Answers.Body: <p>I think that it's just because it looks like a mirror version of the King's Gambit, nothing more.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-19T13:32:36.203Z
Answers.Text: That's not really correct. It is indeed a gambit: that then Black cannot permanently hold to the pawn doesn't make it any less of a gambit.
Answers.UserDisplayName: gented
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-07-19T13:57:54.810Z
Answers.Text: @GennaroTedesco: this isn't exact science, terms like "correct" are too strong. Is the Scotch Opening misnamed because black can win a pawn with 4...Qh4? Is the Two Knights Defence misnamed because white wins a pawn in the main line of 4.Ng5? Four years later I still think that 2.c4 has the name it has because of the King's Gambit.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-18T12:32:29.017Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-01-18T12:32:29.017Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.Body: <p>The fact that a gambit involves a sacrifice in no way means that the sacrifice is permanent. Very few mainline gambit openings for White leave the gambit player with no means of retaking his material.</p>
  
  <p>While <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit_%28chess%29" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> does not necessarily make the distinction between a gambit and a sacrifice, I would contend that there is a difference:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>A sacrifice is intended as a permanent loss in material in exchange for a superior position.</p></li>
  <li><p>A gambit is a temporary loss to hasten development or secure a position. </p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>Based on this understanding, there is no reason NOT to consider the Queen's Gambit as a true gambit, unless you wish to state arbitrarily that there must be more than X number of plies between the loss and the subsequent regaining.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-01-17T20:39:55.687Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-01-17T20:39:55.687Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jonathan Garber
Answers.Body: <p>A gambit by any other name is still a gambit. Using your pawn as a sacrifice in order to control the action/ space on the board is the choice of the player. I concur w/ the notion that it’s not necessarily a sacrifice if the means justify the ends. Basically, it’s just a term that has been assigned to a particular strategy... is all!!!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-11-03T18:57:04.287Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-11-03T18:57:04.287Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Richard Rodriguez
Body: <p>If White will just get a pawn back at no cost, why is the <code>Queens Gambit</code> a <code>Gambit</code>?  Is it for historical reasons or something else?</p>
  
Tags: <opening><queens-gambit>
Title: Why is the "Queens Gambit" referred to as a gambit?
ThreadText: # Why is the "Queens Gambit" referred to as a gambit?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-01-17)
  
  If White will just get a pawn back at no cost, why is the `Queens Gambit` a `Gambit`? Is it for historical reasons or something else?
  
  **Tags:** opening, queens-gambit
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2013-01-18. Score: 6 | Accepted answer
  
  I think that it's just because it looks like a mirror version of the King's Gambit, nothing more.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: That's not really correct. It is indeed a gambit: that then Black cannot permanently hold to the pawn doesn't make it any less of a gambit.  
  > **username_1**: @GennaroTedesco: this isn't exact science, terms like "correct" are too strong. Is the Scotch Opening misnamed because black can win a pawn with 4...Qh4? Is the Two Knights Defence misnamed because white wins a pawn in the main line of 4.Ng5? Four years later I still think that 2.c4 has the name it has because of the King's Gambit.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2013-01-17. Score: 10
  
  The fact that a gambit involves a sacrifice in no way means that the sacrifice is permanent. Very few mainline gambit openings for White leave the gambit player with no means of retaking his material.
  
  While [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit_%28chess%29) does not necessarily make the distinction between a gambit and a sacrifice, I would contend that there is a difference:
  
  * A sacrifice is intended as a permanent loss in material in exchange for a superior position.
  * A gambit is a temporary loss to hasten development or secure a position.
  
  Based on this understanding, there is no reason NOT to consider the Queen's Gambit as a true gambit, unless you wish to state arbitrarily that there must be more than X number of plies between the loss and the subsequent regaining.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-11-03. Score: 0
  
  A gambit by any other name is still a gambit. Using your pawn as a sacrifice in order to control the action/ space on the board is the choice of the player. I concur w/ the notion that it’s not necessarily a sacrifice if the means justify the ends. Basically, it’s just a term that has been assigned to a particular strategy... is all!!!
  
  
  ---
  
  