for White. I define a trap as an inferior move that, if refused, results in a disadvantage. Traps rely on temptation. I deleted the Blackburne-Shilling but perhaps this is wrong. Medecin.du.rein (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Is the process you'd recommend I use just to delete all the gambits on this article that aren't in the PDF? Do you plan to do non-1.e4 gambits in the near future? And what criteria did you use to decide if a position is losing? Worse than +2/-2 or so (I think this is when Stockfish judges a win as almost certain, and +1/-1 are 50% chance to win. Stafford is at like +1.6 or something, isn't it?)? As for gambit vs trap, there are definitely some grey areas, such as when accepting a gambit is only objectively slightly worse than declining (queen's gambit, jaenisch gambit, etc). The Blackburne gambit shouldn't really count as one, yeah, although I still feel like it gives gambity vibes regardless lol. Then there are others that should arguably be called gambits that aren't, like the Two Knights Defense (Black ends up a pawn down in the main line, although you see some interesting lines where White ends up down a knight for three pawns) Dayshade (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
In the case of the Dudweiler gambit Stockfish at a depth of 25 says "Black has a decisive advantage." Stafford is a poor gambit but it doesn't lose instantly especilly in rapid games. I'd probably add Blackburne Shilling as 3 masters managed to fall into the trap though it seems to be more of a trap than a gambit. I'll put the whole pgn here but I have not completely surveyed the ECO A00-A99 and D00-E99 gambits.
Medecin.du.rein (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
What criteria did you use to determine whether a gambit is clearly losing or not? Stockfish only shows numbers and percentages for eval for me, where are you using it that it will say "Black has a decisive advantage"? Dayshade (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the Dudweiler, Stockfish says "-2.82, Black has a decisive advantage after 2...Bxg4" Decisive is usually plus or minus 2.5 in my experience but to be certain, plus or minus 3. The 3 games in the database by unrated players all resulted in wins for Black. Medecin.du.rein (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ok, just did a pass. Looks like there were a couple that do have games and count as more than just traps that I kept, and I found a few others that deserved removal (such as anything with the name "Zilbermints" attached... lol) Dayshade (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looks good to me. Any "gambit" with no games in the database should be deleted. Any "gambit" that results in a losing position should be deleted. Any "gambit" with no master games in the database that results in a clear disadvantange and scores poorly should probably be deleted. I would keep the "trappy" gambits like the Blackburne-Shilling especially since a few masters fell into the trap. A statement regarding the selection process might be included. I have moved on to other surveys and plan not to answer any more messages. Medecin.du.rein (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've been trying to get this article deleted for years. "Gambits" is not a useful term for classification of chess openings. Some "gambits" (like the Queen's Gambit) are not really gambits at all, some like one of the main lines of the Two Knights Defence (4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5) arguably are "gambits" but are not conventionally described as such. Pages like this are a magnet for low quality edits by people adding names which someone from chess.com invented last week. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully it's marginally less irritating now, but yeah it's still problematic. We really should try to get Irish Gambit deleted though! :) Dayshade (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_chess_gambits&oldid=1341520706"