< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jun-05-07|| ||InspiredByMorphy: <MaxxLange> Explain. What demerits its significance to you? If possible provide analysis.|
|Jun-05-07|| ||micartouse: The thing about Fischer's article is the notes to the 4th move. He glosses over what is now considered the main line 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1 and he suggests ... Bh6 and he says "White also gets no compensation". That doesn't mean he's wrong (who really knows?) - just that 90% of his article doesn't really apply to modern treatment.|
|Jun-05-07|| ||MaxxLange: <InspiredByMorphy> a fair question, let me try to explain myself.|
By "nothing special" I am not saying it's bad. But I don't think that Fischer's hope of finding a refutation in 3...d6 has been fulfilled since then.
In the first place, I disagree with your idea that the reason the King's Gambit has disappeared from mainstream GM play is because of the Fischer line. There are several excellent defenses to the King's Gambit. 3..d5, for example, is also good.
Also, the critical line that has developed out of the classic "Bust to the King's Gambit" article is 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6 4. d4 g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng1. This position scores a 53% winning percentage for White in the CG database. Now, that's for a sample of only 80 or so games, and one needs to be careful with this kind of statistics argument, but 3...d6 just doesn't seem to score that well.
Finally, although I'm not a King's Gambit player, friends of mine who play it and KG books I have seen say that White can meet ...d6 without problems.
It's a 40 year old article, so it's not surprising that improvements have been found. It's too bad that Fischer, if he has any further ideas about the line, keeps them to himself.
|Jun-05-07|| ||acirce: It's just the Fischer Myth again. Fischer's so-called "bust" has nothing to do with anything. It is one playable alternative among many, and it's far from the most critical. The few times King's Gambit IS played on something close to top level or against top players it is almost always met by something else.|
L Day vs Adams, 2006
Fedorov vs Carlsen, 2004
Sutovsky vs Mamedyarov, 2004
Hector vs P H Nielsen, 2003
D Reinderman vs I Sokolov, 2002
Fedorov vs Ivanchuk, 2001
Fedorov vs Anand, 2001
Fedorov vs Svidler, 2000
J Arizmendi-Martinez vs I Sokolov, 2000
Morozevich vs Leko, 2000
Morozevich vs Aleksandrov, 2000
Short vs Shirov, 1999
Fedorov vs Svidler, 1998
Short vs Shirov, 1997 ....
|Jun-06-07|| ||InspiredByMorphy: <MaxxLange> Thanks for your input. I agree that improvements may have been found since the article was published. However, I have found over countless hours of analysis and play, that it is intensly difficult to win the gambited pawn back in the "main line" derivative of Fischers analysis. This seems to be the case in GM or even master play. Not to say white cant achieve equality positionally, but what happens in the endgame when down a pawn? I have been a Kings gambit fanatic for many years to eventually conclude that in top level play white is fighting for equality. This is why the Bishops gambit is a better option in my opinion. 3. ...d6 doesent achieve the same result ( if white plays correctly ) .|
|Jun-06-07|| ||InspiredByMorphy: <acirce> Thanks for the games. I always like hearing your opinion on the Kings gambit.|
|Jun-29-07|| ||MaxxLange: <InspiredByMorphy: ....difficult to win the gambited pawn back>|
My friend who used to duel this 3...d6 line out at our old club every week says that White does not even have to win the gambited pawn back. He plays for a better endgame, with a center and better pieces, even a pawn down.
|Jan-24-08|| ||JimmyVermeer: Some fool posted on another board that Morphy would've resigned immediately if Black played 3...d6.|
In this game, Black's 17th move was a mistake (he should have played Bf5), though he was lost anyway. Now the game ends:
18 exd5 Be6 19 Rxe6 Nd7 20 Rxe7 Rf8 21 Rf7 g3 22 Rxf8+ Nxf8 23 Qf7#
Alternate ending: 17 Nd5 Bf5 18 Qxf5 Qe8 19 Qf6 Nd7 20 Ne7+ Qxe7 21 Qxe7 Rf8 22 Rxf8+ Nxf8 23 Rf1 g3 24 Qf7#
|Mar-17-08|| ||heuristic: 10.Bxh6 Bxh4+ 11.Ke2 Qe7 12.Qd2 leaves WHT in control (see
R Haines vs B Wall, 1989)|
after 11...Nf7, WHT has a won game.
Nd5 one move earlier is attractive.
16.Nd5 cxd5 17.exd5 h6 18.d6
after 16...d6, it's a forced mate.
But 16...Kg7 17.Nd5 Qe6 18.Nf6 d6 19.Nh5+ Kg6 is interesting
|Sep-04-08|| ||Joaquin: Why,my 19 move Re8+ is wrong ?|
|Mar-02-09|| ||timhortons: kings gambit part 1 by boris alterman at icc.
5...g4 connot be recommended, theory recommends to answer the 5.h4 of morphy with 5...h6 not allowing the white to destroy the structure of black king side.
10.Qd2 classical way of playing gambit,instead of going for material he just develop pieces.
15.Nc3 by 15th move all black pieces are still in the back rank, while morphy continously developing his pieces.White pieces is dominating the squares.
The great morphy.
|Mar-02-09|| ||WhiteRook48: the meek do not inherit the earth|
|Mar-17-11|| ||Penguincw: Wow.Morphy sacs two knights!|
|Mar-18-11|| ||Llawdogg: Morphy is so inspiring. This is why I love chess.|
|Jul-13-12|| ||DWINS: 16.Rae1 is universally praised as a setup for the beautiful 17.Nd5!|
However, my silicon monster says that 16.Rae1 is unnecessary and that the position is actually a mate in 13 stating with 16.Nd5 cxd5 17.exd5 h6 18.d6 Qg7 19.Rae1 hxg5 20.Re8+ Kh7 21.Qh2+ Kg6 22.Rxh8 Qxd4+ 23.Kh1 Qf4 24.Rxf4 gxf4 25.Qh5+ Kf6 26.Rh6+ Kg7 27.Qg6+ Kf8 28.Rh8#
This doesn't diminish Morphy's fine performance in any way, but it's sometimes interesting to see what the computer finds.
|Aug-07-12|| ||backrank: I think it's just typical for Morphy's style. Before the final blow, the last undeveloped piece (here the QR) has to be brought into play.|
|Feb-12-16|| ||Christoforus Polacco: Greco vs NN, 1620 Anyway Greco was first :) So it's called ''Greco -Philidor Gambit''|
|Jun-17-16|| ||plang: 5..h6 is the standard move. 7..f6 is just asking for it.|
|Jun-17-16|| ||perfidious: <frank124c: the reason the king's gambit is no longer played on the tournament level is because bobby fischer supposedly busted it.>|
The title of that piece was hyperbole as much as anything--Fischer played the gambit after publishing the 'bust'.
|Jun-17-16|| ||john barleycorn: <<frank124c: the reason the king's gambit is no longer played on the tournament level is because bobby fischer supposedly busted it.>|
No, imo, the reason is a lot of *theory* to be learned at a very, very slim chance to play or encounter it.
|Jun-17-16|| ||morfishine: Nothing meek about this game|
|Sep-22-16|| ||sleepyirv: I dunno <morfishine>, it seems like <A Meek Defense> to me.|
|Oct-13-19|| ||keypusher: < john barleycorn: <<frank124c: the reason the king's gambit is no longer played on the tournament level is because bobby fischer supposedly busted it.>
No, imo, the reason is a lot of *theory* to be learned at a very, very slim chance to play or encounter it.>|
Makes perfect sense. How often do you see 1.e4 e5 after all?
|Oct-13-19|| ||perfidious: <keypusher>, only when an idiot like myself plays it!|
|Oct-13-19|| ||Sally Simpson: ***
I think the top lot view it as more chance of an everlasting plus with 2.Nf3 which hits an immobile target on e5. Also every reasonable 1...e5 player will have a line against it and once committed with 2.f4 White's options have somewhat narrowed.
Positionally it's sound (wing pawn for a centre pawn), You never know, one blistering game from Carlsen or Caruana to duck the Berlin and it may be back in fashion.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·