But Fischer didn't find it right away. Boris Spassky beat Fischer with the King’s Gambit at Mar del Plata in 1960. Only after that, Fischer then went and analyzed the opening more deeply and came up with an article called “A Bust to the King’s Gambit” in 1961. In it, he said: “In my opinion, the King’s Gambit is busted. It loses by force.” He suggested 3…d6 as you say.
I think that article really impacted how people viewed the King's Gambit, and yeah, if you're a top GM you won't play it very often. At club level, though, it's fine to use. In fact, because people dismiss it offhand, many club players have never studied how to play against it.
The KG isn't for me, it's too crazy and wild, but put it this way. Spassky beat Fischer with it, Morozevich beat Anand with it. If it can sometimes take down even the best players, it can't be all that bad at club level.
Was recently reading about this opening here, you may find it useful.
Seems Fischer was correct about the kings gambit
But Fischer didn't find it right away. Boris Spassky beat Fischer with the King’s Gambit at Mar del Plata in 1960. Only after that, Fischer then went and analyzed the opening more deeply and came up with an article called “A Bust to the King’s Gambit” in 1961. In it, he said: “In my opinion, the King’s Gambit is busted. It loses by force.” He suggested 3…d6 as you say.
I think that article really impacted how people viewed the King's Gambit, and yeah, if you're a top GM you won't play it very often. At club level, though, it's fine to use. In fact, because people dismiss it offhand, many club players have never studied how to play against it.
The KG isn't for me, it's too crazy and wild, but put it this way. Spassky beat Fischer with it, Morozevich beat Anand with it. If it can sometimes take down even the best players, it can't be all that bad at club level.
Was recently reading about this opening here, you may find it useful.
I agree the kings gambit is still quite useful funnily enough as I read this I was listening to the analysis of that game between Spassky and Fischer. However I will always have a huge respect for the kings gambit as many beautiful games were won with it. Funnily enough Fischer himself made use of the bishops gambit variation in simultaneous exhibitions.
The KG isn't for me, it's too crazy and wild....
That's exactly why u should embrace it.
It's fun to play both sides of the KG actually. Lots of miniatures.
Fischer also went on to say that the King's Gambit loses by force.
Now I'm just a lowly class player, but even I know that smells fishy (Fischy?)... I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he said it for the sake of sensationalism.
I dont play the kings gambit much, but I believe its the classic gambit opening. Sure f4 may be objectively bad but both sides have to navigate what appears to an infinite maze of complications. After exf4 there is what Nf3, Bc4, Nc3, Be2, Qf3 and possibly just d4? All of which lead to complicated games? And thats just the first move.
I play the king's gambit a lot and I'm curious: what do you think is the best refutation for black?
Recently was checking out what stockfish 10 had to say about the kings gambit and on the lichess cloud analysis it seems to believe that fischers defense e4 e5 f4 exf4 nf3 d6 was the best move. Of course the genius Bobby Fischer would have found it.
Just because an engine says its so, doesn't make it so. There are positions that engines will say are drawn, when in fact they are won, and vice versa.
I play the king's gambit a lot and I'm curious: what do you think is the best refutation for black?
the afformentioned fischer defense really makes it difficult to get an attack going in my opinion
Recently was checking out what stockfish 10 had to say about the kings gambit and on the lichess cloud analysis it seems to believe that fischers defense e4 e5 f4 exf4 nf3 d6 was the best move. Of course the genius Bobby Fischer would have found it.
Just because an engine says its so, doesn't make it so. There are positions that engines will say are drawn, when in fact they are won, and vice versa.
i agree entirely that engines may not be able to fully understand these complex positions due to their failing to consider human error but I am simply realizing the genius of bobby fischer that somewhere around 1960 he studied a move that is according to our best and most recent engine the best move. the evaluation at depth 50 is still only -.5 witch I'd say seems quite playable for white but again this is assuming perfect play from either side.
I dont play the kings gambit much, but I believe its the classic gambit opening. Sure f4 may be objectively bad but both sides have to navigate what appears to an infinite maze of complications. After exf4 there is what Nf3, Bc4, Nc3, Be2, Qf3 and possibly just d4? All of which lead to complicated games? And thats just the first move.
I agree even Fischer enjoyed the move Bc4 [the bishops gambit] and actually defeated larry evans with it I believe but he mainly played it in simultaneous exhibitions
Recently was checking out what stockfish 10 had to say about the kings gambit and on the lichess cloud analysis it seems to believe that fischers defense e4 e5 f4 exf4 nf3 d6 was the best move. Of course the genius Bobby Fischer would have found it.
Just because an engine says its so, doesn't make it so. There are positions that engines will say are drawn, when in fact they are won, and vice versa.
i agree entirely that engines may not be able to fully understand these complex positions due to their failing to consider human error but I am simply realizing the genius of bobby fischer that somewhere around 1960 he studied a move that is according to our best and most recent engine the best move. the evaluation at depth 50 is still only -.5 witch I'd say seems quite playable for white but again this is assuming perfect play from either side.
What engine fail to "see" are not due to human error. They are due to the fact that they simply do not see some positions for what they are. Since we are talking about humans here, the idea of "perfect play" is absurd, and trying to base best moves on perfect play is irrelevant. And! giving the third move of a game a +.50, and thinking that is really going to make a difference is also absurd. The only time a +/-.50 is going to matter is at the elite level. For the rest of us, it means squat.
Recently was checking out what stockfish 10 had to say about the kings gambit and on the lichess cloud analysis it seems to believe that fischers defense e4 e5 f4 exf4 nf3 d6 was the best move. Of course the genius Bobby Fischer would have found it.
Just because an engine says its so, doesn't make it so. There are positions that engines will say are drawn, when in fact they are won, and vice versa.
i agree entirely that engines may not be able to fully understand these complex positions due to their failing to consider human error but I am simply realizing the genius of bobby fischer that somewhere around 1960 he studied a move that is according to our best and most recent engine the best move. the evaluation at depth 50 is still only -.5 witch I'd say seems quite playable for white but again this is assuming perfect play from either side.
What engine fail to "see" are not due to human error. They are due to the fact that they simply do not see some positions for what they are. Since we are talking about humans here, the idea of "perfect play" is absurd, and trying to base best moves on perfect play is irrelevant. And! giving the third move of a game a +.50, and thinking that is really going to make a difference is also absurd. The only time a +/-.50 is going to matter is at the elite level. For the rest of us, it means squat.
when I said it was assuming perfect play I didn't mean if white doesn't play perfectly whites losing or anything like that I meant that the positions that arise in the kings gambit often require very precise play and while maybe not all of what engines don't see is due to human error you cannot tell me that many of the brilliant games won by romantic players weren't at some fault of the opponent I am not saying any of this against the kings gambit I think its very effective at the club level.
Recently was checking out what stockfish 10 had to say about the kings gambit and on the lichess cloud analysis it seems to believe that fischers defense e4 e5 f4 exf4 nf3 d6 was the best move. Of course the genius Bobby Fischer would have found it.
Just because an engine says its so, doesn't make it so. There are positions that engines will say are drawn, when in fact they are won, and vice versa.
i agree entirely that engines may not be able to fully understand these complex positions due to their failing to consider human error but I am simply realizing the genius of bobby fischer that somewhere around 1960 he studied a move that is according to our best and most recent engine the best move. the evaluation at depth 50 is still only -.5 witch I'd say seems quite playable for white but again this is assuming perfect play from either side.
What engine fail to "see" are not due to human error. They are due to the fact that they simply do not see some positions for what they are. Since we are talking about humans here, the idea of "perfect play" is absurd, and trying to base best moves on perfect play is irrelevant. And! giving the third move of a game a +.50, and thinking that is really going to make a difference is also absurd. The only time a +/-.50 is going to matter is at the elite level. For the rest of us, it means squat.
when I said it was assuming perfect play I didn't mean if white doesn't play perfectly whites losing or anything like that I meant that the positions that arise in the kings gambit often require very precise play and while maybe not all of what engines don't see is due to human error you cannot tell me that many of the brilliant games won by romantic players weren't at some fault of the opponent I am not saying any of this against the kings gambit I think its very effective at the club level.
That is why i love the game from the "romantic era" All slashing, brilliant, bold, and at times unsound or downright bad attacks. But as i read it once about that era...It was considered rude not to accept the sacrifice.
Recently was checking out what stockfish 10 had to say about the kings gambit and on the lichess cloud analysis it seems to believe that fischers defense e4 e5 f4 exf4 nf3 d6 was the best move. Of course the genius Bobby Fischer would have found it.
Just because an engine says its so, doesn't make it so. There are positions that engines will say are drawn, when in fact they are won, and vice versa.
i agree entirely that engines may not be able to fully understand these complex positions due to their failing to consider human error but I am simply realizing the genius of bobby fischer that somewhere around 1960 he studied a move that is according to our best and most recent engine the best move. the evaluation at depth 50 is still only -.5 witch I'd say seems quite playable for white but again this is assuming perfect play from either side.
What engine fail to "see" are not due to human error. They are due to the fact that they simply do not see some positions for what they are. Since we are talking about humans here, the idea of "perfect play" is absurd, and trying to base best moves on perfect play is irrelevant. And! giving the third move of a game a +.50, and thinking that is really going to make a difference is also absurd. The only time a +/-.50 is going to matter is at the elite level. For the rest of us, it means squat.
when I said it was assuming perfect play I didn't mean if white doesn't play perfectly whites losing or anything like that I meant that the positions that arise in the kings gambit often require very precise play and while maybe not all of what engines don't see is due to human error you cannot tell me that many of the brilliant games won by romantic players weren't at some fault of the opponent I am not saying any of this against the kings gambit I think its very effective at the club level.
That is why i love the game from the "romantic era" All slashing, brilliant, bold, and at times unsound or downright bad attacks. But as i read it once about that era...It was considered rude not to accept the sacrifice.
yes I remember reading about the kings gambit on the chess website.com and one of my favorite quotes came from there "The kings gambit thrived in the romantic era of chess where players weren't so unsporting as to defend properly"
Play chess one-way everyone....w/ all of ur emotion. Play defense only as a last resort.
IOW's, play like Joan of Arc would.
A Bust to the King's Gambit
by Bobby Fischer, 1961
The King's Gambit has lost popularity, but not sympathy. Analysts treat it with kid gloves and seem reluctant to demonstrate an outright refutation. "The Chessplayers Manual" by Gossip and Lipschutz, published in 1874, devotes 237 pages to this gambit without arriving at a conclusion. To this day the opening has been analyzed romantically - not scientifically. Moderns seem to share the same unconscious attitude that caused the old-timers to curse stubborn Steinitz: "He took the beauty out of chess."
To the public, the player of the King's Gambit exhibits courage and derring-do. The gambit has been making a comeback with the younger Soviet masters, notably Spassky (who defeated Bronstein, Averbach and myself with it). His victories rarely reflected the merits of the opening since his opponents went wrong in the mid-game. It is often the case, also, as with Santasiere and Bronstein, that the King's Gambit is played with a view to a favorable endgame. Spassky told me himself the gambit doesn't give White much, but he plays it because neither does the Ruy Lopez nor the Giuocco Piano.
The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it. In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force.
1 P-K4 P-K4 2 P-KB4 PxP 3 N-KB3 P-Q3!
This is the key to a troublesome position, a high-class "waiting move." At Mar Del Plata, 1959, I played 3...P-KN4 against Spassky, but this is inexact because it gives White drawing chances in the ensuing ending: e.g., 4 P-KR4 P-N5 5 N-K5 N-KB3 6 P-Q4 P-Q3 7 N-Q3 NxP 8 BxP B-N2 and now 9 P-B3! (replacing Spassky's 9 N-B3) 9...Q-K2 10 Q-K2 B-B4 11 N-Q2 leads to an ending where Black's extra Pawn is neutralized by White's stranglehold on the dark squares, especially KB4.
Another good try, but also inexact, is the Berlin Defense: 3...P-KR3 4 P-Q4 P-KN4 5 P-KR4 B-N2 6 P-KN3 P-N5 (also playable is 6...P-Q3 7 PxBP P-N5) 7 N-R2 PxP 8 NxP (8 QxP loses to 8...PxN 9 QxB QxP+ 10 K-Q1 Q-B3) 8...P-Q4 9 P-K5 B-B4 10 B-KB4, where Black cannot demonstrate any advantage.
Of course 3...P-Q4 equalizes easily, but that's all.
4 B-B4
4 P-Q4 transposes, the only difference if White tries to force matters after 4...P-KN4 5 P-KR4 P-N5 6 N-N5 (White also gets no compensation after 6 BxP PxN 7 QxP N-QB3 or 6 N-N1 B-R3) 6...P-KB3! 7 N-KR3 PxN 8 Q-R5+ K-Q2 9 BxP Q-K1! 10 Q-B3 K-Q1 and with his King and Queen reversed, Black wins easily.
4...P-KR3!
This in conjunction with Black's previous move I would like to call the Berlin Defense Deferred. By this subtle transposition Black knocks out the possibility open to White in the last note (to move 3).
5 P-Q4 P-KN4 6 0-0 B-N2 7 P-B3
Necessary to protect the QP. 7 P-KN3 is always met by P-N5.
7...N-QB3
Here there is disagreement as to Black's best move. Puc and Rabar, Euwe, Keres, and most analysts give the text as the mainline and mention 7...N-K2(!) in passing. I think 7...N-K2 is best because there is no reason why Black should not strive to castle K-side: e.g., 8 P-KN3 P-Q4! 9 PxQP PxNP 10 PxP (if 10 N-K5 PxP+! 11 K-R1 0-0 12 P-Q6 QxP wins) 10...0-0 11 Q-N3 Q-Q3 12 K-N2 N-B4 wins. There is little practical experience with this sub-variation.
8 Q-N3
If 8 P-KN3 P-N5 9 N-R4 P-B6 10 N-Q2, Euwe and other analysts betray their soft-mindedness toward this opening by giving the inferior 10...B-B3(?) 11 N(2)xP PxN 12 QxP - "unclear"!! This is yet another example of sentimental evaluation - after 12...Q-K2 followed by B-R6 and 0-0-0 Black wins easily. The Pawn on KB6 is a bone in White's throat so why force him to sacrifice when he must anyway? 10...Q-K2 is the strongest move.
In this last variation (instead of 10 N-Q2) White can vary with 10 Q-N3 but then comes Nimzovitch's beautiful winning line: 10...Q-K2 11 N-B5 BxN 12 PxB (if 12 QxP R-N1 13 QxN+ Q-Q2 14 QxQ+ BxQ and Black has a winning endgame) 12...0-0-0 13 BxP Q-K7 14 Q-K6+ (if 14 R-B2 NxQP! 15 RxQ PxR wins) 14...R-Q2! 15 R-B2 Q-Q8+ 16 R-B1 Q-B7 17 N-Q2 N-B3 (threatening N-Q1) 18 B-N6(if 18 Q-N3 QxQ 19 BxQ P-Q4 with a winning endgame) 18...P-Q4 followed by N-K2 with a winning game for Black.
8...Q-K2 9 P-KR4 N-B3
Again theoretical disagreement. Perfectly good is 9...P-N5! 10 BxP (forced, not 10 KN-Q2 NxQP! 11 PxN BxP+ etc.) 10...PxN 11 RxP - given by analysts again as "unclear," but after N-B3 followed by 0-0, White has nothing for the piece.
10 PxP PxP 11 NxP NxKP
A wild position, but Black is still master.
12 BxP+
The game is rife with possibilities. If 12 NxN QxN 13 RxP Q-K8+ 14 R-B1 Q-R5 15 BxP+ K-Q1 16 Q-Q5 N-K4! 17 PxN BxP (threatening B-R7 and mate) 18 R-Q1 Q-N6 wins, owing to the threat of R-R8+.
12...K-Q1 13 NxN
Not 13 N-K6+ BxN 14 QxB QxQ 15 BxQ NxQP!
13...QxN 14 BxP
14 RxP also loses to 14...Q-K8+ 15 R-B1 R-R8+ 16 KxR QxR+ 17 K-R2 QxQB etc.
14...NxP
And Black wins...
Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently.
Could someone pleez transpose this article to algebraic notation & put this all on chessboards ?
Thx 
!
Recently was checking out what stockfish 10 had to say about the kings gambit and on the cloud analysis elsewhere it seems to believe that fischers defense e4 e5 f4 exf4 nf3 d6 was the best move. Of course the genius Bobby Fischer would have found it.