Talk:Wing Gambit

The Tartakower book was translated into engish, the title is "A breviary of chess".

Lynxup07 (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This gambit is referenced in an old french book by Tartakower "Le bréviaire des échecs", he called it "le gambit sicilien", another reference can be found in the Fine book "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings", perhaps these two references could be added in the article.

Lynxup07 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

old talk
Sicilian Wing Gambit: Like the aritcle suggests, it's not the most logical responce to C5 and so it has largely fallen out of use. Therein lies some of its attraction, however. If you become familiar with it, your knowledge of an odd opening line might prove an advantage, especially over players who rely on a deep understanding of conventional openings - and especially when short time limits are being used.

Also, there's an alternative to A3 for white. The alternative is less logical again, but if the strategy is about avoiding known lines this one can work. Try to play C4. If black takes en passent, take back with the knight. If he doesn't...you'll have some interesting opportunities later to get a sustainable 3 pawn centre. From a psycological perspective this can be helpful. Black playing the Sicilian certainly had it in mind to prevent a 2 pawn centre for white. Then white gets 3.

On the other hand, I've had terrible games with C4. I think I'd abandon the wing gambit if I wasn't a bit in love with it. It's got a cool name, it's usually unexpected, and although risky it can sometimes yield dramatic and aggressive form for white.

I'd be interested to know what other players think of the line. Who playes it? What do you think are the main issues? I only have a superficial understanding of it.

I think I learnt about the above variation from computer software Chess Master.

Variations
ChessCreator (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.e4 c5 2.b4 Wing Gambit, Sicilian
 * 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6/d6/a6 3.b4 Wing Gambit Deferred, Sicilian
 * 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 Wing Gambit, French
 * 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 Wing Gambit, French
 * 1.e4 c6 2.Ne2 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 Wing Gambit, Caro-Kann
 * 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.b4 Wing Gambit, Open Game
 * 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.b4 Wing Gambit, Bishop's Opening
 * 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.b4 Wing Gambit, Ruy Lopez
 * 1.a4 b5 Wing Gambit, Ware Opening
 * 1.c4 c5 2.b4 Wing variation, English Symmetrical
 * 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 g6 4.c4 b5 Wing Gambit, Center Counter
 * 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Evans Gambit - Not actually called a Wing Gambit but this is what it is.

The arcticle says that a Wing Gambit is "An opening in which one side gambits his b-pawn against his opponnents c-pawn", or something like that. Therefore, the Evans Gambit is not a Wing Gambit.Chesslover96 (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The description is incorrect.
 * 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.b4 Wing Gambit, Open Game
 * 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.b4 Wing Gambit, Bishop's Opening
 * 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.b4 Wing Gambit, Ruy Lopez
 * Those three lines listed have nothing to do with a c-pawn, but are still Wing Gambits. ChessCreator (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nearly two years later, the incorrect description is still there, so I'm going to attempt to modify it. 213.249.135.36 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Or in which Black plays ...b5, but Wing Gambits offered by Black are very rare"
Under that definition, surely the Benko Gambit counts, and is not rare. Double sharp (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That's true, you are so sharp! ;) --Little bishop (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

wing gambit (No Uppercase)
A wing gambit is a generic gambit on a side (wing) of the board, capitalization is not required and lead to confusion. The expression cannot be limited only to the b4 and b5 squares: in fact Krejcik Gambit and Hobbs Gambit are wing gambits too.

In the Sicilian Defense there is a "Wing Gambit Variation" as in other openings we can find an "Advance Variation" or an "Exchange Variation" or "Fianchetto Variation", "Classical Variation", "Modern Variation"... Just generic names.

English Wikipedia capitalizes every possible chess variation and I am fine with that, but when we talk about a generic wing gambit I cannot see the reason for the uppercase. --Little bishop (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)