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

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.

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

is this just wrong? If so, I stand corrected and apologize to <MaxxLange>.

In the Falkbeer Counter-Gambit, Black pushes his KP to e4, after 3 exd5, and White normally plays 4 d3

King's Gambit Accepted, Fischer Defense
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.♘f3 d6

click for larger view

Or, he can transpose to the" Modern" KGA line instead, with 3....exf4>

<"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.">

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:

<It’s 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.

Yes it was.