Kings Gambit

I was playing the Kings Gambit with unsatisfying results. It became apparent that opponets liked to just let me attack, while they sit back and wait for it to collapse. Playing against the kings gambit, I came to the conclusion that it is refutable, then learned that it was refuted in a similar manner already. The ponit of this thread is to suggest a possible alternative method of playing the gambit. I think it might be viable if other pieces are developed first. For example....

The kings gambit is deemed unsound on generall principles, such as opening up your king side to early etc, it has not been refuted.

Everything I know about the opening leads me to believe that it loses everytime if black is patient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Gambit Have a look at what Fischer says here, his word along with every game I've played in the Kings Gambit accepted line leads me to believe that yes, it is a nullfied opening, however, that it might just be due to sequencing.

Fischers opinion is just that, an opinion, it´s not law. It has not been refuted, if it has, then please show me the refutation of it.

On the other hand, as pointed out in another thread, Spassky played the King's Gambit 30+ times (including against Fischer) and never lost a game...

There is another forum that gives lots of discussions on the King's gambit.

It is a perfectly sound opening for White. Like all sharp openings White (and Black) have to play carefully. The KG has never been refuted and for below master strength is very dangerous weapon for the well prepared player.

It is being used at the top levels aswell, although, mostly as a surprise weapon, and I wouldn´t use it as my main weapon. But it has not been refutated at all, even though it might not be 100% sound.

And spassky didn´t necessarily use the KG the way that normal <2500 players does, he didn´t charge straight in, sacrifice sacrifice, lost to proper defence, and give up. He adapted to what the situation and board needed of him.

Playing the gambit straight up will lead to disasterous results. I don't think there's a way to play to a significant advantage against a reasonably skilled player.

Boris Spassky played it at the absolute top, so has Nigel Short. Spassky has beaten Karpov, Fischer, Portisch Layos and so on with the KG. And Nigel Short has beaten among more, Garry Kasparov with it. Now I don´t know if you deem Karpov, Fischer, Kasparov etc as reasonably skilled players, but most of us do, most of us consider them to be extremely skilled players.


I don´t mean this in a disrespectfull way, but maybe it´s you, and not the Kings Gambit?

And I, not to be disrespectful to you, would like you to understand that becasue something is the case in certain respects, does not mean it is the case in other respects. I can beat 1500 level players with the Kings Gambit, however, as the levels get higher, I use it less because I know it can be defended. The Grandmaster level, and below Class level are two different stories though. Good defense occurs more often than spectacular offensive brilliance by luck on the defenders part, or incompetence on the attackers at below the Class level.

I really don't think that we should be comparing our abilities to Grandmasters in any way shape or form until we're around 2000. Below that, the level of understanding is just not thorough enough.

Furthermore, as the wiki article states, the Kings Gambit is seldom used at the Grandmaster level. If you choose to state Fischer as an example of a player who is skilled, then you have to give credit to his "opinion", though I hardly call any grandmasters absolute statements opinion given the level of understanding they hold in their respective field.

Former world champion Anatoly Karpov and GM Lajos Portisch tried out Fischer's "bust" in games against Spassky, but both of them lost.

That opening is the Bishop's opening, a sister to the Vienna Game, and the Vienna Gambit. It does work better than the KG, but it, like all balls to the wall attacks, will still blow up in your face from time to time.

That opening is C33: King's Gambit: Accepted, Bishop's Gambit

I think it is just the way you're playing these type of positions... in my opinion unless your a super gm you cannot refute the kings gambit. here is an example of a game with world class grandmaster Boris Gelfand scrambling a draw against his lower rated opponent who used the kings gambit.