Krdytkyu

My impression of the word "gambit" is the sacrifice of a pawn or several pawns at the opening stage of a chess game. However, based on the definition on Wikipedia, a gambit (from ancient Italian gambetto, meaning "to trip") is a chess opening in which a player, more often White, sacrifices material, usually a pawn, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position.

The phrase "usually a pawn" seems to imply that a gambit could be a sacrifice of other pieces. Am wondering what are examples of gambits that sacrifice a knight, or a bishop, or a rook, or even the queen, or a combination of these pieces?

I am not talking about blunders at the opening stage that cause loss of material. I am asking about openings that stand the test of time where one side willfully sacrifices some material other than pawns to earn some advantage.

A related question: What is the "biggest" gambit that is still being played at the master's or above level? That is, a gambit that white sacrifices a combination of biggest value of pieces and yet obtained enough advantage development and/or space; at the same time, the game is somewhat acceptable for black as well.

This is kind of out there (virtually nobody plays it as white and even fewer allow it as black) but there is a rather crazy queen sacrifice line in the Grand Prix:

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]

1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 3.Nf3 dxe4 4.Ng5 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bg4!? 6.Bxf7+ Kd7 7.Qxg4+ Nxg4 8.Be6+ Kc6 9.Bxg4

5...Bg4!? by black is quite rare and combative, inviting (daring) white to initiate the festivities where 5...e6 instead is calmer. So white takes it up and sacrifices the queen for just two minors and the hope of long-term play against black's lack of development. Yes, there isn't any quick tactical win, just long-term pressure while down a queen.

The position has occurred several times in master play (check the lichess database) but is extremely rare, and most examples not recent. It was even featured on chessgames.com many years back: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1648780

A commonly known knight sacrifice by white is the Fried Liver Attack:

[FEN ""]

[ECO "C57"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5?! (5... Na5 {The main line.} 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 {Black has compensation in form of initiative for the pawn.}) 6. Nxf7!? (6. d4 {The Lolli variation.}) Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3

White has a strong attack against the king in the middle of the board.

The 'Halloween Gambit' or 'Müller-Schulze Gambit' is a knight gambit in the (often characterized as dull) Four Knights Game:

[FEN ""]

[White "Blokje"]

[Black "Platypussy"]

[StartPly "7"]



1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.Bd3 Bb4 10.O-O Bxc3 11.bxc3 d6 12.e6 fxe6 13.dxe6 Nf6 14.g4 O-O 15.g5 Ne8 16.f5 Ne5 17.Re1 Nxd3?? 18.e7 (5... Ng6 {This is the old refutation, but it's still hard to defend.} 6. e5 Ng8 7. Bc4 d5 8. Bxd5 c6)

As the famous Dutch writer Tim Krabbé phrases it:

This [4. Nxe5] irritated me. I vaguely knew about this move - not as a real opening, but as some sort of a student's joke, something silly that might be played at the end of a long blitz-and-boozing session. Wasn't this the 'Irish Gambit', the one with the anecdote where they asked the inventor on his death bed how he had thought of it, and he had answered: 'I didn't see it was protected'?

Even though a 'refutation' had already been published in the mid 50s, it's surprisingly hard to defend for Black, especially in blitz games. The Tim Krabbé article I linked to, though somewhat old, is a nice introduction; it features several games where IMs and GMs are beaten by a lower-rated player with this gambit.

The Cochrane Gambit:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7

This is relatively sound gambit, Topalov has played it against Kramnik.

The Traxler Gambit:

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 5. Nxf7 Bxf2 6. Kf1 Qe7 7. Nxh8

White does have an option of taking on f7 with the bishiop 5. Bxf7 which leads to only a pawn sacrifice and less complicated position, but black does allow for a greater material sacrifice.

Gambit in Ruy Lopez. I don't remember the name of this, but it is a piece sacrifice.

[FEN ""]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 4. d4 fxe4

5. Nxe5 Nxe5 6. dxe5 c6 7. Nc3 cxb5 8. Nxe4

Not sure if this is considered a gambit, but one of the lines of the Steinitz variation of the Caro Kann defense involves white sacrificing a knight:

[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 "]

[Event "IBM Man-Machine, New York USA"]

[Site "New York, NY USA"]

[Date "1997.05.??"]

[Round "6"]

[Result "1-0"]

[White "Deep Blue"]

[Black "Garry Kasparov"]

[ECO "B17"]

[PlyCount "37"]

[StartPly "14"]



1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Ng5 Ngf6 6.Bd3 e6 7.N1f3 h6 8.Nxe6 Qe7 9.O-O fxe6 10.Bg6+ Kd8 11.Bf4 b5 12.a4 Bb7 13.Re1 Nd5 14.Bg3 Kc8 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Qd3 Bc6 17.Bf5 exf5 18.Rxe7 Bxe7 19.c4 1-0

There are only a few games involving this sacrifice, and this is due to the position requiring accurate play from white to keep the advantage.

The Perenyi Gambit is an important theoretical varaiation that has been favored by GMs J.Polgar or A.Shirov. White sacrifices at least one piece, and often two:

[FEN ""]

[ECO "C57"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e6 7. g4!? e5 8. Nf5 g6 9. g5 (9.Bg2) gxf5 10. exf5 d5 11. Qf3 d4

See, for instance, Polgar-Anand, 1999
Or this game by Svidler against Gelfand.