|Jun-03-04|| ||sergeidave: Shirov defeating the King's Gambit!
I love the King's Gambit though... anyway... Nice game!
|Oct-17-04|| ||Gegonz: Shirov wrote in Gambito Magazine 2. f4? Is the King´s Gambit over? |
|Dec-02-04|| ||seoulmama: Geqonz, as much as I admire Shirov, I seriously doubt that his own personal question mark has much to do with the KG's objective value. |
|Dec-05-04|| ||notyetagm: In the Informant Shirov wrote 2 f4?!, dubious but not a blunder. |
|Dec-05-04|| ||Hanada: Really?! One of the game's greatest attackers bashing one of the game's most attacking openings. How can this be? Intriguing. Anyone know where I can find these interviews and anymore with Shirov? Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
|Dec-05-04|| ||acirce: Because he thinks it's unsound? :-) Just because he's an attacker he doesn't have to endorse everything "attacking". Besides, the modern treatment of the KG is generally much less all out attacking than it used to be.|
And why should Shirov be an exception? I believe that very few top players would give their seal of approval to the KG - things have changed since Deschapelles, at least according to Kasparov's OMGP series, said that any move OTHER than 2.f4 is advantageous to Black.
|Dec-05-04|| ||Hanada: First off, let me say I am not a fanatical advocate of unorthodox play or a player who lives off of fringe openings. However, I do think there are many misconceptions that seperate "sound", established variations and what many consider "unorthodox openings". |
This being said, I know that the KG is not an unorthodox opening because it follows many classical principles in its logic. But it is becoming a fringe opening due to lack of use, only seen on rare occasions by specialists such as Federov. However, this was the case with the Scotch until Kasparov revived it. My point is that I don't buy into the notion that it is unsound, but rather, I believe it is more a case of fashion, or lack of newly injected ideas.
Kasparov may not like it...so what!! Morphy didn't like the English, and questioned it's relevancy.
Do u think Kasparov agrees?
|Dec-05-04|| ||drukenknight: what is wrong w/ 22 Bg5? |
|Dec-06-04|| ||sneaky pete: <drukenknight> 22.Bg5 .. is illegal. I suppose you mean 22.Bh5 .. when 22... Qe4 23.Bxe8 f3 looks winning. |
|Dec-06-04|| ||drukenknight: yes that is what I meant. Is that you, Pete, from the club? |
|Dec-06-04|| ||PinkPanther: What acrice said doesn't make sense. Any move other than 2.f4 is advantageous to black? Is this taking Nf3 into account? |
|Dec-06-04|| ||square dance: <pp> i think <acirce>'s post meant to read something like this: <things have changed since Deschapelles> who <said that any move OTHER than 2.f4 is advantageous to Black.> |
|Dec-06-04|| ||tamar: <acirce> Deschapelles did say
2 f4 was best, but it was in reference to the Sicilian, not the King's Gambit. Staunton agreed with him, but Morphy thought 2 d4 and 2 Nf3 were stronger moves and called 2 f4 " a completely incorrect method of play." |
|Dec-06-04|| ||admiralnemo: Anyhow, Federov has a high rate of success with the king's gambit accepted against players better than most of us will ever face and i think many of use can learn a lot from his games. Plus, IMO, the King's Gambit is fun, which is, I think some of us will admit, one of the reasons we play chess. |
|Dec-06-04|| ||admiralnemo: sorry, "us" for "use" |
|Dec-06-04|| ||acirce: <tamar> You're right about that, I just read the moves wrongly in the book. Stupid. It was indeed about 2.f4 after 1.e4 c5, not 1.e4 e5. Mea culpa. |
|Jan-17-05|| ||InspiredByMorphy: I love the kings gambit and will never stop playing it. I think Fedorov should have played 7.Nxf6+ which according to the database, is more frequently played, and has better results. Opening Explorer |
|Jan-17-05|| ||InspiredByMorphy: <tamar> Interesting note on how Morphy
felt about 1.e4 c5 2.f4 . It makes sense considering he only
played once, and was 13 yrs old when he did so (although he
scored a stunning victory with it) Morphy vs Lowenthal, 1850. I believe I read somewhere
that he learned it from the LaBourdannaise vs MacDonnell
matches. It would make sense he felt this way about playing f4
against the sicilian as he got older considering he never played it
again. I was told by a master that theres nothing wrong with it,
and that its simply equal. I personally play 2.d4 |
|Sep-28-06|| ||RonB52734: There is an analysis of this game here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...|
|Nov-06-07|| ||notyetagm: Position after 18 ... ♗f5-e4:
click for larger view
Now -that- is what you call piece activity.
|Nov-06-07|| ||IMlday: After this sparkling Shirov display 7.Nxf6+ became the main line, e.g.:
Fedorov vs Anand, 2001|
|May-25-09|| ||notyetagm: Here Shirov (White) applies a good old-fashioned ass-beating.|
|Sep-20-09|| ||Garech: I have done a youtube analysis of this game using Fritz, please check out the following link if you are interested - thanks!|
|Nov-29-09|| ||hedgeh0g: Modern theory has taken the fun out of a lot of gambits, most notably the King's Gambit. One of the most fun gambits to play, in my opinion, is the Fajarowicz variation of the Budapest, because if the pawn is declined, Black gets the better game.|
|May-04-16|| ||plang: Shirov:
"One year ago when I was to play Black against Nigel Short in the FIDE World Championship in Las Vegas, I suspected before the game that he would play the Kings Gambit, wgich he actually did. In the present game Fedorov falls into a line that was prepared for that game."
In Las Vegas Short had played 7 Nxf6+ and the game had ended in a draw (which was all Shirov needed to clinch their two game match); Fedorov's 7 Nf2?! was the other main line for White but this game seems to put it out of commission. In another game against Short at Madrid 1997 Shirov had "forgotten" to play 7..Rg8 (as in this game) and White had obtained a playable game (though Black went on to win). Fedorov's 10 Nd5? had been the theoreticalmove but Shirov shows that it is just bad; 10 Qd3 would have been playable though Black would have been at least equal. Fedorov had had some previous success against 11..Ne7; 11..Qe7! was Shirov's improvement. The point was the piece sacrifice 13..Bf5!. Perhaps the lesser evil would have been to decline the piece with 14 0-0...0-0-0 15 Bg4..Qd7 though Black would have had clearly the better game.