|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-13-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: Does anybody have any thoughts on the following Kings gambit declined variation : 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 ?
I like the look of this for black, and think it looks playable. However I was told by a master that its no good, but declined to say why. Any opinions would be appreciated. An example of a similar position occurs in the following game, in which black delays development by center pawn play. Judit handles the situation accordingly. Judit Polgar vs J Gonzalez Garcia, 1988 However I still think an early ... f5 has potential. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | sneaky pete: <IBM> It's called Adelaide counter gambit. You can find articles on it in New In Chess Yearbook # 36 by Tony Miles <King's Gambit.Refuted at last?> and NIC YB # 38 by Matthias Wahls <King's Gambit.Finally refuted!>.
See also an article in the German magazine Kaissiber 1996 # 1 by Stefan Buecker, who is less positive. Another source of information is <The King's Gambit for the creative aggressor> by Thomas Johansson (1998).
Having only glanced at these sources, IMHO this Pearl of the South is playable but not really dangerous for white. |
|
| Jul-13-04 | | InspiredByMorphy: Thanks for the info sneaky pete. I was wondering if this opening had a name, and now I know. I will look for those articles. |
|
| Sep-06-04 | | TheGreatNN: Does anyone have any ideas in general on how to deal with the 2...Nc6 variation? It's not covered in any sources I've read and in the OE white wins over 60% in the Nf3 variation but I see it alot and still can't figure out how white gets a clear advantage. |
|
Sep-07-04
 | | Chessical: <TheGreatNN> Here is Steinitz's recipe against one of your not so great namesakes: Steinitz - NN London, 1873
1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3 Nc5 6.d4 Na6 7.Bc4 Qe7 8.Nc3 h6 9.0-0 g5 10.Nd5 Qd8 11.Nf6+ Ke7 12.Nxg5 hxg5 13.Qh5 Rxh5 14.Ng8+ Ke8 15.Bxf7# 1-0 |
|
| Sep-08-04 | | RisingChamp: Yes I am always suspicious of players who tell you such and such opening is unsound but cant tell you why.The best approach by far is to look for yourself.For example <Minor Piece Activity> If u were a kings gambit expert I might accept ur comment.But as it is u just seem to be echoing someone elses opinion(unless you have years of experience playing and analyzing the Kings gambit and finally refuted it) and I have a feeling if u played against someone who really knows the Kings gambit you would be dead within twenty moves whether u took the pawn or not. |
|
| Sep-08-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: You're sacking a pawn for center & initiative, but you're losing k-protection. The queen's gambit has the first two without the caveat, same for the evan's gambit. There's no reason why you would play the king's gambit (other than for fun.) |
|
| Sep-08-04 | | RisingChamp: Firstly your second claim-Theres no reason you would play kings other than fun- is disproved by the facts-If you dont understand what I mean I will elaborate GM Alexei Fedorov scores over 65% with Kings-and he plays it against everyone- Boris Spasskys record with KG is 16 wins 11 draws 0 loss.So ur claim that there is no reason to play the kings other than fun does not ring true.Your first claim is infinitely more sensible.But there are some things I should like to point out.There are many openings especially modern ones which are extremely tactical and in which general principles dont really hold good.Secondly while f4 does weaken the kings side it gives whites king rook an open file after 0-0.I dont doubt that ur general claim i.e Kings Gambit is probably unsound is true but It is incredibly difficult to prove that over the board and hasd remained unrefuted for 600 years.Lastly the approach of condemning openings by regarding them as "unsound" should be avoided because if you view things from a Gods eye viewpoint nearly everything is unsound!!!There is probably o.Anly one correct opening.After all there can only be one best move( unless you have multiple checkmate possibilities) |
|
| Sep-08-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: Lol RisingChamp. It sounds to me that you have an axe to grind, and that you're arguing with an imaginary person. You agree with me here: <I dont doubt that ur general claim i.e Kings Gambit is probably unsound is true > so the rest of your paragraph is basically pointless. You remind me of myself. I admit some gambits are unsound, but I don't want to be told they are either. =D It's kind of funny that you say <I am always suspicious of players who tell you such and such opening is unsound but cant tell you why> but also say <if you view things from a Gods eye viewpoint nearly everything is unsound> without any evidence. I'm sure you mean well to defend(?!) the king's gambit but you can't seem to come to a conclusion whether you really want to defend it or not either. Just my two cents. =D P.S. I never specifically said that the king's gambit is unsound in my last post. I just said I prefer the evan's gambit. |
|
| Sep-08-04 | | square dance: <mpa> <sounds like risingchamp has an axe to grind.> <---paraphrase...you must be getting something different out of his posts than i am. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | RisingChamp: (Dumb gambit)No u didnt say so specifically but that is obviously what u meant.No the rest of my paragraph is not pointless- ur comment that I(i suppose you meant anybody in general)wouldnt play it except for fun is refuted by the fact that players have achieved succesful results with it - so it is a good practical tool for acheiving complex positions.Secondly it should be obvious that with perfect play most defenses must be incorrect because they do not feature the best moves
and since no refuatation has been found for kings gambit, latching on the kings gambit specifically as unsound(dumb gambit as u put it) doesnt make sense.If you look at things from a very high level nearly everything is unsound but practically the KG is as playable as anything else.I dont think I am being contradictory when I am suspicious of ppl who tell you something is unsound without telling you.BECAUSE THEY USUALLY MEAN IT SHOULD NOT BE PLAYED OR IS POOR and that is something quite different from it being unsound. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: Lol, you really need to get out more. =D I said it's dumb, I didn't say it's unsound. In fact, you're the only one so far who keeps insisting it is unsound. (Quote: <Kings Gambit is probably unsound is true> *I* never said it's unsound, I think it's dumb because I can play the Evan's which is just better. Or I can play the Queen's. The open f-file doesn't matter, white gets the open c file in the Queen's for example, but doesn't have the caveat of k-shelter. If you don't get it, I understand and I'll stop trying to show you, but this isn't too hard to understand. =D |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | mack: MPA, now, I wouldn't call myself an "expert" by any stretch of the imagination, but I do play the King's Gambit regularly, and I think, from what I've read, that you're wrong. I don't quite see how you can compare the Queen's Gambit to the King's - they're practically polar opposites. The open f-file is crucial because white ends up pointing all his pieces at f7, only guarded by the king. The open c-file of the Queen's gambit surely doesn't bear comparison; it merely ushers the game into typically positional areas of play. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | RisingChamp: Lots of things to point out MPA.I think nearly everything is unsound but many unsound openings are perfectly PLAYABLE.Kings gambit is one example(if it is unsound I said it is PROBABLY unsound).The Evans requires a lot more cooperation ie he must play 2 nc6 and 3 bc5 to which there are decent alternatives.And < Mack> Thanx for explaining the difference between the open files of kings gambit and queens gambit.<MPA>If you think they are so similar why not try declining it with a kingside slav...2 f6??? |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | acirce: <RisingChamp> Do you think that everything that is not optimal is unsound? I'm not sure if I get your definition of 'unsound'. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | RisingChamp: No No u misunderstand.I dont think that way at all.I just said that to point out that unless an opening is refuted by showing clearly that it loses against best play,there is no point calling it unsound. I certainly dont think that way-in fact I like many openings which are regarded and unsound and I deliberately avoid anything which is very fashionable. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: mack, if white plays the Bf4 variation of the gambit, then he hits the c7 square with the c file open with pressure. This is analogous to Bc4 hitting f7 with the King's Gambit. So the King's Gambit still has the caveat the Evan's and Queen's doesn't. <rising champ> I don't think you get what you're posting, nevermind what I'm posting. =D |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | square dance: <mpa> instead of slinging the personal insults <lol, you really need to get out more.>(btw, what does that have to do with this debate??) why not just stick to the debate? your comment is so out of place i wonder if you heard it for the first time recently and were just so excited to use it that you did at the first oppurtunity, regardless of whether it made sense or not. i dont necessarily agree with everything risingchamp says, but your argument isnt any better. but hey, thanks for letting us all know that the KG weakens the king side. im not sure where we all be without your insite. i also really dont understand your point. <i think its dumb because i can play the evans which is better.> ok thats fine, but are people always supposed to the best openings and the best moves? what about individual style? i play the KG and the french defense and without fail i win the majority of games in which i am the superior player, and lose most of them when im not. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: Your posts don't make any sense. Your question here is <ok thats fine, but are people always supposed to the best openings and the best moves? what about individual style> Yeah, and my individual style prefers the Evan's Gambit. So what's your point? You act as if I said ppl should stop playing the King's Gambit, which I didn't. I just think it's dumb. I don't think either you or risingchamp get out enough because you're making a storm out of one humorous comment that was based on *my* style. If you two are so convinced that one's own style is the most important thing, then why don't you stop making a big deal about mine being different from yours? I can see why acirce put you on his ignore list. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | square dance: <mpa> like i said your comment has no place here. we need to get out more? is me going out on the weekends not enough for you? maybe just for you i'll go bar hopping tonight. i will actually be going out tomorrow night with my part time girlfriend while your figuring out ways to refute the KG. and please dont bring up the fact that acirce put me on his ignore list. it hurts me soooooo deeply. :-( i dont have a problem with your personal opinion, im just not sure why you resort to insults in your posts. were you really that offended by risingchamp? as far as your first point in which you quote me, the point im trying to make is: you play the evans gambit or the QG because they are better than the KG, so is everyone supposed to play the sicillian instead of 1...e5? is it dumb to play 1...e5 or 1...c6? sometimes people play moves systems that are less than optimal. so maybe now, even with your apparently limited intelligence you can understand me. |
|
Sep-09-04
 | | tpstar: The King's Gambit is an enterprising opening with chances for both sides where the superior tactician usually prevails, since both Kings might endure major safety issues. Whether or not to accept the Gambit (2 ... ef) is a matter of taste and style; Black gets more potential counterplay with the KGA but arguably easier equality with the KGD, yet both options are playable. This discussion would be far more productive evaluating the good and bad points of the specific variations and not the individual participants. Peace, fellas. OK, I really need to get out more. ;>) |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | clocked: <Minor Piece Activity> It is one thing when Kramnik makes such statements (your inspiration?), but your K-side Q-side analogies take reductive generalizations too far. You point out white's reduced king safety but ignore black's. |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: I stand by what I say square dance. You keep telling everyone to tone down personal insults, but anyone who disagrees with you has "limited intelligence." I'm going acirce's way and just putting you on my ignore list. And no, I don't expect you to care. <clocked><tpstar> Glad to talk to people who are willing to discuss it rather than just blather. =) I think black's reduced safety is negligible. He still has one more pawn on the kingside which means playing g6 and other defensive moves is not too weakening (if the f pawn was gone or advanced [i.e. Leningrad Dutch], playing either g6/h6 is a liability usually. Note that this instead now applies to white.) Also the thing about gambit play is that the side with material can always return the pawn back at any point to defend, white doesn't have this option when black attacks (same with Evan's of course). If you disagree, that's fine with me, just know that I have my reasons. =) I agree that it's not good to simplify this sort of analysis, but the alternative (examining all the concrete lines maybe up to move 15) would be too much. Chess is a game, it's not a life. Peace to you too, tpstar. =) |
|
| Sep-09-04 | | square dance: maybe <mpa> needs to get out more, becuase he would know that you cant just put people on the ignore list in real life. i also dont tell everyone to tone down personal insults, but im just not sure how yours was called for. i also only said you have limited intelligence because you thought that my post didnt make sense. oh wait you cant see this. why god why?!?! |
|
| Sep-10-04 | | RisingChamp: Jdging by what u say ur just too lazy to analyze the Kings really deeply and see whether its any good or not- thats quite fine-just about everyone is lazy or doesnt have the time even if not lazy.But in that case you really shouldnt make statements like this opening is dumb and then try and defend ur viewpoint with arguments based on abstract generalities.As for the viewpoint that everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it-fine but when u put up such a opinion on a public forum u should be prepared to defend it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
