Talk:Blackburne Shilling Gambit

old talk

this sentence does not make sense, i'm not sure what it is trying to say: "It is not a true gambit, since White cannot take White's pawn on e5 without losing material or being checkmated." --gb 05:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

A gambit is a sacrifice of material, most often one or two pawns. 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 is a true gambit, since after 3...dxc3 White is down two pawns, and will stay down a pawn even if he plays 4.Nxc3. The Blackburne Shilling Gambit is called a "gambit" only because it seems to offer White a free pawn on e5. However, since taking the pawn actually loses material for White (albeit with strong compensation if White knows what he's doing), it's not really a gambit. To take an even clearer example, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d3 c6 looks at first glance to be a gambit (a sacrifice of a pawn), since White can play 4.Nxe5. It would be a true gambit after, say, 4.Nxe5(??) d5(??). Once you realize that 4...Qa5+! wins the knight, however, no one would call 3...c6 a gambit: it merely sets a trap that White can fall into if he's careless. Similarly, the Blackburne Shilling Gambit only seems at first blush to offer White a free pawn (and thus be a true gambit). After 4.Nxe5!? Qg5!, White, not Black, is the one who loses material -- or even his king. Krakatoa 16:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

4.Bxf7+

Another suggestion not mentioned in the article is that after 1.P-K4,P-K4 2.N-KB3,N-QB3 3.B-B4,N-Q5?...I should have thought the most enterprising way of punishing black's loss of tempo is with 4.BxPcheck!! (eg. ....KXB 5.NxPcheck etc. with ample compensation for the piece and a probably winning attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.28.67 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. After 5. ... Ke7 white has no way to continue the attack or even getting more piece in to contine. Moving the Queen out 6. Qg4 d6 7. Qg5+ Nf6 =+ or 6. Qh5 can be met with Nf6 =+. Black is better and white's 4. Bxf7 is an unsound sacrifice. SunCreator (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If one likes this sort of sacrifice for White (compare the Cochrane Gambit against Petroff's Defense: 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7?!), it seems to me that one ought to play against the Blackburne Shilling Gambit 4.Nxe5!? Qg5 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.0-0, which gives White a similar but much improved form of piece sacrifice. In that line, White gets to chase around not only Black's king, but also his knight (c3) and queen (d4) with gain of tempo. Krakatoa (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But what about the reply 5. Nxe5 to 4. Bxf7+?! Ke7!? --116.14.27.179 (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Much to my surprise I agree. After 4. Bxf7+ Ke7 5. Nxe5 White is better, White could of even retreated the bishop by playing 5. Bc4, so 4...Ke7 is not enough. SunCreator (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh?! 4.Bxf7 Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Ke7 (as above). (6.Qh5 Qe8.) --IHTS (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

title of article

should be just "Blackburne Shilling Gambit" as that is the name of the opening. It is an offshoot of the Italian Game, but so are the Two Knights Defence, Hungarian Defence etc. and no-one ever refers to them as "Italian Game, Two Knights Defence". 91.105.40.189 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  Done. --IHTS (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

mate line

"Now the obvious 5.Nxf7?? loses to 5...Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#"

5.Nxf7 is a bad move, but this sentence is misleading at best. Neither 6. Rf1 or 7.Be2 is forced; White can give up the rook or the queen instead of getting mated. Rcaetano (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed w/ copyedit.  Done The mate line s/ still be quoted. --IHTS (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Bobby Bo Show

Online content creator Bobby BoJangles popularized this strategy by posting a breakdown of it in the form of a rap. I feel that should be mentioned here. 2603:7081:1C46:4000:917:2638:3A78:96AF (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)