hearing the radio the whole evening

[freezeframe]

This is not true. A gambit in chess may not give you any advantage. A gambit is a sacrifice that appears to give some kind of edge, made in hope of getting an advantage. Gambits are indeed similar to gambling frequently. They often lead to very complicated play with outcomes difficult to foresee.

Some gambits, especially opening gambits, have been studied so thoroughly that there is little or no risk in playing them indeed (at least at the highest levels). For example, the Queen's Gambit is a powerful opening move which whether accepted or declined leads to interesting and even games. Other gambits such as the Latvian Gambit are considered dubious. Accepting them seems beneficial for the accepting player.

Did you read what I said?

 

[birdeen's call]

Did you read what I said?

Yes, I did. Your question offends me. You said

a gambit is always tactical since if it's accepted, the player gains an advantage.

It's not true. There is no reason to say that the player (whichever player you mean by this) gains an advantage if a gambit is accepted. There are three possible outcomes of an accepted gambit:

- an even game,
- an advantage for the player making the gambit,
- an advantage for the other player.

It is true that gambits are made with the intention of gaining an advantage. It is not true that they cease to be gambits when the advantage is not gained.

 

[freezeframe]

Yes, I did. Your question offends me. You said
It's not true. There is no reason to say that the player (whichever player you mean by this) gains an advantage if a gambit is accepted. There are three possible outcomes of an accepted gambit:

- an even game,
- an advantage for the player making the gambit,
- an advantage for the other player.

It is true that gambits are made with the intention of gaining an advantage. It is not true that they cease to be gambits when the advantage is not gained.

I said, and you might want to read what you quoted again, that gambits are tactical moves. I don't see how detailed explanations of chess is even relevant here. Whether the advantage is gained or not is irrelevant. Nothing you said contradicts the fact that it's tactical.

 

[birdeen's call]

I said, and you might want to read what you quoted again, that gambits are tactical moves. I don't see how detailed explanations of chess is even relevant here. Whether the advantage is gained or not is irrelevant. Nothing you said contradicts the fact that it's tactical.

No, it doesn't. Please notice that I didn't try to contradict that. What I said contradicts the other part of your sentence, which says that a gambit, if accepted, gives an advantage to one of the players. I did not mention its being tactical.

 

[freezeframe]

No, it doesn't. Please notice that I didn't try to contradict that. What I said contradicts the other part of your sentence, which says that a gambit, if accepted, gives an advantage to one of the players. I did not mention its being tactical.

Okay. You can read whatever you want into what I said. Usually interpreting something just based on a part of what was said, and not even on the main part, is not a sound practice. But if it works for you, go for it!