Talk:Blackburne Shilling Gambit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] old talk
this sentence does not make sense, i'm not sure what it is trying to say: "It is not a true gambit, since White cannot take White's pawn on e5 without losing material or being checkmated." --gb 05:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
A gambit is a sacrifice of material, most often one or two pawns. 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 is a true gambit, since after 3...dxc3 White is down two pawns, and will stay down a pawn even if he plays 4.Nxc3. The Blackburne Shilling Gambit is called a "gambit" only because it seems to offer White a free pawn on e5. However, since taking the pawn actually loses material for White (albeit with strong compensation if White knows what he's doing), it's not really a gambit. To take an even clearer example, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d3 c6 looks at first glance to be a gambit (a sacrifice of a pawn), since White can play 4.Nxe5. It would be a true gambit after, say, 4.Nxe5(??) d5(??). Once you realize that 4...Qa5+! wins the knight, however, no one would call 3...c6 a gambit: it merely sets a trap that White can fall into if he's careless. Similarly, the Blackburne Shilling Gambit only seems at first blush to offer White a free pawn (and thus be a true gambit). After 4.Nxe5!? Qg5!, White, not Black, is the one who loses material -- or even his king. Krakatoa 16:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
