I think it's too easy for Black. In KG, White has the attack. But here (I will never disarmed the Rook)? I think I'll be happy playing Black for this position (I haven't studied this variation tho):
King's Gambit: Bishop Gambit.
Sort:
Oldest
Bobby Fischer has played this opening exactly 2 times in his tournament career and has won both games in which he used it, so I say it is a perfectly playable opening to use.
3.Bc4 is considerably stronger than 3.Nf3. I play the King's Gambit and never had problems with it and won a good % of games with it. But it is a very sharp opening. Black has different options though,you should be happy when 3..Qh4+ was played, you are going to have a huge lead in development and probably have the chance to finish black off fast without the need of your KR.
3.Nf3 is refuted by the Fischer's Defence in my opinion.
duskrevival wrote:
3.Nf3 is refuted by the Fischer's Defence in my opinion.
Even Fischer didn't believe this. Not sure why you would.
MisterJaw wrote:
duskrevival wrote:
3.Nf3 is refuted by the Fischer's Defence in my opinion.
Even Fischer didn't believe this. Not sure why you would.
I think this depends on your strength. someone with low level like myself find it easier to play 3.Bc4 than 3.Nf3, but you are right, it isn't refuted, I take back what I said, it is probably a matter of preference then
Castle149 wrote:
Bobby Fischer has played this opening exactly 2 times in his tournament career and has won both games in which he used it, so I say it is a perfectly playable opening to use.
My database shows 8 games with Fischer playing the white side of the KGA. He scored 8-0 ! He played 3 Bc4 in 6 games and 3 Nf3 in 2.
Also, my DB gives a slightly better score for white with 3Nf3 over 3 Bc4 but its insignificant imo.
i dont think one should be happy with most good defenses as black. Qh4 is perfectly viable with g5 or d4 following up though.
king's gambit is not a really good opening as white. unless your facing people lower rated then yourself. then any opening is good though.
the thing i dont like about the king's gambit is that if black has any idea about the opening, it is easy for him to take equality or advantage within a few moves. by that reasoning that it can forcefully give white a worse position in a few moves, i will refer it to as unsound.
sure you can play it and relish when your opponent does not know the opening lines, but that probably will become a little boring and won't happen as soon as you face higher rated players.
It's not "easy for B to take advantage within a few moves".It's easy to take equality but no more. The KG is playable against GM opposition and if you know of a line leading to a black advantage please post it here...this will make you very famous
You are right bresando. The more I study this gambit the more I have respect with it. It guarantees quick and easy win against weaker oppositions, and can hold up against stronger opponents, as long as their tactical skill is not way too good. The tactical possibility is also very high level, more complicated than positions that I have seen coming from other openings (including French).
When I started to use the KG this year, I just wanted to practice and improve my tactical skill, but now I don't have intention to drop it even for serious games.
The Fischer defense is what I hate most.
In fact i have never played the KG in a serious game
but it takes 10 minutes on a decent theoretical source to realize that all the claims of B advantage are rubbish.
As far as i know the fischer is not so unpleasant for a prepared W player. No advantage of course but the resulting positions are usually very unclear/messy/interesting. By contrast if B plays the classical 3...g5 he can go for some very drawish lines, and this is why 3.Bc4 looks better to me.
bresando wrote:...it takes 10 minutes on a decent theoretical source to realize that all the claims of B advantage are rubbish.
If you mean by plugging the position into chess engine, then follow the best moves for both sides. Usually I see that it is not difficult for Black to find those "best" moves. While for White, it is usually very difficult (needs high level tactical skill). May be because I'm more a devensive player than an attacker. Or, may be because as in many other gambits, the attacker is given dynamic advantage while having static disadvantage, so the attacker has such a burden to find good ideas.
No, by putting the position into a chess engine you will usually generate weak lines in the KG. Computers are known for overextimating B chances in the bishop gambit, and someone blindly following the computer suggestions is in concrete danger to offer W tremendous compensation. I would rely on theory rather than computers here.
It's true that the KG is often less intuitive to play when compared to other stuff(such as the danish), mainly because W compensation in modern lines is to a certain extent positional and long-term.
Jul 8, 2011
0
#14
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
The Fischer defense is what I hate most.
That's one of the reasons I decided to try the Bishop's Gambit. I was very bored of playing over and over the Fischer's Defense. White's position is fine, but I wanted to try something new.
And, if the defense you hate the most is the Fischer, wait to see the Falkbeer Countergambit!
Jul 8, 2011
0
#15
The Bishop's Gambit is a nice way to go. There's a reasonably good book on it out there, as well.
pauix wrote
And, if the defense you hate the most is the Fischer, wait to see the Falkbeer Countergambit!
Hehe... When building a repertoire, I always study every possible lines of transformation or divertion since move 1, including the counter gambit.
One thing that I like about KG and playing against the Falkbeer is, this opening is very theoretical in the beginning (in case of the Falkbeer, the bad news is that the theory is not intuitive, especially for White!). It is very unlikely that Black player remember this theory as they don't face KG very often.
bresando wrote:No, by putting the position into a chess engine you will usually generate weak lines in the KG.
It depends on how deep you let the engine analyze the position. With enough depth (24 minimum in my case) you will find that the computer move is the main line.
But of course it should be combined with good positional understanding (evaluation).
bresando wrote:
It's not "easy for B to take advantage within a few moves".It's easy to take equality but no more. The KG is playable against GM opposition and if you know of a line leading to a black advantage please post it here...this will make you very famous
the taking of advantage is not easy as with almost any opening with "best" play(white can play 1 h4 and with best play it probably is still equal), but in practicality, statistical evidence leads toward black getting an advantage in most games. black simply has more chances of winning from a practical standpoint.
with my somewhat limited experience with the king's gambit as black, i find it pretty easy to get equality and would rather play the black side than the white side. my friend doesnt even play the kg against me anymore.
from the handful of most commonly played openings, i like facing the king's gambit as black. i probably don't even play the best try for black, but ill stick with easy equality in the king's gambit: accepted, cunninham defense.
Jul 9, 2011
0
#19
The Cunningam is Be7, no?
I have no problem with having to face the Cunninham. The Bishop's Gambit has shown me that my King is perfectly safe on f1, and that my Kingside Rook, after h2-h4 and/or g2-g4) gets into the battle quite fast.
I'm a King's Gambit player, and, in the KGA, I normally play 3.Nf3. But recently I'm starting to try out 3.Bc4. My first experiences with this opening are being very positive. After 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1, white can't castle and will have some problems with his Kingside rook, but in compensation I found that white can win some tempos attacking Black's queen. Is this opening still sound or someone has found a refutation?