The “Gambits”

[Kings Gambit]

A few members have commented on Netflix’s series entitled The Queen’s Gambit in association with my handle here, Kings Gambit, which really should be King’s Gambit but the apostrophe is not allowed. Not to comment on the series, which I am not watching b/c no subscription to Netflix, I thought there might be interest in what actually are the King’s and Queen’s gambits as played in chess. A gambit is a ploy. The ploy is to entice one’s opponent to capture a pawn without immediate exchange, to enable an advantage in position or in tempo for the player who gives up the pawn. But material is important in chess. An opponent who is a pawn up (a pawn ahead) at the end of the game can win with King and pawn against King only. So, the gambit (ploy) is that game will end in favor of the player offering the pawn before total material is reduced to the point that lacking the “gambit pawn” which was given up does not lead to defeat of player who offered it.

There are several “gambits” in chess. The King’s and Queen’s gambits are opening moves played as White. In the King’s Gambit the King’s Bishop Pawn is offered on the 3rd move of the game. White 1) P-K4; Black 1) P-K4 from Black’s side of the Board, then White 2) P-KB4; if Black 2) PXP the gambit is accepted; if not the gambit is declined.

The Queen’s Gambit is the mirror image on the Queen’s side of the Board. White 1) P-Q4; Black 1) P-Q4. White 2) P-QB4; if Black 2) PXP the gambit is accepted; if not the gambit is declined. From my experience, the Queen’s Gambit is declined more often than is the King’s. So, in reporting or notating a game, it would be called Queen’s Gambit Accepted or Queen’s Gambit Declined.

These are chess openings for White. White offers the gambit; Black accepts or declines. The title of the Netflix series appears to use the opening name metaphorically. It is the Queen’s (starring female chess player) Gambit (i.e., ploy, risk, or gamble) to become a world champion chess player, and is not something in reference to an actual chess game. I hope to see it myself.

KG

 

[dlochner]

The Queen's Gambit was a great series, easily worth the price of a month's subscription to Netflix. The producers and director took great pains to authentically reflect both the era (1960s Cold War era) and the how chess is played. Several of the games are reenactments of real games played. Gary Kasparov a former World Chess Champion and Bruce Pandolfini a well known NYC chess coach consulted on the series.

I’m a Chess Expert. Here’s What ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ Gets Right (Published 2020)

The Netflix show about a female chess prodigy in the 1950s and ’60s is one of the best screen adaptations of the game yet. But there are a few wrong moves.

www.nytimes.com

 

[TomY]

The Queen's Gambit was a great series, easily worth the price of a month's subscription to Netflix. The producers and director took great pains to authentically reflect both the era (1960s Cold War era) and the how chess is played. Several of the games are reenactments of real games played. Gary Kasparov a former World Chess Champion and Bruce Pandolfini a well known NYC chess coach consulted on the series.

I’m a Chess Expert. Here’s What ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ Gets Right (Published 2020)

The Netflix show about a female chess prodigy in the 1950s and ’60s is one of the best screen adaptations of the game yet. But there are a few wrong moves.

www.nytimes.com

I so enjoyed Queen's Gambit. The work in the sets and costumes, and especially the mental images of chess being played on the ceiling.

 

[JamesG161]

After I became a Rated Chess Player, my ability to find a real chess player declined.

But I always open with...

White 1) P-Q4;

Why do this?

It empowers the Bishops early in the game, which limits the opponent attacks and frustrates the standard King side castle defense.
_____
I played the GrandMaster of Kentucky at the Louisville Chess Club, who sat alone at a table. No one wanted to "Challenge" him.
After the chess courtesies , I sat down and he opened PK4. The standard 13 moves took place, but I eventually lost a pawn.
He thought I should resign immediately!

I looked him in the eyes and asked "How do I ever improve if I never play a full game out?"

He gave me a big smile and we played many games that night.

He never accepted the Queen's Gambit.
Jim...

 

[jon hansen]

i consider sailing 'playing chess with mother nature'

 

[Kings Gambit]

After I became a Rated Chess Player, my ability to find a real chess players declined.

But I always open with...

Why do this?

It empowers the Bishops early in the game, which limits the opponent attacks and frustrates the standard King side castle defense.
_____
I played the GrandMaster of Kentucky at the Louisville Chess Club, who sat alone at a table. No one want to "Challenge" him.
After the chess courtesies , I sat down and he opened PK4. The standard 13 moves took place, but I eventually lost a pawn.
He thought I should resign immediately!

I looked him in the eyes and asked "How do I ever improve if I never play a full game out?"

He gave me a big smile and we played many games that night.

He never accepted the Queen's Gambit.
Jim...

I never allow the Queen’s Gambit to be offered. In reply to 1) P-Q4 (=d4), I play: 1) N-KB6 (=Nf6), usually leading to the Nimzo-Indian Defence after 2) ... e6.

Note for interested readers. Standard chess notation was changed more than 40 yr ago from the traditional descriptive notation (e.g., 1. P-Q4) to “algebraic” notation, where each square on the 64-square chess board is uniquely notated with a file letter (a-h, left to right) and a rank number (1-8 beginning from White’s side of the board), and where the moves are abbreviated. So, 1) P-Q4 becomes 1) d4 b/c the Queen pawn is the only piece that can move there in the opening, etc. The Queen’s Gambit becomes 1) d4 d5 2) c4 dxc if accepted.

 

[Kings Gambit]

He never accepted the Queen's Gambit.
Jim...

Accepting the Queen’s Gambit is dangerous for Black. Much more so than accepting the King’s Gambit, which by comparison is often played. At Master’s level of play, it is hardly ever seen, at least among the games that get published in Chess Life.

 

[rgranger]

So from what I see here KG... you have to watch QG. Not only is the chess engaging but the acting is superlative and the back story told in a most spectacular way. I am not a chess player but I am drawn to shows that find unique ways of telling a story. So far my top four most favorite shows are

1. Shawshank Redemption
2. O'Brother where art thou
3. Queens Gambit
4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

These shows make my list because they do not follow the Hollywood formulaic way of unfolding a plot.... and they are all great stories. Okay I know!!! #2 is actually the Odyssey but it is still a great way to tell a story.

 

[JamesG161]

Nimzo-Indian Defence

Easy to break that one.

Attack .. Attack ... Attack!
Jim...

 

[Kings Gambit]

Easy to break that one.

Attack .. Attack ... Attack!
Jim...

I think Nimzowitch would disagree.

 

[JamesG161]

I think Nimzowitch would disagree

The offense is simply a White Pawn attack on the White Queen side. That makes Black retreat.
The Bishops become very powerful to attack the standard Black King side castle.

Noted by the name even...

Nimzo-Indian Defence

Checkmate...
Jim...

PS: This is the better defense... Queen's Indian Defense - Wikipedia

 

[Kings Gambit]

You’re evidently thinking of the King’s Indian Defence. That one and Queen’s Indian Defence you mention both depend on fianchettoed bishops. The Nimzo-Indian does not. It goes:
1) d4 Nf6
2) c4 e6
3) Nc3 Bb4! (Black’s dark-squared bishop pins White’s queen-side knight against the King.) Black threatens 4) .... Ne4 attacking the pinned white knight, and winning a pawn. Or, 4) .... BxN check, doubling pawns on White’s c-file, which weakens the pawn structure significantly. It’s an aggressive opening for Black against the d4 opening of White. White is defending by move 5), not attacking.

Most openings of Black are dubbed “... Defence” b/c White makes the first move, effectively beginning an advance against the Black pieces at the start of the game. An opening labeled “... Defence” tells you that it is played as Black. The situation can quickly reverse, however, with Black attacking White in the first few moves, as with the Nimzo-Indian. Aron Nimzowitch, for which the opening is named, was a world-class Master, theorist, and author of chess. If you want to read in Wikipedia, read about him.

 

[Project_Mayhem]

I also highly recommend watching the Queens Gambit. The writers did an outstanding job! It has more of a movie feeling than a TV show feeling

 

[Joe]

The title of the Netflix series appears to use the opening name metaphorically. It is the Queen’s (starring female chess player) Gambit (i.e., ploy, risk, or gamble) to become a world champion chess player, and is not something in reference to an actual chess game. I hope to see it myself.

KG

I certainly can appreciate your experienced chess commentary, however, I would be interested in your comments after seeing the movie.... or even reading the 1983 book by Walter Tevis of the same name. It's not really a movie about chess.... it's a movie about a flawed person who is a chess prodigy.... with all the pitfalls that may entail... It's not really "the natural" nor is it "raging bull" but it's an evolutionary tale that falls some where in between... No matter... I haven't talked to anyone who didn't absolutely love it.... but it wasn't the chess that they talked about. The story, the acting and the set/costumes. The chess geeks will undoubtedly start proclaiming various flaws and mistakes in the game depictions... but... why does that not surprise me... just look at this thread.

 

[Kings Gambit]

The chess community loves to see adaptations of chess themes in movies, films, etc. Even if as in this example, as you put it, the chess part is only the setting for another story about someone’s life. “Chess geeks” (World Champion Kasparov) actually consulted with the director to give the film a more realistic feel. The story made the cover plus feature article in the November issue of Chess Life (to which I have a subscription). See at the link. Article begins on p. 30.

It may be like with the movie Adrift. We enjoyed the story about survival (with the romance), etc., and the boat scenes. But we sailors could not help but notice some of the “flaws” in the details about sailing, cruising that other viewers would not. Does this make us hypercritical?

But BTW. What flaws & mistakes in the movie have been highlighted in this thread? One can hardly claim that an explanation of what the Queen’s Gambit is is a criticism. Someone who has not seen the movie can hardly make much credible commentary about its contents.

https://new.uschess.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2020-11_nov-chess-life.pdf

 

[rgranger]

The chess geeks will undoubtedly start proclaiming various flaws and mistakes in the game depictions... but... why does that not surprise me... just look at this thread.

It is an occupational hazard. I'm an analytical chemist and I often find myself screaming at the TV when watching CSI shows.

 

[Kings Gambit]

It is an occupational hazard. I'm an analytical chemist and I often find myself screaming at the TV when watching CSI shows.

Being a student of science and math since before 8th grade even, especially interested in cosmology and astronomy, I watched then, and still watch, a lot of Star Trek. I remain amused by a scene in the episode “Court Martial” aboard the Enterprise where Capt’n Kirk is explaining how an audio device on the ship’s computer will amplify the sound of heart beats by “1 to the 4th power.”

 

[kappykaplan]

Capt’n Kirk

I always thought it was Cap'n!

 

[dlochner]

Being a student of science and math since before 8th grade even, especially interested in cosmology and astronomy, I watched then, and still watch, a lot of Star Trek. I remain amused by a scene in the episode “Court Martial” aboard the Enterprise where Capt’n Kirk is explaining how an audio device on the ship’s computer will amplify the sound of heart beats by “1 to the 4th power.”

Quite the amplification, all the way up to 1 times.

Of course if one delves into the world of Fuzzy Math and approximate reasoning, then 1^4 may not be equal to 1.

Subscribe to International Journal of Approximate Reasoning - 0888-613X

Get a subscription to International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, ISSN 0888-613X

www.elsevier.com

 

[Kings Gambit]

Quite the amplification, all the way up to 1 times.

Of course if one delves into the world of Fuzzy Math and approximate reasoning, then 1^4 may not be equal to 1.

Subscribe to International Journal of Approximate Reasoning - 0888-613X

Get a subscription to International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, ISSN 0888-613X

www.elsevier.com

I imagine that along the way in the script 10 (to the 4th) got altered to 1, maybe a typo. The astonishing part is that no one caught it in rehearsal scenes before airing. Did they not know?

I’ve also seen a few scenes where “light year” is used in reference to an amount of time, rather than distance. In other scenes (of other episodes) it is used correctly, however. For folks who recognize these errors, it diminishes the authenticity of the scene and I think this subtracts from the enjoyment of it. So it is with “impossible” or incredible sailing scenes (All is Lost) as it would be with chess positions or moves that make no sense to a chess player.

Also in “Court Martial” we have Spock playing chess with the ship’s computer. He first comments to McCoy that because he (Spock) had programmed the computer for chess, “giving the computer an understanding of the game equal to my own”, and if lacking errors in play, all games should end in a draw. Yet, Spock had just won a few games, suggesting that the programming had been tampered with. Later at trial Spock testifies that the expected outcome of the games he played against the computer should be “stalemate after stalemate.” Yuk! He was right the first time. There are several avenues in chess leading to a drawn game. Stalemate is the least likely and the least often seen. BECAUSE if you stalemate your opponent you have blundered, stupidly, unless you are going for a draw and that is the only way to get it (before otherwise losing). If Spock stalemated the computer five times, playing for a win, he would not be a very good chess player, etc.