Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
King's Knight Opening (C40)
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3

Number of games in database: 858
Years covered: 1512 to 2021
Overall record:
   White wins 52.7%
   Black wins 34.0%
   Draws 13.3%

Popularity graph, by decade

Explore this opening  |  Search for sacrifices in this opening.
With the White Pieces With the Black Pieces
NN  15 games
Juan Sebastian Morgado  9 games
Jutta Hempel  7 games
Emil Joseph Diemer  24 games
Pavel Skatchkov  18 games
Jutta Hempel  14 games
NOTABLE GAMES [what is this?]
White Wins Black Wins
Tal vs Lutikov, 1964
Morphy vs J McConnell, 1849
Greco vs NN, 1620
NN vs E J Diemer, 1978
NN vs Bronstein, 1954
A F Ludvigsen vs S Sorensen, 1872
<< previous chapter next chapter >>

 page 1 of 35; games 1-25 of 858  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. P Damiano vs NN 1-0131512analyseC40 King's Knight Opening
2. Polerio vs G da Cutri 0-1131590RomeC40 King's Knight Opening
3. Greco vs NN 1-071620Miscellaneous GameC40 King's Knight Opening
4. Greco vs NN 1-081620Miscellaneous GameC40 King's Knight Opening
5. Greco vs NN 1-0111620Miscellaneous GameC40 King's Knight Opening
6. Greco vs NN 1-0111620Miscellaneous GameC40 King's Knight Opening
7. NN vs Greco 0-1101620Miscellaneous GameC40 King's Knight Opening
8. NN vs Greco 0-1121620Miscellaneous GameC40 King's Knight Opening
9. NN vs Greco 0-1121620RomeC40 King's Knight Opening
10. NN vs Greco 0-1161620RomeC40 King's Knight Opening
11. NN vs Greco 0-1211620Miscellaneous GameC40 King's Knight Opening
12. Greco vs NN 1-0111625ParisC40 King's Knight Opening
13. C Lolli vs NN 1-081750CasualC40 King's Knight Opening
14. Hols vs Bucker 0-1101792NRWC40 King's Knight Opening
15. Berlin vs Wroclaw 0-1441831City corrC40 King's Knight Opening
16. F Slous vs W Bone 1-0191835LondonC40 King's Knight Opening
17. Mayet vs W Hanstein 1-0201837BerlinC40 King's Knight Opening
18. Mayet vs W Hanstein 1-0381837MatchC40 King's Knight Opening
19. P Bilguer vs Von der Lasa 0-1331839BerlinC40 King's Knight Opening
20. P Bilguer vs Von der Lasa 0-1471839UnknownC40 King's Knight Opening
21. Mayet vs Von der Lasa ½-½301839BerlinC40 King's Knight Opening
22. Staunton vs Cochrane 1-0431841London m1C40 King's Knight Opening
23. Cochrane vs Staunton 1-0201842London m2C40 King's Knight Opening
24. Cochrane vs Staunton  1-0321842London m2C40 King's Knight Opening
25. C Jaenisch vs Alexander Petrov 1-0341844St PetersburgC40 King's Knight Opening
 page 1 of 35; games 1-25 of 858  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-09-07  FICSwoodpusher:

click for larger view

My opponent has given me the bishop pair and now the opportunity to open the game.

Every single chess textbook out there would recommend exd. My instincts told me to play exd.

I don't know why I didn't play this move. Maybe because it was just a "friendly" game. Maybe I underestimated my opponent. Maybe I just wanted to see what happened if I didn't do it.

Either way I was not happy with myself later on.

Feb-09-07  FICSwoodpusher:

click for larger view

Its amazing how much I was still thinking about the opening and what I could have done there. I did have the option to play safely but by now I was sensing that my opponent was very comfortable in safe positions. So I thought I would try to lure him into my trap by trying to make it look as if I was going to lose a pawn.

Apparently he thought I was losing a pawn too.

Feb-09-07  FICSwoodpusher:

click for larger view

Again I had the opportunity to exchange rooks and play safely. I decided that he obviously didn't like having my rook on the second rank so I took a gamble on Re2 instead.

Had he played Re1 after this I would have exchanged my rook pair for his queen.

click for larger view

He took my bait and here I had planned on Bd4. Then just before I reached for my piece I saw a better move. The rest as they say is A.M.O.T (a matter of time).

Overall I was more worried than my analysis shows. After reviewing the game with Fritz 9 I was relieved as I was more pessimistic about my situation especially if I was playing against a higher rated player.

Feb-26-07  SirBruce: I have won many a game as white that started along the following line:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 5. Nf7 Qxg2 6. Rf1 d5 7. Nxh8 dxc4 8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qxh7

click for larger view

3. Bc4 doesn't rate very highly in the chessgames database, but that's because other moves are often played. But black's response, 3. ... fxe4 is clearly wrong. 2. ... f5 may be playable, but in 176 games in the chessgames database, it's white 50.6%, black 39.2%, draw 10.2%. And yet many, many opening books have 2. ... f5 in them.

Feb-26-07  ughaibu: 4.... d5 is much stronger than Qg5.
Feb-26-07  southpawjinx: Here is my latest King's Knight Opening!! [Event " server game"] [Site " "]
[Date "2007.2.9"]
[Round "NA"]
[White "darthplutonius"]
[Black "stubaby781"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Black resigned"]
[WhiteElo "1701"]
[BlackElo "1346"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[DateLastMove "2007.2.25"]
[ECO "C40"]
[Board "3373525"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3 f6 4.Nc3 a6 5.d4 c6 6.dxe5 fxe5 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Bxe7 Qxe7 9.Bc4 b5 10.Bxg8 Rxg8 11.Qd2 Qf7 12.O-O-O g6 13.Qxd6 Bd7 14.Qxe5+ Be6 15.Rd6 Ke7 16.Ng5 Qf6 17.Rxe6+ Qxe6 18.Qxe6+ Kd8 19.Qxg8+ Kc7 20.Qxh7+ Nd7 21.Qxg6 Ne5 22.Qg7+ Nd7 23.e5 Re8 24.e6 ♗lack resigned 1-0

Feb-26-07  SirBruce: <ughaibu>, if 4.... d5 then 5. Qh5+ g6 6. Nxg6 hxg6 7. Qxh8 and black still loses his Rook. If 7.... dxc4 then 8. Qxg8. Black has pretty much lost this game on only his second or third move.
Feb-27-07  SirBruce: Well, further research has told me that 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 is known as the Svedenborg Variation of the Latvian Gambit (which is 2... f5). If 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 Qxh8 Kf7 then black supposedly can recover with many lines:

I'm not convinced, but you're right that 4.... d5 has potential down the road, but precise play is required! 4.... Qg5 does seem to be "busted", though. I wonder if the Turk opening book has 4.... d5 recommended in it.

Mar-13-07  southpawjinx: Here is another C40 game for ya!!
[Event " server game"]
[Site " "]
[Date "2007.2.6"]
[Round "NA"]
[White "darthplutonius"]
[Black "Sparkeman"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Termination "Black resigned"]
[WhiteElo "1695"]
[BlackElo "1492"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[DateLastMove "2007.3.11"]
[ECO "C40"]
[Board "3364957"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6 3.a3 a6 4.Nc3 c6 5.d4 exd4 6.Nxd4 d6 7.Bd3 g6 8.Be3 c5 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Bc4 Nge7 11.O-O g5 12.Nd5 Bg7 13.a4 h6 14.c3 f5 15.Nxe7 Nxe7 16.exf5 Nxf5 17.Re1 Ne7 18.Nxg5 hxg5 19.Bxg5 Be5 20.g3 b6 21.Bd5 Rb8 22.f4 Bg7 23.Rxe7+ Kf8 24.Rf7+ Ke8 25.Bxd8 Kxd8 26.Rxg7 Re8 27.Bf7 Rb7 28.Qxd6+ ♗lack resigned 1-0

Apr-13-07  FICSwoodpusher: A nice opening trick that I won with recently. Obviously black best move is not Na5. But I wonder if Qb3 is any good for white?

click for larger view

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Qb3 Qe4+ 6. Be2 Na5 7. Qxf7+ Kxf7 8. Ng5+ Ke8 9. Nxe4 Bf5 10. Ng3 Bxb1 11. Rxb1 Nf6 12. O-O Be7 13. d3 Kf7 14. Be3 Rhe8 15. d4 e4 16. b4 Nc6 17. Bc4+ Kf8 18. Nf5 Nd8 19. Rbe1 Bd6 20. f3 g6 21. Bh6#

May-21-07  Rook of chess: :P:P:P:P u suck southpawjink
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: Why is today's <Opening of the Day> <1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qe7> called <Brazilian Defense> ? I knew it simply as <Qe7 Defence>.
Feb-18-08  nescio: <whiteshark>

For me the move 2...Qe7 is associated with Gunderam, but that's possibly because he has written something about most bizarre opening moves.

Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: <nescio> Thank you! It's indeed Gerhard Gunderam, and he published his analysis in a book "Neue Eröffnungswege 1" (or maybe in no.2) in the late Sixties.

If I recall it right he named it "De7-Komplex" but I don't know how to translate 'Komplex' adequate.

Mar-01-08  pawnofdoom: Once again the terrible Diamano Defense is OPening of the Day. Isn't there a forced win after 1. e4 e5 2. ♘f3 f6? 3. ♘xe5 fxe5 ?
Mar-01-08  karnak64: <pawnofdoom>: this database actually has one Black win in that variation, brought about by Sam Sloan:

M Thaler vs S Sloan, 2003

See the game commentary as well as comments on Sloan's page.

Apr-06-08  mron: In the Latvian after 3.Ne5 Qe7 4.Qh5 g6 5.Ng6 Qe4 6.Be2 (widely noted as a refutation) 6...Nf6 7.Qh3, can't Black simply play 7...Rg8 (instad of the commonly mentioned 7...hg6, which does lead to a favourable game for White), as after 8.Nf8 (can't see anything stronger) 8...Kf8 9.Qh6 Kf7 and Black has an active position and is threatening a couple of pawns. I gladly welcome opinions and/or alternative lines, but for me Black is still in this game.
Premium Chessgames Member
  tpstar: <mron> The database has 4 games with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Qe7 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Qxe4+ and each time White played 6. Kd1 Note these are old games (2 by Greco) with nothing recent.

Your line with 7 ... Rg8 looks playable for Black, albeit down a Pawn. I'm not sure you'll have much chance to test it since many would vary with 4. Nc4 or 6. Kd1 avoiding that continuation.

Apr-07-08  mron: <tpstar> Thanks mate. I've recently been studying the Latvian intensively and my mentioning of 6.Be2 is from which only mentions 7...hg6.

As a modest club player 4.Nc4 probably would appear fairly often and is a sound alternative. I believe however that 4.Qh5 is the only move to put serious pressure on Black's position.

I'm glad you mentioned 6.Kd1 because after seeing all of the featured games on this database a line frequently talked about goes 6...Nf6 7.Qh3/Qh4 hg6 8.Qh8 and after 8...Ng4, Black appears to have tremendous compensation for the exchange. There may well be a way out for White but I can't see anything. What do you think?

P.S. I recently found out my line 6.Be2 7...Rg8 is brushed aside by 8.Nc3! Qe6 9.Nb5 Bd6 10.Nh4 f4 11.Nf5. Fancy a draw?! :)

Jul-04-08  Latviandevil: Philosophical thoughts on gambits (in our case, Latvian Gambit) 1st. PART

In essence, the “philosophical” question about gambits – in our case, the Latvian and PCG of previous answers- , is what makes a gambit playable ?, and the ways for the answer are various.

Firstly, we should to think about our own personal style ( of play and personality ). If I prefer open, tactical positions with attack and counter-attack I will build a repertoire based in positions of those characteristics ( Pelikan, Dragon, Open Spanish, Spanish Jaenish, King’s Indian, Latvian g., Grunfeld ).

Second, the surprisevely value. A gambit is easily brought about, full of pitfalls for the opponent. Your opponent, in all probability, is playing something he has never studied and has no hope of understanding as well as I myself do. It matters little whether there is a path to an objective advantage for him so long as that path is well hidden among a plethora of plausible alternatives. I have experimented a great surprising, a psychological impact, a bewildering for all and even the “relatively” best prepared opponents when I moved 2..f5!?. It is not enough to make “fairly natural moves”, they need to be the right natural ones !!

I am 2070 ELO FIDE player and usually I play tournaments where my opponents have 2000-2300 Itn. Elo. Anybody can to think that if I defend the Latvian is because I am low rated player, but paradoxically I represent the 90% of these players in the World (!), and thus I don’t see why we can not play the gambit ( also Evans, Albin, sidelines of Two Knights, etc. ) if “ theoretically” speaking it is not refuted in OTB. It is very reasonable that in the “peaceful” of our own home, with the helping of the engines we can study or even “refute” a chess variation ..of any line of play of chess ...but I can confirm that with the board in front of your eyes, in a REAL OTB game, matters are very different .... My opponents, on average, play far worse than Fritz, Hiarcs or Shredder !?. I am not averse to play a move ( or an opening ) that I know can be refuted if I think my opponent would only be likely to find the refutation if he has the “engine” in his mind, which is impossible indeed. I note if I myself or any of the readers of this forum has had recourse to computer assistance to come up with the gambit, and if the moves or “refutations” are so natural, why we use computers at all ?. If they ( or I ) aren’t, then what does that say about one’s practical chances with the LG at levels far below the 2300 plane on which we play ?. I will assume ( only ) that above 2300 FIDE Latvian is a bit unsound ( but only, against well-prepared players, and also they would win with us another opening ... ), but below of this, I don’t see any problem on playing it ( remember, we are 90% of the players of the World ).


Jul-04-08  Latviandevil: .........

Last words about: I’ve won several times in official OTB games opponents close 2200-2250 FIDE ELO with the gambit, and generally I’ve seen he doesn’t know even the Main Lines far from 9-10 moves, or worse the “spirit” of the middle game positions, so I must to assume the “shock” value !. Apart from this, paradoxically 2..f5 only represents 25% of the whole of my official games, so I usually play often 2..Nc6, and also the Sicilian, so the “problem” is not the LG, the problem is opposed !!, any players know a correct way against the LG ! ( in CC the question is quite different indeed ).

When you select an opening, you are not selecting the position that arises at move 20 after best play by both sides. You are selecting the whole opening with all of its traps and twists, its side lines and main lines, and so you are an authentic specialist on LG ( for instance ), and your opponent don’t .... for a player who has a high tolerance for risk it does not constitute a conclusive argument against playing such gambit

Is funny, but Emil Diemer once wrote: “In order to win, one must sometimes have the courage to play badly.”. At present LG is being needed of some new improvements ( see ALL the serie of my past answers ), but I don’t believe is already dead, maybe many people don’t know some of the best specialists, ( Budovskis, Strautins, Krantz, Rosenstielke, Oren, Zemitis, etc. ) are finding new ideas and improvements. Silman’s theorethical article is truly hard ( even I've have collaborated discrediting Black ) , but many of us will continue with our private analysis encouraging Blacks play !?. The same to Philidor Countergambit 3..f5 ( played by NM James West, Kosten and Mestel ) or Rousseau gambit 2..Nc6 and 3..f5. I suggest any person with interest to know updates of LG visit and the series of LG World Tournaments ( and many theory or games ).

Alejandro Melchor, Barcelona, Spain

Jul-08-08  myschkin: Grazias <Alejandro Melchor>! Interesting thoughts on gambits in general. <I will assume ( only ) that above 2300 FIDE Latvian is a bit unsound ( but only, against well-prepared players, and also they would win with us another opening ... ), but below of this, I don’t see any problem on playing it ( remember, we are 90% of the players of the World ).>

Nov-01-08  Silverstrike: I recently picked up a £1 pamphlet on the Latvian and it has some interesting ideas, eg. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 b5 .

It doesn't present anything convincing in response to 3.d4 though, can anyone suggest something against that move?

Dec-21-08  Alphastar: No. just no
Dec-21-08  WhiteRook48: I thought King's Knight Opening was 1. Nf3
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 8)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific opening only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC