Talk:King's Gambit

This article uses an excessive amount of weasel language. Please reference the various claims that this-or-that line "is considered" better or worse. --Malathion 23:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In light of the mention about the King's Gambit being rarely seen at master level, is it newsworthy to add that Magnus Carlsen scored the full point with it against a 2750 this June 17th?

(http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1584993) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.66.165 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Who removed the part about kicking? That seemed like a legitimate strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.54.230 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I apply a new template of chess diagram according to inter-wiki chess project: . Please read this and join the discussion. --Klin 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This article needs some editing in terms of the way it is written.--Gagueci 21:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states in the introduction that "Black can obtain a reasonable position by relinquishing the extra pawn at a later time and consolidating defensively" and that "Black must decide whether or not to accept the gambit. Since White cannot easily regain the pawn if Black accepts, the King's Gambit Accepted is the most common." just under the "Variations" header. This looks contradictory. Does it make sense to win a pawn because if your chances of survival depend on losing it later? MJGR 09:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes; do you know anything about chess? 74.225.130.13 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph in "King's Gambit Declined" contains a numbering error. The line "2...Nf6 3.fxe5 Nxe4 4.Nf3 Ng5! 4.d4 Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Qh4+ 6.Qf2 Qxf2+ 7.Kxf2" contains two moves of move 4.. I assume that the second move should be numbered 5., but I'm just assuming that. It would be nice if someone with intimite knowledge of the subject could fix it, because it causes some confusion. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpol (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

That went a while without being corrected. I've fixed it now. 91.105.26.235 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fischer Defense is mentioned four times in the text, which is at least two times too many. The American Chess Quarterly article is cited in two widely separated spots, and there's too much repetition. These should be consolidated. I can't do it right now, but I may give it a try later unless someone better equipped for the task takes it on first. Quale (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go. I agree there was too much of it, especially as it has a separate article of its own! Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Theory has shown that in order for Black to maintain the one pawn advantage, moves must be made that seriously weaken the position of the Black pieces"

Makes no sense!

Yes, this is correct. That is the whole point of the gambit. Either (1) Black gets to keep the one-pawn advantage, but gets a weak position, or else (2) Black loses the one-pawn advantage, but avoids a weak position. I will correct the article back to what it was before. Holy (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is right. Black has to weaken his position if he holds on to the pawn. BTW, "black" and "white" are caps when they are used to substitute for a player's name, but not otherwise. Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Despite this, Fischer played the King's Gambit himself in three subsequent tournament games, winning all of them." - It should be noted that the Fischer defence is a continuation after 3.Nf3, where all the games that Fischer played in the King's Gambit after this were the Bishop's Gambit, 3.Bc4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.135.187 (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article said, "The odd 3. Nf3 Qe7 (intending 4.Nc3 d5!) is an interesting surprise weapon, but doubtful if White knows what he's doing." This is not supported by reliable sources, or indeed any sources. Moreover, as far as I can tell, this quote is a blend of original research and/or the writer's POV. The line is extremely rare. It is not mentioned in the King's Gambit specialist books by Korchnoi and Zak, Estrin and Glaskov, or Gallagher. Chessgames.com has only a handful of games with the move. White scores well, including with the natural and almost invariably played 4.Nc3, which the text implies is weak. The exclamation point after 4.Nc3 d5! is certainly POV - there is no apparent reason why that move should be strong. At a minimum, surely White is doing OK after 5.Nxd5 Qxe4+ 6.Qe2 Qxe2+ 7.Bxe2 Bd6 8.d4. Who says it's an interesting surprise weapon, or that it's doubtful if White knows what he's doing? These assertions, too, are unsupported and POV. Finally, given how rare this line is, and the fact that no one I can find talks about it, how is White supposed to "know what he's doing"? This is unhelpful to the reader, who isn't told what White should do, nor referred to any source for enlightenment on this score. For all of these reasons, this discussion of 3...Qe7 seems improper to me and I have accordingly deleted it from the article. Krakatoa (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the lines after 2...exf4 3.Nf3 are arranged in this order: - 3...g5 (Classical) - 3...d6 (Fischer) - 3...h6 (Becker) (these are closely related) - 3...d5 (Modern) - 3...Ne7 (Bonsch Osmolovsky) - 3...Nf6 (Schallop) - 3...Be7 (Cunningham) - Minor lines. grouping related lines together as this will make it easier to discuss plans and lines without repeating explanations — Preceding unsigned comment added by SverreJ0 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really feel qualified enough about Chess to add to the main listing but I wanted to point this out to anyone does. This guys seems to have tried all possible moves and seems to have a good analysis. http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.168.56 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC) In view of chessbase's well known love of April Fools pranks, I'm a little suspicious of the article. Note that the interview itself was given on April 1. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, ChessBase admits it's a prank. http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8051 24.218.46.19 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I should've read the talk page first. Came across the article and wondered why it hadn't been mentioned here. Oops. Regardless, it seems that many people were duped -- or at the very least that it attracted a good amount of attention -- and so is worth mentioning to prevent future shame :) --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As Toccata quarta points out, this April Fools really has nothing to do with the KG itself. If it is to go anywhere it would belong at chessbase.com, although I'm doubtful that it warrants a mention even there. Quale (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If I google for "a bust to the king's gambit" the wiki entry is no.2 & chessbase prank is no.3 but the two disclaimers by chessbase (later articles) do not come-up in google search at all. I truly got fooled (that too 3 years after the intended prank), so as a clarification, I have linked both the chessbase's prank & subsequent explanations. Hope this prevents new people getting fooled by a combination of google search & chessbase :) J mareeswaran (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I added the Double Muzio bit. I may be pushing my luck adding the Triple Muzio system (heh) which follows the double, but with 8.b3 (so white can further insist on the third sac with Bb2)

There are many variations, however Kd8 (instead of Kxf7 accepting the third sac) and/or f6 give black too much time to end up using his extra material. With black queen temporarily out of play (especially if Qxa1 Nc3) white can sometimes force draws with rook and queen.

Note: before you consider this completely crazy and "not chess" you should look at Tartakower - Leonhardt (1908) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1076107

74.68.153.226 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

From the article: "If Black does not capture immediately, it can be forced with Bb2, hoping Black does not know about the Kd8 defense to the following Bxf7+.)" Wishful thinking doesn't usually work... Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've checked some sources, and find no real consistency in name form. (I've found "King's Knight Gambit", "King Knight's Gambit", and "King's Kight's Gambit".) Our Glossary of chess is fond of "king knight" not "king's knight", however whether consistency is even possible I don't know, for example, King's Pawn Game not "king pawn's". It seems that "king's knight's" s/b avoided however, at least that's MO. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't Tarrasch prove that Falkbeer's countergambit is superior ? I haven't come across any "Grandmaster game" where White has dared to play King's Gambit ... ever. (I used to play high level games occationally, and still have a brief look on chess columns in newspapers) I'm rather fond of playing accepted King's Gambit myself. But that's not much worth, I'm not even a club player. (I have a cousin that 20 years ago had an ELO-rating of around 1875 , who I then managed to defeat though) However - back to the question, am I under wrong impression ? Is King's Gambit actually still played, and accepted when played ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have played it multiple times on chess.com Boeing720 and I mostly win except when it is declined. My few wins against 1500 glicko + are after the King's Gambit Accepted i'm 1200-1300 glicko. so I wouldn't accept it. Michael james campbell (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

5...Qh4+ 6.Kf1 Nc6! appears to be a good attempt at a refutation. 7.Nxf7 Bc5 8.Qe1 g3! 9.Nxh8 Bf2 10.Qd1 Nf6 11.d4 d5 12.exd5 Bg4 13.Be2 Nxd4 14.Nc3 f3! 15.Bxf3 Bxf3 is known theory and White is either mated or loses heavy material. But is 11.Nc3 an improvement? I would guess 11...Ng4 to be the way to go, but this is complicated. Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

12.Nd5 Kf8 13.h3 or 12.h3 seem plausible but tend to result in the triumph of Black's g-pawn. Maybe 13.c3 is a better idea?! (It stops the knight coming to d4 to help set up the mating net.) 13...d6 does free the bishop and get another piece moving into the action – Black is already down a rook. (S)he has to mate, force a draw, or at least regain material equality. Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems like h3 and c3 are plausible pawn moves, preventing checks at g4 and d4 respectively. 13.Nxc7+ seems too materialistic and seems to just result in doom. Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the article's subject. Your analysis looks good but it's original research so we can't use it. A chess forum (e.g. chesspub.com) would be a better venue to discuss your analysis. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't care which one we go for but let's put the British English or American English template at the head and avoid any reverts/edit wars over Noah Webster's preferences. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN applies, so I reverted. Quale (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Both spellings are still being used. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC) This edit by an IP is the first to introduce the word "defense/defence" to the article. Accordingly, the spelling "defense" (and American spellings generally) should be used unless there is consensus to change it. And yes, it's a rather arbitrary way to determine it, but WP:RETAIN applies. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't completely arbitrary of course, and it is designed to make a definite determination even if in a somewhat arbitrary way. Bobby Fischer uses AmE and Tony Miles should use BrE according to the strong national ties criterion. Most articles don't have strong national ties so the sensible thing to do is to use the variant established by the first major contributor. It would be truly arbitrary if we let drive by editors change spellings to their favorite variant, especially since this is nearly always their only "contribution". The only other alternative would be to establish a single preferred spelling across all of of Wikipedia, and there's no chance that would fly. As an aside, even the variants can't decide on a single spelling. Oxford spelling uses -ize in a way familiar to Americans, and I've noticed a recent tendency in America to (mis)spell "canceled" using the British "cancelled". Quale (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I should note that this also comes up when considering date formats. The application of strong national ties is a little subtle there. If day-month-year dates are used in Germany then some editors seem to think that strong national ties means that date format is required in biographies of Germans. I don't think that's correct. Since Germany is not English-speaking, strong national ties doesn't apply and the date formats are subject to the same RETAIN principle that applies to spelling variants. (For example, I assume that Germans might use 16 Dezember instead of December 16.) Dates for articles tied to the UK, India, Canada, etc. should use the local format. Quale (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

An IP keeps adding a source to WikiBooks, which I believe should not be cited due to it being user-generated content. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine rather than dubious, at least according to Stockfish (source). Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Shaw agrees that 3...Nf6 is a decent move. Since the claim is unsourced I'll remove it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

OK the line given was unsourced and it was rubbish. Black's normal move after 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nh5 5.d4 is 5...d6, not 5...g5?!, and the line just gets worse from there. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ttingen_manuscript

There is no Kings Gambit in Göttingen manuscript. Best regards, Marius Ringwelski 2003:CB:672D:75F4:2935:EE1C:553C:CBF1 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It says "Engine evaluations tend to be around -1 after 1.e4." This is certainly false since 1.e4 is considered by many to be the strongest opening move for white. I assume it is meant to be "after 2.f4" or "after 1.e4 e5 2.f4". Additionally, I can't find a free engine giving it an evaluation that bad. Stockfish on lichess gives it -0.5, on chess.com -0.46 at depth 36. If there is a paid version or deeper analysis that actually gives it -1 it would be best to cite it to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.72.226 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I just removed it, I don't like references to engine evals in chess articles in general (we should be writing from a human-centric point of view), and if you must refer to engine evals then you need a source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue with short sections is maybe a little subtle, so more explanation might help. The point of subsections is to divide a section into several parts. If there is only a single part there is normally no need for a subsection so most often a single subsection is pointless and a bad idea. Putting a single subsection under Falkbeer is bad. (Trying to put two subsections under Falkbeer would be worse because they aren't warranted.) Furthermore, 3...c6 has been the main line of the Falkbeer for the last 40 years. So

   3. King's Gambit Declined
       3.1 Falkbeer Countergambit
           3.1.1 Nimzowitsch-Marshall Countergambit
       3.2 Classical Defense
       3.3 Other second moves by Black

is just bad. Nimzowitsch-Marshal CG is just the Falkbeer and does not deserve a third level section. Look at the TOC to see how out of place this is.

Contrast with a better use of subsections in this article

   2.1	King's Knight's Gambit: 3.Nf3
       2.1.1	Classical Variation: 3...g5
         2.1.1.1	4.h4: Kieseritzky Gambit and Allgaier Gambit
         2.1.1.2	4.Bc4 g4: Muzio Gambit and others
         2.1.1.3	4.Bc4 Bg7: Hanstein Gambit and Philidor Gambit
         2.1.1.4	4.Nc3: Quaade Gambit
         2.1.1.5	4.d4: Rosentreter Gambit
      2.1.2	Modern Defense: 3...d5
      2.1.3	Fischer Defense: 3...d6
      ...

No single subsection sections here. It's unfortunate that the subsections are nested so deep, but there's a lot of theory in these lines. There are shorter sections on the page, but those shorter sections are not single subsections but serve a purpose to actually provide a useful and necessary logical subdivision of the page. The Nimzowitsch-Marshall Countergambit subsection is not necessary or useful. I would be surprised to hear any player say "I responded to his KG with the Nimzowitsch-Marshall CG". They would simply say they played the Falkbeer. Quale (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You've persuaded me. The main reason I wanted to keep it is because I wanted to balance out the excessive subsections in classical and make the alternatives to exf4 seem less afterthought-like, especially since the 4th level headers and 5th level headers there render identically (on my end at least), do you think there might be a viable alternative approach for those? Dayshade (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

An idea I'd had was to make 3.Nf3 its own subsection, and make 2...exf4 without Nf3 an equal subsection, but idk if it would actually be an improvement. Dayshade (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, could I get some feedback on my changes to Indian Defence? Dayshade (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but recent changes have completely screwed up the logical structure of the article. In addition much WP:OR was added, and lots of unnecessary detail and elaboration. Sorry to trash it but WP:TNT really looks like the only solution. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries, I can reintegrate some of what I'd written while it keeping the old header structure intact. Maybe I should move out the classical variation to its own article or something? It just looked awkward to me with the fifth level headers and so on. As for WP:OR, these are all represented in opening databases (chess.com/lichess), and I think it's good to be mentioning known theory from ECO. I've posted on your and Quale's talk pages about how to best integrate the sources I am using into my work, since I feel like it would be weird to just cite ECO codes/opening databases all the time, but haven't heard back yet. I'll do my best to keep any editorializing to even lower than what I have kept it to so far. I think King's Gambit is a great example of an opening that deserves some unnecessary detail due to the beauty of many of the lines, but perhaps that can be more left to the variation articles. What do you think? Dayshade (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I could also add references to to chess.com articles and talks/videos by grandmasters, but I am heavily paraphrasing and combining what's known from them with opening database data while trying to put it into a single wording. Also, if anyone can look at their published books on the gambits and add citations to my additions (which should be known lines, perhaps with the exception of the "____ is an alternative" bits) on my behalf, that could be nice too. Dayshade (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

As for "This is known as the King's Knight's Gambit.", would "This can be referred to as the King's Knight's Gambit." be better? Dayshade (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you're so against, but I would really really prefer to either allow the header reorganization or allow the spinning off to a different article. I thought the spinning off worked well since it allowed the 3...g5 section on this article to be briefer than it was, while allowing more detail in the independent article for 3...g5. The version with fifth level headers nested inside fourth level headers is just not very readable to me and that's I keep trying to change it. Dayshade (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Plus it looks kinda inconsistent to me as is since nowhere else in the article goes into fifth level, and only the rest of 3.Nf3 even has fourth level ones. Dayshade (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I'm inclined to leave Accepted above Declined as the accepted lines are more notable and have more theory and are a bit more common. What do you think? Also, curious if you have any other ideas for improvements to openings articles in general, or any specific articles? Dayshade (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Dayshade, to me the previous structure was not that logical or intelligible for the reader. It seemed to immediately delve into the most heavily-analyzed lines without much explanation so quickly that the basic chess learner is left a bit confused. Per WP:UPFRONT, it is generally better for articles to get more technical (or in this case, more theory-heavy) as they go on, rather than the other way around. I think it would be better for this article (and perhaps others, I haven't looked at many) to be structured so that there are many more level-two headings, each covering one step of a "main line" and, in subsections, the main alternatives. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Would you also say for example at Ruy Lopez that the side lines like classical, cozio, steinitz, fianchetto should be placed at the top of the article and the main line at the bottom then? Dayshade (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

That's along the lines how I would organise it yes. Looking at the table of contents, I have no doubt that a beginner would be very confused as to why we discuss ninth-move variations first, then eighth, sixth, fifth, fourth, and finally third. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

For notability reasons. I think having other sections before the start of all the sections for variations help with navigability. E.g. at the Ruy page, the Basics section explains the progression of the main line and has links to section anchors for side lines. So maybe we could add something comparable here. As for UPFRONT, I think there's still going to be plenty of theory in side line sections, it just won't be as long as a main line section, but main line sections should ideally be broken into subsections that keep the amount of theory per section relatively constant. But yes, I see what you're getting at, and there are some other articles that go for the side lines above main lines approach, like Slav Defense, but I think they're in the minority. @Quale: care to give your opinion? Dayshade (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to come up with a list comparing the benefits/drawbacks of putting side lines first vs last. Was doing a bit of this at Talk:Ruy_Lopez#The_spinout_try_is_valiant_but_doesn't_work. Dayshade (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, I was already half-planning a rewrite (there's a lot of uncited material in the article anyway), so maybe I'll do that in userspace and let you know when it's in a serviceable state to compare. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Do you have access to any books/PDFs/etc about KG to use to add citations to uncited material? Dayshade (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Many. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Great! Being lazy about citing is a weak spot for me, and PDFs aren't available for newer, more accurate books. I was thinking more about the main line/side line thing, and was curious about your thoughts on the compromise approach being tried out on Ruy Lopez where an intro section builds up to the main line with links to section anchors, and then goes into the main line, and then deeper to shallower deviations. I think this method has less problems than the other two approaches, but it still isn't problem free, one example being that it can become necessary to anchor a name for a broader branch that contains the main line into the intro section(s) (such as Closed Defence on Ruy), although a subsection could still be used. I do like how main line being the first non-intro section keeps a nice importance hierarchy. Dayshade (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I think there must be different approaches for the most heavily analyzed broad opening, whether that be the Ruy Lopez, the Sicilian, the QG etc. and the comparatively more defined KG and others like it. A one size fits all approach is never entirely satisfactory. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)