Is a gambit still a gambit if it's calculated through to the end?












7














I recently gambitted a knight (I call it a gambit as I gave away a knight without being able to take back).

However I had calculated through all the possibilities and five moves or so later I have an extra pawn and a better position. Does this still count as a gambit or doesn't it as I know I can get the material back?

Essentially, what is the actual definition of a gambit?










share|improve this question





























    7














    I recently gambitted a knight (I call it a gambit as I gave away a knight without being able to take back).

    However I had calculated through all the possibilities and five moves or so later I have an extra pawn and a better position. Does this still count as a gambit or doesn't it as I know I can get the material back?

    Essentially, what is the actual definition of a gambit?










    share|improve this question



























      7












      7








      7







      I recently gambitted a knight (I call it a gambit as I gave away a knight without being able to take back).

      However I had calculated through all the possibilities and five moves or so later I have an extra pawn and a better position. Does this still count as a gambit or doesn't it as I know I can get the material back?

      Essentially, what is the actual definition of a gambit?










      share|improve this question















      I recently gambitted a knight (I call it a gambit as I gave away a knight without being able to take back).

      However I had calculated through all the possibilities and five moves or so later I have an extra pawn and a better position. Does this still count as a gambit or doesn't it as I know I can get the material back?

      Essentially, what is the actual definition of a gambit?







      gambits terminology






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 27 '18 at 10:51









      Glorfindel

      12.8k43560




      12.8k43560










      asked Dec 27 '18 at 9:46









      Arkleseisure

      1926




      1926






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9














          No, it's not a gambit; a gambit is 'just' a sacrifice which is part of (well-known) opening theory, nothing more, nothing less.



          But, technically, what you describe is not even a real sacrifice, but a 'sham sacrifice'.



          Wikipedia gives the following definitions:




          Real versus sham



          Rudolf Spielmann proposed a division between sham and real sacrifices:




          • In a 'real sacrifice', the sacrificing player will often have to play on with less material than his opponent for quite some time.

          • In a 'sham sacrifice', the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate. A sham sacrifice of this latter type is sometimes known as a pseudo sacrifice. (Rudolf Spielman, "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess", 1995, Dover, ISBN 0-486-28449-2)


          In compensation for a real sacrifice, the player receives dynamic, positional, or other non-material advantages which he must capitalize on, or risk losing the game due to the material deficit. Because of the risk involved, real sacrifices are also called 'speculative sacrifices'.




          If the name 'sham sacrifice' sounds too negative to you, just call it a 'tactical combination'.






          share|improve this answer





















          • Agree with Glorfindel. Also a sacrifice that is not fully calculated is sometimes called a "speculative sacrifice"
            – Michael West
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:33










          • I've lost to what my opponents have been calling a False sacrifice 6 or 7 times now.
            – Steve
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:54











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "435"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23320%2fis-a-gambit-still-a-gambit-if-its-calculated-through-to-the-end%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          9














          No, it's not a gambit; a gambit is 'just' a sacrifice which is part of (well-known) opening theory, nothing more, nothing less.



          But, technically, what you describe is not even a real sacrifice, but a 'sham sacrifice'.



          Wikipedia gives the following definitions:




          Real versus sham



          Rudolf Spielmann proposed a division between sham and real sacrifices:




          • In a 'real sacrifice', the sacrificing player will often have to play on with less material than his opponent for quite some time.

          • In a 'sham sacrifice', the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate. A sham sacrifice of this latter type is sometimes known as a pseudo sacrifice. (Rudolf Spielman, "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess", 1995, Dover, ISBN 0-486-28449-2)


          In compensation for a real sacrifice, the player receives dynamic, positional, or other non-material advantages which he must capitalize on, or risk losing the game due to the material deficit. Because of the risk involved, real sacrifices are also called 'speculative sacrifices'.




          If the name 'sham sacrifice' sounds too negative to you, just call it a 'tactical combination'.






          share|improve this answer





















          • Agree with Glorfindel. Also a sacrifice that is not fully calculated is sometimes called a "speculative sacrifice"
            – Michael West
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:33










          • I've lost to what my opponents have been calling a False sacrifice 6 or 7 times now.
            – Steve
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:54
















          9














          No, it's not a gambit; a gambit is 'just' a sacrifice which is part of (well-known) opening theory, nothing more, nothing less.



          But, technically, what you describe is not even a real sacrifice, but a 'sham sacrifice'.



          Wikipedia gives the following definitions:




          Real versus sham



          Rudolf Spielmann proposed a division between sham and real sacrifices:




          • In a 'real sacrifice', the sacrificing player will often have to play on with less material than his opponent for quite some time.

          • In a 'sham sacrifice', the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate. A sham sacrifice of this latter type is sometimes known as a pseudo sacrifice. (Rudolf Spielman, "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess", 1995, Dover, ISBN 0-486-28449-2)


          In compensation for a real sacrifice, the player receives dynamic, positional, or other non-material advantages which he must capitalize on, or risk losing the game due to the material deficit. Because of the risk involved, real sacrifices are also called 'speculative sacrifices'.




          If the name 'sham sacrifice' sounds too negative to you, just call it a 'tactical combination'.






          share|improve this answer





















          • Agree with Glorfindel. Also a sacrifice that is not fully calculated is sometimes called a "speculative sacrifice"
            – Michael West
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:33










          • I've lost to what my opponents have been calling a False sacrifice 6 or 7 times now.
            – Steve
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:54














          9












          9








          9






          No, it's not a gambit; a gambit is 'just' a sacrifice which is part of (well-known) opening theory, nothing more, nothing less.



          But, technically, what you describe is not even a real sacrifice, but a 'sham sacrifice'.



          Wikipedia gives the following definitions:




          Real versus sham



          Rudolf Spielmann proposed a division between sham and real sacrifices:




          • In a 'real sacrifice', the sacrificing player will often have to play on with less material than his opponent for quite some time.

          • In a 'sham sacrifice', the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate. A sham sacrifice of this latter type is sometimes known as a pseudo sacrifice. (Rudolf Spielman, "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess", 1995, Dover, ISBN 0-486-28449-2)


          In compensation for a real sacrifice, the player receives dynamic, positional, or other non-material advantages which he must capitalize on, or risk losing the game due to the material deficit. Because of the risk involved, real sacrifices are also called 'speculative sacrifices'.




          If the name 'sham sacrifice' sounds too negative to you, just call it a 'tactical combination'.






          share|improve this answer












          No, it's not a gambit; a gambit is 'just' a sacrifice which is part of (well-known) opening theory, nothing more, nothing less.



          But, technically, what you describe is not even a real sacrifice, but a 'sham sacrifice'.



          Wikipedia gives the following definitions:




          Real versus sham



          Rudolf Spielmann proposed a division between sham and real sacrifices:




          • In a 'real sacrifice', the sacrificing player will often have to play on with less material than his opponent for quite some time.

          • In a 'sham sacrifice', the player offering the sacrifice will soon regain material of the same or greater value, or else force mate. A sham sacrifice of this latter type is sometimes known as a pseudo sacrifice. (Rudolf Spielman, "The Art of Sacrifice in Chess", 1995, Dover, ISBN 0-486-28449-2)


          In compensation for a real sacrifice, the player receives dynamic, positional, or other non-material advantages which he must capitalize on, or risk losing the game due to the material deficit. Because of the risk involved, real sacrifices are also called 'speculative sacrifices'.




          If the name 'sham sacrifice' sounds too negative to you, just call it a 'tactical combination'.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Dec 27 '18 at 10:47









          Glorfindel

          12.8k43560




          12.8k43560












          • Agree with Glorfindel. Also a sacrifice that is not fully calculated is sometimes called a "speculative sacrifice"
            – Michael West
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:33










          • I've lost to what my opponents have been calling a False sacrifice 6 or 7 times now.
            – Steve
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:54


















          • Agree with Glorfindel. Also a sacrifice that is not fully calculated is sometimes called a "speculative sacrifice"
            – Michael West
            Dec 27 '18 at 14:33










          • I've lost to what my opponents have been calling a False sacrifice 6 or 7 times now.
            – Steve
            Dec 27 '18 at 15:54
















          Agree with Glorfindel. Also a sacrifice that is not fully calculated is sometimes called a "speculative sacrifice"
          – Michael West
          Dec 27 '18 at 14:33




          Agree with Glorfindel. Also a sacrifice that is not fully calculated is sometimes called a "speculative sacrifice"
          – Michael West
          Dec 27 '18 at 14:33












          I've lost to what my opponents have been calling a False sacrifice 6 or 7 times now.
          – Steve
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:54




          I've lost to what my opponents have been calling a False sacrifice 6 or 7 times now.
          – Steve
          Dec 27 '18 at 15:54


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23320%2fis-a-gambit-still-a-gambit-if-its-calculated-through-to-the-end%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

          ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

          Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?