< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Jan-08-10|| ||redwhitechess: Latest King Gambit win, Junta Ikeda - Yuan Yi, Australian Champ 2010. |
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 c6 6. d4 Bd6 7. Qe2+ Kf8
8. Bd2 Bg4 9. Nf3 Qe7 10. Qxe7+ Kxe7 11. O-O Rd8 12. Rae1+ Kf8 13. Ng5 Bh5
14. Bxf4 Bxf4 15. Rxf4 h6 16. Nge4 Nxd5 17. Bxd5 cxd5 18. Nc5 Nc6 19. Ne6+ Kg8 20. Nxd8 Rxd8 21. Rf5 Bg6 22. Rxd5 Rc8 23. Rd7 Bf5 24. Rxb7 Nxd4 25.Rxa7 Nxc2 26. Ree7 Be6 27. a4 Nb4 28. Rec7 Rd8 29. Rab7 Nc2 30. Rc5 Rd2 31.Re5 Nd4 32. Re3 h5 33. a5 h4 34. a6 h3 35. gxh3 f5 36. a7 f4 37. a8=Q+ Kh7 38. Qe8 fxe3 39. Qh5+ 1-0
|Jul-12-10|| ||tpstar: 1000 = Beer|
2000 = Ale
3000 = Your Page
4000 = Favorite Player
5000 = Favorite Tournament
6000 = Favorite Match
7000 = Favorite Game
8000 = Favorite Opening
I believe the King's Gambit is the most dangerous opening for Black to face unprepared, as the open lines towards the King can be deadly. Yet the Fischer Defense (1. e4 e5 2. f4 ef 3. Nf3 d6) is an effective antidote, consolidating the gambit Pawn safely with ... g5 while holding the dark squares to prevent any Ne5 or Ng5 by White. Continuing the Main Line 4. Bc4 h6 5. d4 g5 6. 0-0 Bg7 Black seems dangerously behind in development but scores very well = Opening Explorer provided Black avoids undue greed, which holds for any opening. There are some key tidbits, like 7. c3 or 7. Nc3 are both best met by 7 ... Nc6, and Qb3 is always answered with ... Qe7, but those come with experience. This thread contains highly informative comments by <IMlday> interacting with the group.
Students should either decline the King's Gambit with 2 ... Bc5 getting a playable Vienna-like game after 3. Nf3 d6, or accept the King's Gambit using a Fischer Defense. And win. ;>D
|Jul-12-10|| ||MaxxLange: <tpstar> Some authors advocate that Black play a "Modern Defense" with ....d5 to the KGA via the move order:|
1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 exf4
I think that they are mainly suggesting this move order to avoid 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4
What is your opinion of this line for Black?
|Jul-12-10|| ||Shams: <MaxxLange> To my knowledge that is Black's most favorable Falkbeer, though it's not quite enough for equality. (So they say-- I have troubles against it.) |
I play 3.Bc4 myself, and you're right, after 3...Nf6 and then 4...d5 white doesn't have to take with the e-pawn.
|Jul-12-10|| ||MaxxLange: It is a "Fakebeer"..you transpose to the so-called Modern KGA line, you do not play ....e3|
personally, I think that Black has several good defenses to the King's Gambit, and this is one of them.
|Jul-12-10|| ||Shams: <MaxxLange> Not sure what you mean by ...e3 being necessary. Falkbeer Counter Gambit is simply 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5|
|Jul-12-10|| ||Eric Schiller: <shams> e3 obvious typo for e4 and statement is correct. 3...exf4 is not Falkbeer, it usually leads to Modern Variation. It is what I teach my students.|
|Jul-12-10|| ||Shams: <Eric Schiller> I realize this site's strengths don't necessarily include opening taxomony, but--
King's Gambit Declined, Falkbeer Counter Gambit (C31)
is this just wrong? If so, I stand corrected and apologize to <MaxxLange>.
Also, the typo is only "obvious" if you know what he meant. I don't play the "gotcha" game of taking literal advantage. :)
|Jul-13-10|| ||MaxxLange: <..e3 obvious typo for ...e4> right, thanks.|
In the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit, Black pushes his KP to e4, after 3 exd5, and White normally plays 4 d3
Or, he can transpose to the" Modern" KGA line instead, with 3....exf4
|Jul-13-10|| ||MaxxLange: afaik, in recent GM play, Black is actually doing well with the old Kiseritzky lines, and the theoretical ball is very much back in the King's Gambit players' court.|
|Feb-06-12|| ||Penguincw: Opening of the Day
King's Gambit Accepted, Fischer Defense
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.♘f3 d6
click for larger view
|Feb-06-12|| ||King Death: < MaxxLange:...In the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit, Black pushes his KP to e4, after 3 exd5, and White normally plays 4 d3|
Or, he can transpose to the" Modern" KGA line instead, with 3....exf4>
Black can also play 3...c6 4.Nc3 ef.
|May-08-12|| ||WannaBe: The line 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 Bh6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2 Qf6 is known as Fischer's Defence? |
There is only one game (simul, no less) in the DB where Fischer played this line.
|May-08-12|| ||Calar: <WannaBe> Move 3...d6 defines Fischer's defense. Fischer was not the first to recommend or play this move, but he made it popular by claiming it refutes KG in his famous article "A bust to the King's Gambit".|
Link to the article: http://www.academicchess.org/images...
|Feb-05-13|| ||Jacob Arnold: SOLVED.
|Jul-15-13|| ||Everett: Pertinent conclusions from the above sited article:
<"Well, there were a number of reasons for choosing it. One was that 50 years ago Bobby Fischer published a famous article, "A Bust to the King's Gambit", claiming to have done exactly that. I was curious to see how valid his conclusions were. Turns out they were amazingly accurate. The main line of the King's Gambit, 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3, is indeed winning for Black. Moreover, the only winning move is 3... d6!, just as Fischer claimed. For instance the more popular 3...g5 allows White to draw after 4.h4! In fact, Fischer's main line holds up incredibly well: 3...d6! 4.Bc4 h6! 5.d4 g5! (an exclam denotes any move which gives a better theoretical result than every alternative), although some side-variations from his article do have inaccuracies.
Genius or luck?
Probably mostly luck. Naturally some of his lines are not accurate: they weave in and out of draws. But the main conclusion is correct.
So is the King's Gambit really busted?
No, just if White plays 3.Nf3. Incidentally 3.Bc4 loses as well to 3...Nf6! (incredibly every other move allows White to draw). But this is where the fun begins. It turns out that the weird looking 3.Be2! leads to a draw. In fact we found that 3.Be2! is the only move that avoids a white loss.">
|Aug-02-14|| ||ljfyffe: W.E. Perry(Yarmouth)-Alfred Porter(Saint John) 1886 correspondence: 1e4 e5 2f4 exf4 3Nf3 g5 4Bc4 g4 5Ne5 Qh4+ 6 Kf1 f3 7gxf3 Nf6 8Rg1 d6 9Nxg4 Nxg4 10fxg4 Qh3+ 11Kf2 Be7 12Qf3 Qxh2+ 13Rg2 Qe5 14Bxf7+ Kd8 15Bh5 Rf8 16Bf7
Be6 17Kg1 Rxf7 18Qe2 h5 19gxh5 Rg7 20Rxg7 Qxg7+ 21Qg2 Qh6 22Qg6 Qxg6 23hxg6 Nc6 24Nc3 Ne5 25d3 Nxg6 26Be3 Kd7 27Nd5 Bh4 28Rf1 Rf8 29Rxf8 Nxf8 30a4 Bd5 31exd5 a6 32Kc8 Bf6 33d4 Ng6 34b4 Ne7 0-1|
|Aug-02-14|| ||Catfriend: Re: Rajlich: Busting the King's Gambit
While I have no doubt KG is, in so many words, busted (indeed, I was deeply certain of it for years) and 3..d6 is the refutation, Rajlich just isn't consistent in his interview.
First, in a trivial manner:
<Itís solved in the sense that we know the outcome, just as we know the outcome for most five and six piece endings. > That's simply wrong. We know that outcome with <certainty>. We actually <know> it. There's no need to use < an algorithm which attempts to classify chess positions into wins, draws and losses> if you have this kind of certainty.
So this is just misleading.
Now, obviously Rajlich understands it well and in fact admits so later. He honestly denies being able to just go over the whole tree (up to positions previously classified). What he says is that his heuristic for trimming the tree is efficient enough for him to be able to cover all the "probable" continuations.
Aye, there's the rub. Without any serious proof, I do <not> believe trimming just based on computer evaluation deep down the line is certain. Complex endgames in particular are notorious for presenting counter-examples. I still remember Kramnik vs Grischuk, 2011, with the position after 51..Rxa4, being evaluated (erroneously) by the computer as absolutely won for White.
To summarize: of course this analytic work must be fairly conclusive. It is <nowhere near> actually "solving" the opening.
|Aug-02-14|| ||john barleycorn: <catfriend> the mentioned article was an "April's fool" joke.|
|Aug-02-14|| ||Catfriend: <john barleycorn> In that case I embarrassed myself in vain :)|
But are you sure? 31.3 is just a day too early for that.
|Aug-02-14|| ||Nerwal: <the mentioned article was an "April's fool" joke.>|
Yes it was.
The idea that 3. ♘f3 loses was bold but after all not completely impossible. The claim that 3. ♗c4 ♘f6 wins as well for black, on the other hand, sounds ludicrous as soon as one gets a look at the typical continuations considered by theory...
|Aug-02-14|| ||ljfyffe: Inspector Clue...so: "Everyone is under the suspicion!"|
|Aug-03-14|| ||ljfyffe: <3Nf3 d6 4Bc4 h6 5d4 g5 60-0 Bg7 7c3 Nc6 8Qb3 Qe7 9h4 Nf6 10hxg5 hxg5 11Nxg5 Nxe4 12Bxf7+ Kd8 13Nxe4 Qxe4 14Bxf4 Nxd4 15Bg5+ Kd7 16Qd5 Ne2+ 17Kf2 Qg4=>MC0#10.|
|Aug-03-14|| ||perfidious: <ljfyffe> Don't think I ever faced 8.Qb3 in that line, which often arose in my games via transposition after 3....h6 4.d4 d6 5.Bc4 g5 6.0-0 Bg7 7.c3 (or the weaker 7.Nc3) Nc6.|
|Aug-03-14|| ||ljfyffe: Before 16Qd5, Fischer believed White was busted.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·