<You keep pretending like you think the ruy is obviously superior to anything else but I simply find in your comments the signs of a fairly neophyte player who clings to false ideas supported by shallow and naive assumptions.>

a) win for white
b) draw
c) win for black

The problem is we do not know which of the above is true. To claim anything of the above as true a formal proof would have to be presented. No such formal proof exists at present which is to say that chess has not been solved yet. Statistical evidence is not a proof (like to claim that most games are a draw). Agreement between GMs is not a proof. Statements like "theoreticians claim that" are not proofs. Given the nature of the game only the extension of the Nalimovs end game tables to the initial position of the game would constitute the proof. I am afraid that it is not going to be possible for quite a long time. It should be added that the fact that the optimal play exists for both sides in any position does not mean that there is only one optimal move in the given position. There may be more than one. An optimal move is any of the moves that GUARANTEES the optimal end result regardless of what the opponent will do. Of course, if the chess is a forced win for white then there are no optimal moves for black. But we could change the objective of the game: Each side tries to play as many moves as possible before the game is decided (this is what is done in practice anyway). Then the following thing can be claimed: there exists a minimal number of moves before the game can be decided and there are optimal moves for both white and black in any position (there may be more than one) which guarantee the achievment of the optimal result. So, even if the chess can always be won by white, black with perfect play can assure that it won't happen before move number x (the value of x is not known, but it exists).

Another point to make is this: From the practical point of view refuting King's Gambit is equivalent to solving chess. It is so because the ORDER of MAGNITUDE of the number of variations needed is essentially the same as that for solving the entire game. Any discussions about this subject are simply pointless. Nobody is going to refute KG, or 1.h4 or any other first one-two movements by White or Black in the forseeable future. Technically it is not possible as of yet. Maybe with quantum computing, who knows? The only considerations with choosing openings can be practical ones. There is no "theory" in chess to be precise. Theory proves things. Chess books only discuss things, to be precise, discuss the empirical practice of the best players. Neither more nor less.

Thus, a lot of the preceding discussion on these pages was perfectly pointless. I hope we can avoid this for the future. Let us discuss ideas but not talk about absolute truths. The absolute truth can only be found in Nalimovs endgame tables. As for now it is a very small portion of the game of chess.

"Eugene Nalimov (born 1965 in Novosibirsk, U.S.S.R.) is a chess programmer and Microsoft employee.

Starting in 1998, he wrote a tablebase generator which included many different endgames. He received a ChessBase award at the ChessBase meeting in Maastricht in 2002 for his work.[1]"

In practice Nalimov tablebase refers to any database of precalculated optimal moves for chess endings. At present optimal moves have been calculated for all 6 pieces set-ups.

Such a database is available here:

http://chessok.com/?page_id=361

And a valuable two cents, I'll be bound!

a) win for white
b) draw
c) win for black >

<It is true that most games that are won or lost are won because of blunders and rarely bcause of pure outplaying . . .> cf. Mar-12-09 <chessmaster95> in the Bishop's Opening Kibizing responding to <Octal>. Could somebody explain the difference between me making a "blunder" versus someone "outplaying" me? No need to split hairs, I'm not that good, just the obvious differences between the two at the extremes would be helpful.

A grandmaster (might have) once said something along the lines of not being afraid of ghosts, that if you can't see a clear and immedidate tactical disaster, play the move(s) you want to play. Does anybody know this reference?

Among other high level players, Lasker and Korchnoi were infamous for often playing objectively "inferior", or at least unpopular, lines with the idea that to play for a win they had to create situations where the tactical problems to be solved were beyond their opponent's ability. I have always suspected that the stunning and eerie success of Fischer and Morphy in their brief flashes of total dominance was the ability to find a question to put to their (talented) opponents that was beyond their current understanding. I would hazard a guess that this might also describe Kasparov in his prime.

Regarding whether chess is a draw or not, glancing though some of the postings of the formidable chessgame.com team versus world famous grandmasters (is there any other kind?) there seems to be a concensus that it takes about five "mistakes" on the opponent's part to force a win. Their definition of "mistake" involves errors too subtle for me to comprehend, but it implies to me at this point in history those at the cutting edge have an empirical (versus theoretical) belief that the game is drawn with best play.

tactics isnt the only way to win a game. People can make mistakes for apparently no reason sometimes...if you consistently just dont make mistakes you perform better.

Morphy was simply better than everyone else and nobody took chess all that seriously in his time...it wasnt really a career choice for people. Fisher probably benefited from being able to study his opponents mroe than they could study him.

Opening knowledge is part of your ability in chess and although i know theoretically any opening i play could lead to a roughly equal game i do find mroe often than not that i keep an advantage as white. Nobody knows everything or can solve everything otb.

Thus far has been tried; however, this line seems to have not seen much testing, and looks to yield some interesting play. 7 d4 looks logical to break up the Black phalanx; if Black tries 7 ... e4 then White has the developing move 8 Qe2 pinning the pawn and allowing castling the next move (all means of obstructing the pin immediately look inferior; Qe7 blocks the B, Ne7 blocks the B and the Knight should be at f6, Be7 is too passive - the Bishop wants to be on d6 in this formation).

A test-run game led to the following sparkling gem, though, which suggests that the reason 7 d4 hasn't been tried is because it's actually not a bed of roses:

(1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 c6 3 Nf3 d5 4 exd5 cxd5 5 Bb5+ Bd7 6 Bxd7+ Nxd7 7 d4 e4 8 Qe2) Bd6 9 O-O Ngf6 10 Nc3(a) O-O 11 Nd2(b) Qc7 12 g3(c) Bb4(d) 13 Ndb1 Rae8 14 Bd2 h5 15 h4(e) Qd6(f) 16 Bg5 Nb6 17 Nd1(g) Qe6 18 Kg2(h) Ng4 19 c3 Be7 20 Bxe7 Rxe7 21 Ne3 f5 22 Nd2 Nd7 23 Rae1 Kh8 24 c4(j) dxc4 25 Ndxc4 f4(k) 26 gxf4 Rxf4 27 d5 Qf6 28 f3(m) Nxe3+ 29 Nxe3 Qg6+ 30 Kf2 Ne5(n) 31 Qd1 Rxf3+ 32 Ke2 Nc4 33 Rxf3(o) exf3+ 34 Kxf3 Rxe3+(p) 0-1

a. Natural, but further course suggests flawed: perhaps 10 c3 or 10 Nbd2 are better ideas here in order to ensure that the Q-side is secure.

b. The Knight of course finally had to move but 11 Ne1 may be better here. At d2 the Knight obstructs the Bishop and Black takes advantage of this quickly.

c. Not sure if g3 or h3 is better. g3 worsens the Bishop and weakens f3/g4/h3 while Black still has Knights, OTOH, h3 loosens the dark diagonal and Black has a DSB. The game may already be markedly inferior for White here.

d. Forcing a discombobulation to avoid loss of a pawn as c3/c2 are skewered, Bd2 is not possible and Qe3 is refuted by Ng4. Clearly suggesting White must find improvement on the 10th or 11th move at the latest.

e. Weakening g4 further against eventual Knight invasion, but what else is there? Otherwise Black plays Bd6 and h4 and the castle starts to crumble anyway.

f. This and the next move are to over-protect d5 against any White shenanigans involving Bxf6.

g. Gaining at least a tempo for defence (e.g. bringing the Knight to e3) as Black must provide against the B being caught, but it may all be too late.

h. In order to permit the Rook to defend from h1 if needed, and the Queen could hardly be allowed on h3 at any event.

j. This opening of the position is unwise; White might have held out longer by passive defence e.g. 24 Rh1.

k. Iceberg's point. All the avenues of attack are now open, and White's position slips and slides south into the sea from here on out.

m. If Rh1, then Rxf2+. The twin threats against f2 and h4 are not to be gainsaid, the text is a vain attempt to clear passage for White's King, but he does not get far.

n. An interesting crowd of White pieces! Again with twin decisive threats, this time Nd3+ and Qg3#.

o. Compulsory, as mate in two was threatened by Rxe3+ and the Knight cannot move on account of mate in two via Qg2+.

p. A pretty coup, dispatching the guards of White's Queen. White capitulated at this point - if 35 Kf4, then Qg3+ 36 Kf5 Nd6#, while if 35 Kf2, then Qg3+ 36 Kf1 Nd2+! 37 Qxd2 Rf3+ and mate next. Therefore, 35 Rxe3 is forced and the Queen is lost forthwith via Qg4+.

2.nf3 is logical because it developes a piece with a threat. But experience and analysis has shown that the pressure on e5 is actually slightly less than it appears to be. Even with the bishop going to b5, if black plays reasonable moves, white never gets much meaningful pressure on e5.

in contrast, Bc4 creates no immediate threat...so there are more options for both sides. The f pawn and the queen have much mroe mobility than if white played 2nf3...and if white manages to get f4 in the pressure on e5 is actually far more significant than 2.nf3 lines....while also providing options of a fast kside attack with f5. Lines where white develops the queen to the kside early are also often plausible...such as 1 e4 e5 2 bc4 nc6 3 Nc3 bc5 4 Qg4!?...And lastly, it is sometimes useful that you have not committed the kside night as well...especially in lines where black commits his bishop on b4, the knight finds a better home on e2, where it is also less clumsy than 2nf3 for occupying the f5 square.

So white has sacrificed a bishop early. If 4...g6, 5.Qxe5 and black is down 2 pawns.