5*27 
Cunningham Gambits 
ISi2.] 
at a loss to ascertain the meaning of the 
word cho7'us. 
Perhaps, as ‘‘ Dryden alone escaped 
the judging eye” of the poetical critic 
.mentioned by Pope, the name of Pl)i- 
lidor may not have occurred in the course 
of his investigations to your correspon¬ 
dent, If so, it may not be amiss to in¬ 
form him that an excellent edition of the 
Analyses of Chess,” by that celebrated 
professor, has been recently published, 
with many additional notes and illustra¬ 
tions. The editor of this work has not 
given his name, but l.-e appears to be an 
admirable adept in ti e game, and his 
occasional comments are very masterly. 
The term Gambit^ (vide vol. i. p. 295) 
is adopted from the Italian, being a figu¬ 
rative expression borrowed from the art 
of wrestling; and it signifies properly 
a full by tripping "up, involring in it the 
idea of an unexpected attack, by which 
the party assailed is suddenly circum¬ 
vented. Tlie technical meaning of it is 
well known, to all persons wlro have stu¬ 
died the game of chess, to be a sacrifice 
of the king’s bishop’s, or queen’s bishop’s, 
pawn at a second move, with a view to 
gain a superior position ; by which, if the 
skill and vigilance of the adverse party is 
not unremittingly exerted, a check mate 
will be the result in a very few moves. 
If the players are both proficients in the 
game, the chances are generally accounted 
nearly equal. At least this is allowed in 
relation to the queen’s gambit, as the 
gambit pawn, that is, the pawn doubled 
upon the adjoining one, cannot be sus¬ 
tained with respect to the king’s gambit, 
authorities somewhat differ. The Aca¬ 
demy of Chess, which tlirurished about 
two centuries ago at .Naples, after a cri¬ 
tical analysis of the king’s gambit, came 
to the conclusion that he who plays it 
should lose, with whom Saivio, Loili, and 
most otiier writers on this game, agree. 
But Pliiiidor, himself an host, maintains 
that (he king’s gambit is equally safe 
witfi the queen’s, ai>G that the best de¬ 
fence may draw the game, but cannot 
win; and he avoids as a treacherous spe¬ 
culation the attempt to sustain the gam¬ 
bit pawn. The ingenuity which has been 
displayed in the discussion of tlris ques¬ 
tion is truly wonderful, and is calculated 
to afford great amusement to those who 
possess the patient and persevering at¬ 
tention requisite firr entering into all the 
intricacies of this difficult game. Phi- 
Jidor gives more than thirty exemplifica¬ 
tions of the different modes of playing 
the gambit; but the defences set up by 
the ablest masters, in opposition to this 
manoeuvre, are so strong, that the opinion 
entertained by Philidor of its safety does 
not seem to gain ground. The defence 
of Saivio, in particular, is said by the late 
editor of Plnlidor’s Analysis, to comprise 
a spear as well as a shield. And, upon 
the whole, though the gambit will inva¬ 
riably succeed against a player not per¬ 
fectly skilled in the game, it is seldom or 
never ha 2 :arded by any adept against an 
equal player. 
Chess appears to have been more cul¬ 
tivated by tlie Italians tl)an any other 
occidental nation. The names oV Lolii, 
^alvin, Greco, Damiano, &c, ar-e well 
Ivnown as accomplished players, but 
those French writers on this game, to 
whom your correspondent alludes, I hnre 
not been fortunate enough to meet with. 
It may be proper just to add that your 
correspondent speaks of the Ctmnino-hfun 
gambit as if it were something different 
from the mode of play already described " 
but, after all his researches, how' can he 
need the information included in the fir&t 
elements of the’game, that, technically 
speaking, the only gambits are those of 
the king and queen ? The Cunningham 
gambit being only one mode, and, bv the 
acknowledgment of all players, a most 
brilliatit and ingenious one, of playitu’ 
the king’s gambit, though the resuft is 
still a subject of doubt and discussion. 
Nov. 11,1811. 
P.S. As a short and amusing specimen of 
this well-known manceuvre, you will, I flat¬ 
ter myself, allow room for the following ex¬ 
ample, taken from the first back-game of ths 
Cunningham gambit. Vide Philidor’s Ana¬ 
lysis, vol. ii. p. 9. 
I. 
Vf. King’s pawn 2 squares, 
B. The same. 
If. 
W. King’s bishop’^s pawn 2 squares, 
B- Tlie pawn takes the pawn. 
ill. 
W. King’s knight to his bishop’s od, 
B. King’s bishop to his king’s 2d. 
IV. 
W. King’s bishop to queen’s bishop’s 4th, 
B. The King’s bishop gives che ck, 
V. 
V/. The knights pawn interposes, 
B. The pawn takes the Dawn* 
VL 
W. The king castles, 
B. The pawn takes the pawn and checks, 
VII. 
W. King to his Rook’s square, 
B, King’s bishop to his king’s .2d, 
