Talk:King's Gambit, McDonnell Gambit

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 29 December 2017 by reviewer Joe Decker (talk · contribs).

Chess Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bad to accept? Really?

I find it hard to believe that it is considered incorrect to accept the knight after 5.Nc3. Batsford Chess Openings for example quotes as its main line analysis by Malkin from 1911: 5...gxf3 6.Qxf3 d6 7.0-0 Be6 8.Nd5 c6 9.Qc3 cxd5 10.Qxh8 dxc4 11.Qxg8 Qb6 12.Kh1 Nc6 13.b3 Qd4 - MaxBrowne (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Korchnoi & Zak, they don't even consider any alternatives to 5...gxf3. They also quote Malkin's analysis from the Wiener Schachzeitung 1911. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Link to Wiener Schachzeitung (thank you Austria): [1] MaxBrowne (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should fix the article if you're willing. The use of chessgames.com is a problem since it is not a WP:RS for the claims made in the article. "The gambit has scored well in 29 tournament games" -- sample size is absurdly small. In fact chessgames.com doesn't quite say what the article claims, chessgames lists 7 alternatives for White on move 5 including 29 games with 5.d4 and 210 games with 5.0-0. "a mistake according to the opening analyser on Chess.com" -- not a WP:RS for this claim, should be removed from the article. Etc. Quale (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using the chess.com analyzer is the same as using a chess engine yourself, i.e. original research. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have played it many times, the reason why I wrote the article. You will see one game here Michael Campbell I play a lot of different openings. and personally I think it is best to decline it however I do see what you are saying and will endever to find more acceptable sources Michael Campbell (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

I'm thinking we don't really need this article. It can easily be merged with King's Gambit. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to evaluate w/o a specified rationale. (And a reconcile too, for WP-wide consistency sake, w/ existence of King's Gambit, Fischer Defense, King's Gambit, Falkbeer Countergambit, & King's Gambit, Rice Gambit.) Ok, --IHTS (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article is obviously a fan of the line, but it's actually extremely rare... hasn't been played at master level since Leonhardt-Rosselli 1912. [2] MaxBrowne (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got any sources with McDonnell Gambit? Best I've found so far is Korchnoi & Zak, which quotes 1911 Viennese analysis by Malkin as its main line. It also looks at 6...d5. MCO dismisses it out of hand ("consigned to the dustbin of history"), NCO doesn't mention it at all and BCO just recycles Malkin. Haven't got ECO. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ECO C ed. 2 has quite a bit (C37/9 w/ footnotes 37–42, incl game analysis by Tarrasch, Charousek, Schmidt, Korchnoi, Bilguer, & Marco); C ed. 3 has 5.Nc3 in an extensive footnote. --IHTS (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool the ECO stuff might be usable. I also found a bit of analysis in Staunton (Chess Player's Handbook) and Tartakower/Dumont (500 Master Games). Won't be much recent literature seeing as nobody plays it. Even specialist books on the King's Gambit won't devote a lot of space to it. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC) User:Krakatoa reputedly has an extensive chess book collection. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black ends up w/ ∓ in the best ECO lines, but in ed. 2 Korchnoi also gives 6.Qxf3 d6 7.d4 Be6 8.d5!? Bc8 9.Bxf4 Dufresne-Anderssen, Berlin 1851. From the Hooper & Whyld entry: "This alternative to the Muzio Gambit is regarded as a less effective choice, but it has not been tested thoroughly." --IHTS (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallagher (1993) doesn't cover 4.Bc4 at all (found a naughty pdf). Some coverage in Neil McDonald (1998). MaxBrowne (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in John Shaw (2013) either. He recommends the Kieseritzky and the Quaade, but after 4.Nc3 g4 he doesn't even consider 5.Bc4, only 5.Ne5 (which is fair enough really). He only briefly looks at the Muzio, commenting that White shouldn't play 4.Bc4 and Black shouldn't reply 4...g4, and doesn't consider alternatives to 5.O-O. I'm a bit surprised he doesn't give it more coverage in such a huge book given it's such a huge part of the traditional King's Gambit. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Edit: Shaw's reasoning is that he won't include inferior replies to inferior moves. He considers 4.h4 best, 4.Nc3 interesting and worth a try, and 4.Bc4 inferior. He also considers that in reply to 4.Bc4, 4...Bg7 is best and 4...g4 is inferior. This approach leads him to give scant coverage to the Muzio. No doubt he would consider the McDonnell gambit an inferior continuation after an inferior reply to an inferior move. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the merging issue, it seems rather odd that this line which has very little theory about it should have its own article, while the well known Muzio Gambit does not. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral. Since article creation represents work, a view might be that McDonnell Gambit simply beat King's Gambit, Muzio Gambit in landing a motivated editor. But yeah, McDonnel Gambit is lower importance. --IHTS (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Muzio Gambit does exist. Michael Campbell (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

alternatives to 5...gxf3

Just noting that 5...Nc6 is a perfectly good move, it's not so much declining the sac as delaying acceptance. The knight has no good place to go and 6.Ng1 is obviously bad. Now 6.O-O is a transposition to the Hamppe-Muzio Gambit. 5...d6 also more or less forces 6.O-O, which is another position more often reached via the Vienna. 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.f4 is called the "Omaha Gambit". MaxBrowne (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(5...Nc6) 6.d4 is transposition to Pierce Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Bc4 [C25]). --IHTS (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, 5...Nc6 is WP:OR. (If a ref is demanded for it, good luck!) --IHTS (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]