Talk:King's Gambit

Chess C‑class High‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

New diagrams

I apply a new template of chess diagram according to inter-wiki chess project: [1]. Please read this and join the discussion. --Klin 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contradiction

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)[reply]

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

Small error

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).[reply]

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

Work needed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]