|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-10-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: I agree that I haven't really proven the KG is bad (which is not my intent anyway. Intuition tells me it's bad, I don't aim to prove it), but you haven't proven anything you said either (ie the idea that all openings are unsound from "god's eye.") Maybe you're too lazy/don't have the time like me too, in which case I think we are more similar than we think. =) I actually think that the king's gambit (may) be actually more sound from "god's eye" than maybe at our level. Let's just say that whenever white loses, it's usually because of kingside weakness. Generally the way to exploit this is tactics, and from "god's eye," all tactics should be deflected (a drawn theoretical game???), so that would just leave the king's gambit with all its advantages, unless I am oversimplifying again, which I think is still fine for making a point. =) |
|
Sep-10-04
 | | offramp: Akiva Rubinstein thought it was sound; he won with it very often.
He would not play an unsound opening. |
|
| Sep-10-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: I'm not sure, most of Rubinstein's KG games were after 1920, by then he was getting compared to Alekhine. I think everyone plays "unsoundly" (it's just so fun!) at one point or another. Is your favorite player Rubinstein? |
|
Sep-10-04
| | offramp: No; Karpov, actually. But he is not a great exponent of the King's Gambit.
He is probably aware of its existence. |
|
| Sep-10-04 | | TheGreatNN: I don't think the major differences between the KG and the QG really have anything to do with the half-open f-file. In fact, I think that this is an over-emphasized benefit of the KG. If black plays the Fischer Defense, the f-file will actually be pretty blocked-up, and if he plays the Cunningham Defense, white won't get to castle in the first place (the same is true in the bishop line, which is arguably superior. If the half-open f-file is so important, why would anyone ever want to play 3.Bc4?)
The real difference between the KG and the QG, I think, has to do with the ability of either queen to immediately attack its opponent's king. It takes one move for the white queen to attack f7, but two for it to attack c7. Because of this, each side can develop in the QG without worrying about an immediate attack, but not so in the KG. Incidentally, the reason black can hold the pawn in the King's Gambit but not in the Queen's Gambit also has to do with the position of the queen. The white queen can attack easily on the long light diagonal, but not the long dark diagonal, so ..g5 is an ok move, but ..b5 is not.
The way I see it all white gets out of the King's Gambit, besides a volatile position for both sides, is slightly faster development than his opponent and the chance to develop a strong center, both of which can contribute to a kingside attack. Even Spassky didn't think it was worth the pawn. Neither do I, but like him I still play it anyway, because the Evans and the QG are simply in a different world than the King's Gambit. The only openings I know of that are more violent are variations of the King's, such as the Vienna Gambit (Lange Defense) and the Fischer Gambit, so IMO you can't really make the comparison. |
|
| Sep-10-04 | | SBC: I play the KG (a lot) simply because it's fun. Against someone not so familiar with it, I can usually get good advantage and maybe even win with a flair. Against someone capable, I feel like I'm walking a tightrope because almost any error can be fatal due to white's usually precarious position. So, win or lose, it's almost always enjoyable...and to me that counts for a lot. |
|
| Sep-11-04 | | RisingChamp: It is worth the pawn(practically speaking) to play the kings gambit.By the way just of out interest where did Spassky say it wasnt worth the pawn.Whether he thought it unsound or not,he certainly made brilliant practical use of it winning several games and never losing with it.And < MPA> this debate getting so abstract that its beggining to sound really silly lets terminate it before it gets any worse.Peace to you (and heres hoping u get out more!:) |
|
| Sep-11-04 | | Minor Piece Activity: lol, I don't think it's a debate, I think we essentially agree on the most important thing- that fun is what counts. Let's both get out more. :P P.S. Spassky did lose once, Spassky vs G Lane, 1979. Nice game though. |
|
| Sep-11-04 | | square dance: interesting, even short claimed spassky was undefeated with the KG. |
|
| Sep-11-04 | | Dick Brain: <Minor Piece Activity and square dance> In that Spassky-Lane game you should notice "SMX London" (-> SiMultaneous eXhibition). |
|
| Oct-10-04 | | TheGreatNN: I am thinking about taking up 1. e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.b4!? as white, primarily because of this game I played against my (somewhat greedy) computer: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Bxd2 9.Nbxd2 d5 10.Qb3 Nf6 11.exd5 O-O 12.Bd3 Nxd5 13.Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.Ng5+ Kg8 15.O-O Nxf4 16.Nde4 Ne2+ 17.Kh1 Nxd4 18.Qg3 f6 19.Qh4 fxg5 20.Nxg5 Bf5 21.Rxf5 Rxf5 22.Qh7+ Kf8 23.Qh8+ Ke7 24.Qxg7+ Rf7 25.Re1+ Kd7 26.Qxf7+ Kd6 27.Ne4+ Kc6 28.Qg6+ Kb5 29.a4+ Kxa4 30.Rb1 Nbc6 31.Nc5+ Ka5 32.Nxb7+ 1-0
However, I am not sure if black played as well as he could have in the opening. White seems to have a deadly advantage by move 9. Does anybody know if the 4. ..Bb6 line is playable for white? |
|
| Oct-10-04 | | azaris: <TheGreatNN> Nice anti-computer play! I think trading the dark-squared bishops was a mistake for Black as otherwise the a7-g1 diagonal is a big weakness for White. The pawn wall looks menacing, but Black can sacrifice his extra pawn to break it down and get a good game. |
|
| Jan-08-05 | | Backward Development: Game Collection: EVERYONE loves the King's Gambit
a work in progress, but any thoughts? |
|
| Jan-08-05 | | mynameisrandy: Sounds like a good idea to me <Backward Development>. Keep it up. |
|
Jan-09-05
 | | cu8sfan: <Backward Development> Great idea! Thanks for putting together this collection. May I suggest some more games: Lawrence Day is a regular visitor here and used to play the KG.
L Day vs J R Stopa, 1988
L Day vs J Costa, 1992
Alexei Fedorov is one of the most exciting players who plays the KG:
Fedorov vs Yusupov, 1999
Fedorov vs Svidler, 1997
Joseph G Gallagher wrote <Winning with the King's Gambit> in 1993 and I think this book is to a certain degree responsible that the KG was reinstated so to say after Fischer's bust.
J Gallagher vs Chiburdanidze, 1990
J Gallagher vs Bodelier, 1991
J Gallagher vs J Costa, 1990
Looks like Jean-Luc Costa is a King's Gambit buster: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
| Jan-09-05 | | Benzol: <Backward Development>
Could I suggest some more games.
Hartston vs Spassky, 1966 where Spassky is playing the Black pieces.Spassky vs A Ornstein, 1974 is a game where Spassky was very lucky not to lose. Em. Lasker / I Rice vs Hoffer & Maroczy, 1900 is a game with hideous complications Fitzgerald vs Loyd, 1898 where Loyd produces a mate in actual play that rivals some of his problems And some games by Gunsberg
Gunsberg vs NN, 1879
Gunsberg vs W Ballard, 1889 and one where Gunsberg is one the receiving end Schlechter vs Gunsberg, 1903
I've always liked this one by Adolf Anderssen
J Rosanes vs Adolf Anderssen, 1863
It's a great collection you've complied btw. |
|
| Jan-09-05 | | Benzol: Whoops! I accidently doubled up with the Anderssen game. Sorry about that. |
|
| Jan-09-05 | | Backward Development: cubsfan, benzol:
thanks a lot guys for the great games.
this was a very enjoyable little project and a very good way to get acquainted with the opening.
I intend to play it tommorow at a Blitz tourny as a 'secret weapon'. i think it will work well. |
|
Jan-10-05
| | cu8sfan: <Backward Development> Good luck in the Blitz tournament and let us know how you fared! |
|
| Feb-12-05 | | pyryk: Here's a short game in the KG that I recently played online against a guest. Both players had 10 minutes for the whole game. A mouseslip by my opponent ended the game somewhat abruptly. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ♘c6 3.♘f3 d6 4.♗c4 ♗g4 5.0-0 ♘d4 6.♗xf7+ ♔xf7 7.♘g5+ ♔e8 8.♕xg4 ♘xc2 9.fxe5 ♘h6 (9...♘xa1? 10.♖xf8+! ♔xf8 11.♘e6+) 10.♕f4 dxe5
11.♕xe5+ ♕e7 12.♘e6 ♘g4 13.♘xc7+ ♔d7 14.♕d5+ ♔xc7 15.♖f7 ♖d8 16.♖xe7+ ♗xe7 17.♕c4+ ♔b8 18.♕xc2 ♖c8 19.♕d1 ♖hf8 20.♘c3 ♗c5+ 21.d4 ♖cd8 22.♘d5 ♘e3 (mouseslip) 23.♗xe3 1-0 |
|
| Jul-19-05 | | refutor: is there a name for the line 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 f5 |
|
| Jul-19-05 | | sneaky pete: <refutor> Adelaide counter gambit. |
|
| Aug-12-05 | | refutor: move order question. i'm not a 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf 3.Nf3 man...i prefer the bishop's gambit. after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 d6 what's a decent alternative to 3.Nf3? i've got move ordered a couple of times and black played 3. ...exf4 transposing into a Fischer defense. the opening explorer suggested 3.Nc3 but after 3. ...exf how do i continue? |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | CapablancaFan: Got to be one of the most difficult openings to master. You must have iron will and nerves of steel. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | ughaibu: I guess a mercurial temperament and a heart of gold won't cut the mustard then. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
