< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Jul-23-11|| ||paul1959: In his early years , Karpov was well known as a fast player. This degraded over time and he had several misadventures such as this one due to time trouble.|
|Jul-24-11|| ||myusernameis: how did Karpov NOT win this one? when I looked at the position after 40 Ke5, i thought: surely Karpov to play 40... Re2, pining the knight; 41... Rxe4 black rook takes knight, and 42... Kxd6 black king takes pawn at d6, with easy win (thanks to two connected pawns on the queenside) |
spassky: king of king's gambit
|Dec-06-11|| ||whiteshark: Kevin Spraggett analysed this game, too: http://kevinspraggett.blogspot.com/...|
|Dec-06-11|| ||whiteshark: Btw, the girl at the demo board in the background was Anja Dahlgruen|
|Dec-06-11|| ||HeMateMe: Wow, make mine Boris! I think playing Karpov motivated him, more so than his usual chess of the 80s, which was kind of wimpy.|
|Dec-06-11|| ||FSR: Unbelievably bad endgame play by Karpov. Spassky has a phenomenal score with the King's Gambit, including wins against Fischer, Karpov, Bronstein, Portisch, etc. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... He is surely the greatest King Gambiteer of all time.|
|Dec-06-11|| ||HeMateMe: Do you feel this opening is played out? After black takes the pawn on f4, he usaully gets a better game. Can these great players, assisted by the tactical monster engines, not find the latest improvement to bust the Kings Gambit bust-bust-buster?|
|Dec-06-11|| ||FSR: <HeMateMe> I'm no authority on the King's Gambit, but I don't think it has many advocates these days. It's interesting that tacticians like Kasparov, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... and Anand, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches..., have rarely if ever played it - they haven't succeeded in refuting it as Black, either. Short has done pretty well with it. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
|Dec-06-11|| ||FSR: Somehow the King's Gambit still hasn't been refuted. If you look at recent (2010-11) games with it, the top players rarely play it, but do well when they do. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
|Dec-06-11|| ||acirce: Short - and Kramnik - on the King's Gambit:
<In my opinion perhaps the most romantic of all openings is the King's Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. f4!). A few years ago I sat in a bar with Vladimir Kramnik discussing theory. At that time the future World Champion was contemplating a switch to King's Pawn openings and he wanted to bounce his preliminary ideas off me. He opined that the Evans' Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4!) was very logical: White sacrifices a fairly unimportant wing pawn to open lines and accelerate his development. This was not necessarily to say that it was Vlad's preferred method of starting the game, but at least he could understand the rationale behind it. In contrast, the King's Gambit, however, was for him totally incomprehensible: it loses a pawn and weakens the kingside, for all he could see.
Of course Vlad was absolutely right; my scientific deductive side had to agree – the King's Gambit has had a somewhat dodgy reputation ever since it was first mentioned in Lucena's manuscript of 1497. And yet my irrational mystical side revolted and still revolts against so cold and sober a judgement. There is something inspiring about voyaging into storm-tossed seas.> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...
So even Short, who at occasion likes using it as a practical weapon, doesn't pretend that the KG is objectively good.
Shirov once gave 2.f4 a "?!" in Informator, I think.
|Dec-06-11|| ||FSR: <acirce> I assume Kasparov would agree. It's telling that he only played it in one game in the database, and that a simul game. Of course Fischer is a strange case. He claimed that "The King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force.", then took it up himself and went 3-0 with it.|
|Dec-06-11|| ||Petrosianic: Fischer was very unobjective at that point in his career, and said a lot of silly things that got repeated as gospel.|
But even then, he only meant that the King's KNIGHT'S Gambit was busted. Whenever he himself played the King's Gambit, he played 3. Bc4, which he never claimed to have busted.
|Dec-06-11|| ||Everett: And of course the King's Knight's Gambit does not "lose by force," not even to the Fischer Defense.|
|Dec-06-11|| ||FSR: <Petrosianic> All he analyzed in his article was the King's Knight's Gambit. But he <said> unequivocally in that article, "The King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force."|
|Dec-06-11|| ||Petrosianic: The title of the article is pure hyperbole. It claims that the whole King's Gambit is busted, but the article itself only tries to bust 3. NF3. I don't know if we can blame that on Fischer, since editors often change titles to make them more attention grabbing.|
In fact, even the title may not be that bad. People remember it as "The King's Gambit is Busted", but I believe the actual title is "A Bust to the King's Gambit". (depending on how you interpret that, "a bust" may not mean the entire opening).
Of course we can blame on Fischer what Everett said; that even 3. Nf3 doesn't really lose by force.
|Dec-06-11|| ||TheFocus: In his notes to Fischer - Evans, US Championship 1963-64, about 3. Bc4, Fischer said, "Better than 3. Nf3 which is practically refuted by 3...d6 (see my analysis in the American Chess Quarterly)."|
|Dec-06-11|| ||FSR: I must say that is a very weird notion: that after 3.Nf3 the assessment is ("The King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force.") or at least large advantage Black ("practically refuted by 3...d6") while after 3.Bc4 White is presumably fine (equal? better?). IMO it was kind of a dirty trick to write in the first issue of Evans' magazine that the King's Gambit "loses by force" and then surprise Evans with that same "losing" opening at the U.S. Championship.|
|May-30-12|| ||kasparvez: Fischer's article: http://www.academicchess.org/images...|
|Jun-03-12|| ||Damonkeyboy: Bishop's gambit is wekaer. 3.Qh4= takes away castling, which makes up for the loss of tempo|
|Jun-03-12|| ||Shams: <Damonkeyboy> The loss of castling may not be so bad for White, though. I think 3...Nf6 or 3...d5 (e.g. R Eames vs Adams, 2010) are more challenging.|
|Aug-07-12|| ||Petrosianic: <He opined that the Evans' Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4!) was very logical: White sacrifices a fairly unimportant wing pawn to open lines and accelerate his development.>|
No problem there
<In contrast, the King's Gambit, however, was for him totally incomprehensible: it loses a pawn and weakens the kingside, for all he could see.>
It may not be as stable as the Evans, but it's logical enough too. White tries to eliminate Black's center, to build up a strong center of his own, and open the KB file for attacking purposes. It looks dodgier today because there are opening systems now, like the Pirc, Robatsch and othesr, where Black deliberately invites White to set up that d4/e4 pawn center without even having to give up a pawn to get it. In older days, that center was regarded as much stronger than it is now.
|Aug-17-12|| ||Everett: Leave it to <acirce> to post how various openings are dubious. If Lasker lived, the good doctor would be happy to continue winning with the KG and KID. He was ever the one to destroy others' false notions at the board.|
|Aug-17-12|| ||perfidious: This, along with numerous other games in this DB, are classified as the Fischer line, but tend to transpose into other variations which arise after 3....g5 or even Becker's 3....h6, which would usually lead into the Classical but not allow White the option of playing the Kieseritzky.|
|Aug-17-12|| ||keypusher: <Everett: Leave it to <acirce> to post how various openings are dubious. If Lasker lived, the good doctor would be happy to continue winning with the KG and KID. He was ever the one to destroy others' false notions at the board.>
I don't agree re Lasker. AFAIK he played the KG once in a serious game in his career, at the very end of the Janowski WC match, so query how serious that was. His favorite opening with White was the Ruy Lopez. He usually answered 1.e4 with 1....e5 and 1.d4 with 1....d5.|
<The delight in gambits is a sign of chess youth... In very much the same way as the young man, on reaching his manhood years, lays aside the Indian stories and stories of adventure, and turns to the psychological novel.>
|Aug-17-12|| ||Everett: <keypusher> You may disagree with someone else, but what you state does not address what I'm saying.|
It is well known that if someone condemned a particular opening variation <incorrectly, in his eyes>, then Lasker would question whether that player understood the position, and take it up against him.
And if that last paragraph is from Lasker, I'm surprised the older man wouldn't eschew fiction altogether.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·