| Sep-18-03 | | refutor: a wonderful win by bronstein v. a strong GM in the king's gambit. after wins like this and Spassky vs Karpov, 1982 it's a wonder that more top guys, who were kids when games like these were being played, haven't picked up the King's Gambit as an occasional surprise weapon. kasparov, if you're reading this, if you ever have a rematch with krammy and you can't crack the berlin wall, he'll *never* expect the king's gambit ;) |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | KingG: I don't think Kramnik would ever play something like 2...Nf6?! though. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | RookFile: Hmm? 2... Nf6 is a perfectly good move. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Bartleby: Rookfile is right, whilst uncommon it's a perfectly active response, alongside the likes of 2. ...ef and 2. ...d5. I'm partial to the irregular 2. ... Qe7!? 3. g3 Qe7 4. fe d6 with equal play. It's not the sort of position that white probably has in mind with the KG either. I think Kasparov would have had better chances with the Duras Variation of the Ruy. Duras vs Janowski, 1907
Duras vs Swiderski, 1908
Some of the positions are Sicilian-esque in nature. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | KingG: The move 2...Nf6 is ok. I mean, it's not losing or anything, but considering the better alternatives, i don't know why anyone would want to play it, other than maybe to avoid theory. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | RookFile: If you were playing Emanuel Lasker, and he knew your opinion of 2...Nf6,
I guarantee that if you opened up 1. e4 e5 2. f4 against him, he would reply with 2.... Nf6. In Lasker's view, there are plenty of perfectly good moves, like 2.....Nf6
that simply aren't popular, mostly because the top player(s) at the time have a different style. That's why something like the Ruy Lopez Berlin defense could be undervalued for 50 years, and all of a sudden become the rage again. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | Bartleby: <If you were playing Emanuel Lasker, and he knew your opinion of 2...Nf6, I guarantee that if you opened up 1. e4 e5 2. f4 against him, he would reply with 2.... Nf6.> Janowski on Lasker after losing the first three games of their 1910 WC match. "Lasker plays such stupid chess that I simply cannot look at the board while he is thinking. I am afraid I shan't do well in this match at all." In the last game, Lasker (as black) mocked Janowski by playing 1. d4 d6 2.c4 e5, permitting Janowski to exchange queens and deprive him of castling. It didn't take Lasker long to outplay Janowski and win the game. The Berlin was all the rage a century ago, very frequenly employed at the top levels of chess. When if was finally eclipsed by the dictates of theoretical fashion everyone at the time must of thought it'd never make a comeback, either. |
|
| Jun-16-06 | | RookFile: Lasker talked about this in his Manual of Chess. He said that whenever he found out that a perfectly good developing move was condemned by somebody, he made it a point of playing that move, if possible, against the guy who condemned it. Lasker felt that this must mean the guy doesn't understand the position. |
|
| Oct-29-08 | | Brown: Lasker was arguably further ahead of his time at the turn of the century than Morphy or Fischer. |
|
| Sep-27-11 | | Everett: <RookFile: Lasker talked about this in his Manual of Chess. He said that whenever he found out that a perfectly good developing move was condemned by somebody, he made it a point of playing that move, if possible, against the guy who condemned it. Lasker felt that this must mean the guy doesn't understand the position.> And Lasker would have been the exact person to play the King's Gambit vs Fischer after 1961. That would be epic. I'm not saying that Fischer didn't understand the position, but his youth and anger over his loss to Spassky colored his final evaluation. The King's Gambit is not a loss by force for White, obviously. Of course no one stepped up to the plate on that one, even Spassky in '92 for fun. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
