A general Study on the King's Gambit

Hello all,

I would like to adress the issue of the King's Gambit. Many players on this site blindly follow Fischer's Advice on the opening believing that it is busted and looses by force. This is certaintly not the case. First I will post a link to his article so you can read it yourself :http://www.academicchess.org/images/pdf/chessgames/fischerbust.pdf    (you need to know descriptive notation to read it). He states that the move 3...d6 refutes the Knights Gambit. this is simply not the case as Spassky proved against Karpov, the game will be posted much later in this Article. There is the opposite side of the spectrum that supports the Gambit vaheemently. I happen to be part of that side, but I am putting aside my bias for the sake of a somewhat objective study of the Gambit. 

First I need to adress John Shaw's Recent book on the Gambit (I have only read the chapter on the Quaade Gambit) In it he claims that the Maurian Defense Refutes the Bishop's Gambit. (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Nc6) This is in a way akin to Fischer's 3... d6. but again I will get to that later in the article. Regardless of what I think of the idea, Shaw has written a wonderful book, and has included some very good analysis.

Historical Background

According to various sorces the first player to analyze the King's Gambit was Lucena in the 1500's (very late 1500's) he did not think much of the opening, specifically the variation that has become a favorite of Super GM's, the Bishop's Gambit (I will get to this much later). The First Recorded games I could Find on Chessgames.com (a very good source for these kind of things) were played by Greco and Ruy Lopez de Segura. All of them are Miniatures, and a handfull were under 10 moves (of course the white side won mainly due to these players being the best of their day). After some further study I found that a Large portion of the Games in the Macdonnel La Bourdanidas match in 1834 (the first unofficial World Championship match) were King's Gambits. Back then Gambits were always Favorite openings because they almost always led to extremely sharp positions in which the Romantic, Combinational Style of play that was in fasion before the 20th Century was displayed. Considering the History of the Opening and the fact that it was among the top 5 opening choices for strong masters in that era, it seems fitting that it was played in the Immortal Game, Anderssen Keisertzky 1851 1-0. Morphy was a well know exponent of the Opening, possibly due to his opponents weaker understanding of the open games. Morphy was know to play almost exclusivly Wild Muzio Style Openings when giving odds of a Queen's Knight (the b1 knight). Steintz played it from time to time, even after he switched from playing the Romantic style to his well know style that "took the Beauty out of chess".

The Gambit declined in popularity, though it continued to see use with those who were nostalgic about the 19th century style of play. Around the time the Soviet School of chess arose, The Gambit was a Favorite of one very strong Soviet player: David Bronstein. He nearly singlehandedly brought the Gambit back to popularity at the top level of chess. Botvinick however decryed his use of the Gambit, even ordering him not to play it in a very important team match even though Bronstein was a strong player who knew the lines better. About the time of the late 50's early 60's, a young player by the Name of Boris Spassky arived on the scene. He won played the gambit not once, but twice in the 1960 CCCP (USSR) Championship, one of those games is featured in the James Bond movie, From Russia with Love (Spassky Bronstein). He defeated Fischer in a Keisertzky Gambit in the 1960 Mar del Plata tournoment. Fischer, being a rather emotional teenager (which I'm not sure he ever stopped being emotional) wrote an Article entitled, "A Bust to the King's Gambit". The next well publicized use of the Gambit was by Fischer himself in his famous 1963 US Championship where he defeated famed GM Larry Evan's the Publisher of the magazine which printed Fischer's article. After that the Gambit again went through a dry spell popping up here and there for the next 20 or so years. The next time the Gambit was played by a world class player was by Spassky against Karpov (the guru of positional chess) Spassky won the game after a mistake by Karpov in the endgame. Again it fell into dissuse amongst world class players. Then all of a sudden, people started picking it up again, Nigel Short and Alexey Shirov being notable examples. Nigel Short even defeated Kasparov twice in utilizing the Bishop's Gambit (one game was on move 15 albiet the first 4 moves were predetermined, although Kasparov declared the 4th move playable for black). In a very impressive game Shirov plays the Double Muzio and wins in 17 moves against a master strength player. In the recent era of chess, the Gambit has been played by Morozevich, Carlsen, Nakamura, and the Polgars.

Knight’s Gambit

          The Knight’s Gambit is considered by most people to be the most sound variation of the Gambit, and in a way it is. 3. Nf3 is a less anti positional move than the main alternative, 3. Bc4. There are a few things Nf3 does, it prevents the Queen from coming to h4 with check, it grabs even more control of d4 (which is immediately possible after exf4), fixes the pawn on f4, and prepares to castle short. From this position black has two main options, …g5 and d6 (though Be7 is of interest). 3… d6 is Fischer’s Recommendation against the Gambit, and I will review that first.

          After 3…. d6 white has a handful of options. Fischer recommended 4.d4 g5 as blacks mainline because now h4 is slightly unsound and does the exact opposite of what white wants. After 5.h4 g4 6.Ng1 is all but forced, and now black can develop with ease and white’s position is a bit congested, however 5.h4 is not forced. Instead white needs to play 5. Bc4 retaining a slight advantage. Note that if g4 white can play a Muzio style sac with 6. 0-0! And Rybka suggests declining at a depth of 15 (at least on my 4 year old laptop) 6. …Bg7 is a solid reply, and after the simple 7. Nc3 Ne7 8. Bxf4 White is still comfortable after either 0-0 or gxf3 because white has significant f file pressure, and with the b1 knight developed to c3 the a1 rook can come into the fight and bear down on the e file.

Most players however do not head for this somewhat aggressive approach. Instead they opt to play more developmental moves as Fischer’s Analysis has been somewhat improved upon, and instead lines like 4….h6 and 4….Bg7 have been adopted as somewhat standard. These moves are better than the aggressive alternatives posted by Fischer, and even though they do not prove problematic for white, they do blunt whites pressure to a degree.

I could run off lines of theory and analysis, but I won’t as this is not the purpose, I am just merely providing background and a basis for further research by those whose interest I have piqued.

What has been considered main line KG theory is 3….g5, now this move seeks to hold onto the pawn won by 2….exf4. White has a few options after this, and there have been many recommendations. Most recently John Shaw, a Scottish Grandmaster, wrote in his 680 page behemoth of a book that the Quaade Gambit (4. Nc3) is the best way to meet this move (Rybka likes it at a considerable depth), as even though Black can pick up tempo with g4 the Queen check is rather harmless unless prepared, and by the point black has properly prepared it, white has either castled or developed all of his pieces. I tend to personally like 4. Bc4 preparing for a Muzio, though 4. … Bg7 avoids it with a fairly solid position for Black where play is not as restricted. However h4 is considered mainline leading directly to the Kiesertzky. After 4….g4 (h6??? 5.hxg5 wins back the pawn and gives black a bad position)5. Ne5 (5. Ng5 !? is the Allegeir, and is marginally sound, as Black can fight back against the attack if he knows the lines, it can be dangerous though) Nf6 and the position is somewhat equal, both sides are fighting. I know that theory lasts for at least 10 more moves in some lines, but I will stop there as this is not an in depth Article, just an introduction.

The Muzio Gambit is something of a curiosity, somehow even engines can’t seem to refute this crazy idea of white’s that harkens back to the Romantic era. The line begins with 4. Bc4 g4 5. 0-0 (not Ne5 due to the threat of Qh4+ forcing the King to f1 blocking the lane for the rook) … gxf3 6. Qxf3 and even though white is down a knight for a pawn and some f file pressure, engines evaluate this as only slightly better for black, and in OTB play should be considered equal for both sides. It is even more confusing when you consider that when analyzed I found that the Double Muzio ,which continues 6…. Qf6 7.e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7, that White is only considered down by about 2-3 pawns depending on the engine consulted and the depth, and in some Variations, white quickly becomes better by up to +5 and even into forced mate territory. There is a Triple Muzio, but this is a minor line that should only be considered for Blitz play or when you out rate your opponent by more than 600 points (instead of 8. Bxf7 the move is 8.b3).

The only other move to really consider in the knights gambit for white, as most others are just passive attempts at developing and avoiding early complications, is 3….d5, the Modern Defense. This is the popular move in modern high level chess as it does a mix of what d6 and g5 do as well as forcing white to burn a tempo he would rather spend developing a minor piece. Even though this is a very important line, it is not as critical as white can transpose into a Falkbeeresque position and be perfectly ok.

My overall conclusion of the Knight’s Gambit is that most variations can be played (The Quaade is rather playable, for more info on it consult GM John Shaw’s book The King’s Gambit).

The Bishop’s Gambit

The Bishop’s Gambit is technically the oldest variation, having first been analyzed by Ruy Lopez de Segura and Lucena. 3. Bc4 is also considered to be more popular among high level players than the Knight’s Gambit, why? First by playing 3. Bc4 black is most likely taken out of theory, this however is not the only benefit. White tempts black to play Qh4+ kicking the king to f1 but giving white plenty of tempo through developing attacks on the misplaced black queen (ala Anderssen Kiesertzky 1851 1-0) and despite John Shaw’s Analysis (which is extremely good) I am of the opinion that the Maurian Defense is not as critical as it should be.

The Maurian Defense is 3…. Nc6 which is rather un aspiring as a “refutation” much the same as d6 refutes the Knight’s Gambit. After Shaw’s 4. Nf3 it transposes into the Knight’s Gambit, where it takes on a position reminiscent of the 4. … Bg7 lines. Due to wanting to play the Bishop’s Gambit and not transpose, I recommend Nc3 as an alternative (backed up as somewhat equal by rybka at depth 16). After black makes standard development moves, d4 gets pushed, followed by possibly e5 and because the b1 knight has been developed if the Black king is in the center, white has the option of starting some fire on the board with a sac on f7 which can be a somewhat thematic sac in the King’s Gambit as it highlights just how weak the f file is from black.

The most critical line for black is of course 3… d5 which is the preferred defense by IM and GM level players, and almost the cure all of most open game gambits for black. After 4. Bxd5 Nf6 5.Nc3 the position is relatively equal, and will not be very complex. Of course white can try other options, but this is the most sound line other than 4.exd5 which releases central tension and hems in white’s Bishop. Standard practice in the Bishop’s Gambit in general is to develop logically, targeting the black monarch, and then begin attacking down the central files. Black does want to relieve some pressure by trading off a few minors before move 10 or 15.

The Qh4 line is of trivial importance amongst high level play (2000+) as it is generally avoided for being a bit overzealous. Under Expert level however it is a common response and should be known. But as I have said before, it isn’t the most important line to know and natural play should be used. Another line of importance is 3….Be7 where white should transpose into the Cunningham.

Example Games

Below are some example games in the King’s Gambit. In the sake of brevity I have only included white wins (I will post a link to chessgames.com if you want to see the black wins). Another thing I did was limit it to mostly KGA games (there may be a declined tossed in somewhere). First it is organized by ECO and then Date played (oldest to newest), with the exception of a few Fischer games in front. They are also listed by player if possible. I have checked each one to ensure no major blunders are in the games unless they are instructive in some way (that’s why I have included some Greco games). Also included are games of most World Champions: Steintz, Lasker, Alekhine, Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Kasparov, Carlsen. The World Champions not listed either never played it (as white), their games featured extreme blunders in it, or played an off beat variation not covered and of trivial importance (Capablanca).

Fischer plays Nf3

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044206

A nice win by Fischer

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044214

Fischer beats up an early computer in 1977!!! Proving he still could play

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242850

A game everyone should know as to why the Queen should not come out early

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1251885

and again

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1251886

Paul Morphy at 12 years old

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075506

Even Traxler could play it.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1743639

Alekhine

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011754

again

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011880

Bronstein

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1074941

Spassky

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1076483

Again

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1076483

More of Fischer

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044179

Bronstein again

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034809

Polgar

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1077875

Short (it was admittedly a thematic)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070668

Morozevich

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1018654

Ivanchuck

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1079876

Polgar again

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1600890

Nakamura

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1637184

Short again (beating up Kasparov again)

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1641821

Ivanchuck again

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1741026

Knight’s gambit

Morphy again

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075140

Spassky

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1076431

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068273

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1077676

Short

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1079886

Morozevich

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1433423

Shirov

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1656125

Morphy

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075510

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1027921

Spassky

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1076560

Short

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1079887

Morphy

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075098

Petrosian

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075007

Spassky

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034110

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1076495

Kasparov

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1434774

Nakamura

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1634564

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1650151

Carlsen

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1671690

Morphy

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075128

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075590

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075122

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075136

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075606

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075617

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075724

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075725

Maroczy

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036581

Alekhine

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1011986

Shirov

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1074916

one for fun

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1710911

Nakamura

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1600009

Pruess

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1515909

Morphy

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019050

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019055

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075121

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075507

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075509

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1019060

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1027916

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1080050

Steintz

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1075857

Spassky

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1080046

Paul Keres

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=23304

Spielmann

http://www.chess.com/games/view?id=15446

i don't like doing this but 

BUMP

I think the best way to "subtly" bump a topic is to include relevant info that keeps it fresh and exciting.  Therefore, you not only "bump", but include games, etc.

true, I'm just a bit exhausted after writing that whole thing and spending aobut 2 hours straight reviewing games on Chessgames.com

Yeah, just take a small break, maybe come back tomorrow.  If you keep at it on and off for a couple of weeks, you might be able to get some fruitful discussion going.

I thought there was an experiment to analyse the king's gambit accepted with computers ... http://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-busting-the-king-s-gambit-this-time-for-sure ... do you agree with this?

Edit: Thanks guys I hadn't realised that it was an April fool's joke.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/im-rajlich-claims-kings-gambit-is-solved-by-rybka-cluster

It's impractical, you have far fewer chances of going wrong in a Giuco Piano or Ruy Lopez.  Apart from having more opening and middlegame leeway you aren't down a pawn in the endgame.  Granted some initiative may carry over in a king's gambit ending and white can exchange pawns down to increase drawing chances (and a black g4 pawn is an overextented clear target for white usually) but why pick an opening where you'll have to fight hard for a draw in the endgame with plenty of chances to go wrong beforehand? 

That was an April Fool's Day joke...

@ Zurah. That was an April Fool's Day joke as noted by mainline Novelty, I don't have the link confirming this ATM, but chessbase admited it.

@TheGreatOogieBoogie... Two things, epic name (haven't had a chance to say that yet) and the reason one would choose the King's Gambit as white as opposed to the Spanish Game or the Giuco Piano as you mentioned, is that as white I realy don't want to face the Marshall (yes there are anti Marshall lines) or the Berlin, in the Giuco The most active line is the Evan's Gambit, and in the Italian, more people play the two knights anyway. The King's Gambit is more of a way to get to the middle game that is not like from point a to point b, its almost akin to driving up Pikes Peak at break neck speeds. The King's Gambit according to the chessgames.com database has a win percent in the 40's for white, and the high 30's for black. with draws accounting for a little over 10%. This means that the King's Gambit gives more opprotunities for white, but at the same time gives black some of his own.

Thanks =)

People on the white side usually know the gambit and theory better so that might account for the 40% win rate.  Though I can see why someone would want to avoid the Berlin or Petroff though 3.Nc3 can transpose into a four knights (or 3...Bb4, which can lead to interesting play)  The two knights is kind of dull and the Fried Liver mixes things up way too early for my tastes as white still has many pieces left undeveloped.  Now I remember why I usually go with 1.d4 as it can be hard to establish some imbalances in many 1.e4,e5 lines if black doesn't allow. 

I remember that I personally used to play the gambit because of its historical value.  Here's one of my old games with it:

I completely understand, and I am booked up on the King's Gambit lines for both colors as I play it from both sides. I tend to want active play and initiative over material if possible.

Nice game I've had good positions with the Cunningham before, but blundered them away

also here are relavant statistics from Chessgames.com as per the King's Gambit Accepted.

5,281

45.1% 16.2 38.7%