  Gambits are central to human decision-making. Our goal is to provide a theory
of Gambits. A Gambit is a combination of psychological and technical factors
designed to disrupt predictable play. Chess provides an environment to study
gambits and behavioral game theory. Our theory is based on the Bellman
optimality path for sequential decision-making. This allows us to calculate the
$Q$-values of a Gambit where material (usually a pawn) is sacrificed for
dynamic play. On the empirical side, we study the effectiveness of a number of
popular chess Gambits. This is a natural setting as chess Gambits require a
sequential assessment of a set of moves (a.k.a. policy) after the Gambit has
been accepted. Our analysis uses Stockfish 14.1 to calculate the optimal
Bellman $Q$ values, which fundamentally measures if a position is winning or
losing. To test whether Bellman's equation holds in play, we estimate the
transition probabilities to the next board state via a database of expert human
play. This then allows us to test whether the \emph{Gambiteer} is following the
optimal path in his decision-making. Our methodology is applied to the popular
Stafford and reverse Stafford (a.k.a. Boden-Kieretsky-Morphy) Gambit and other
common ones including the Smith-Morra, Goring, Danish and Halloween Gambits. We
build on research in human decision-making by proving an irrational skewness
preference within agents in chess. We conclude with directions for future
research.
