Incidentally I've been meaning to start a thread on a topic which is a propos:
Is the King's Gambit a dead opening, or not? I continue to find ways of making it successful, and I'd like to know if there are sure-proof refutations of it, or if it will invariably be a toss-up?
Is the King's Gambit a dead opening, or not? I continue to find ways of making it successful, and I'd like to know if there are sure-proof refutations of it, or if it will invariably be a toss-up?
Kings Gambit is not dead it's well booked but it's still playable!
Is the King's Gambit a dead opening, or not? I continue to find ways of making it successful, and I'd like to know if there are sure-proof refutations of it, or if it will invariably be a toss-up?
Kings Gambit is not dead it's well booked but it's still playable!
Well Alec, perhpas you would care to contribute to the new thread "Is the King's Gambit dead?' which is currently in progress... We are trying to determine if indeed it is still playable or not. It's being investigated methodically, one variation at a time.
Please take a look and convince us!
P.S. I hope that it is indeed alive and kicking - I love to employ it whenever I can!
terrific game
For Tarius:
I'd just like to add if you play the black side of the Kings Gambit avoid bringing out your Queen to h4 on move 2 like black did in this game:
Another example don't bring out your Queen to f6 on move 4 like my opponent did here your Queen can get trapped or caught if your not careful!
He had 10...Qb6+ to put up more of a fight... but Ne6 was sound. Well played!
i had a look at many GM or high standard Kings Gambit games and i find black comes out on top more often that white!It infrequently leads to draw (compared to other openings) if someone wants to go for all or nothing. In my quick research i read some article I think it was by Bobby Fischer refuting the kings gambit as the Fischer Defense was quite solid against it.
Fischer Defense
Pe4 Pe5
Pf4 PxPe4
Nf3 Pg5
Pd4 Ph6 and also followed by fienchetto and castle!
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
i dont think you can compare that to morphy!
He was absolute genius!
Black just played very very badly in that game to allow white to attack like that
Morphy just mauled people back when he was around. These guys played good chess by then standards and he overwhelmed them with aggression. (when chess players werent as good as they were nowadays and also i dont think they studied and had as much information available to them)
Edit: I would also like to add that white did play well in that game to exploit blacks poor responses!
Its been said that although Morphy was a great player if he was around nowadays many players would be able to deal with his aggression alot better and he wouldnt beat masters so easily.
I appreciate that you find that I exploited black's poor choices... so you agree, they were poor choices! My oponent lacked the aggression and explicitly minor piece development, that is necessary in such hostile territory.
Also, I can and will compare this to Morphy - it is only a tribute after all. It reminds me of him, I'm not saying that it is him.
btw- Morphy played several amateurs, and less astute or apt pupils of the game. (Just look at all the odds games he played, and so on and so forth). In fact, that is why I eventually stopped monopolizing my chess studies with his games - I didn't find that he got challenged enough! However, there is much to be said about his style, and I try to incorporate it in many of my games, particularly when playing white, and/or blitz games.