its considered to not be good for white
Is the King's Gambit no longer fun?
Sort:
Jan 11, 2022
0
#3
M1m1c15 wrote:
its considered to not be good for white
spassky played it in the 1970 wc
yeah, but now, engines have determined that its not that good
Jan 11, 2022
0
#5
M1m1c15 wrote:
yeah, but now, engines have determined that its not that good
Nepo: Long live the King's Gambit!
Beats Alireza in 20 moves: https://youtu.be/kyK38QA4p-A
Jan 11, 2022
0
#7
You might wanna read this;
A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT
by U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer
International Grandmaster
http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit.pdf
Jan 11, 2022
0
#8
dorthcaar wrote:
You might wanna read this;
A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT
by U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer
International Grandmaster
http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit.pdf
That's old, old, old news and is simply not true. There are many many many lines that give white an advantage in the Fischer defense and exactly zero that "lose by force."
The era of romanticism is almost dead. And I hate that!
Jan 11, 2022
0
#10
Still playable at my level, players just prefer more solid lines it seems
Jan 11, 2022
0
#11
Circumlocutions wrote:
Still playable at my level, players just prefer more solid lines it seems
It's playable at any level, if by playable you mean that it's not losing and gives white practical chances. In the Master Chess Games database on this site, it's 41/18/41 (win/draw/lose), but it scores way better than that if you look at untitled players. It's not bad, but at the highest levels other openings just do better.
"I would like to play the King's Gambit, but I have not yet found a way to equalise as white" - Kramnik
See figure 4 (d)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf
Jan 11, 2022
0
#13
Kramnik was primarily a d4/Nf3 player his entire life and rarely played e4. He was known for being a positional grinder and winning endgames. Clearly he wasn't being honest when he stated that he would like to play the King's Gambit. Nepo, on the other hand, has three wins and a draw recently with the KG. He beat Alireza at Norway Chess, he beat Sanai and Sjugirov at the World Blitz, and he drew Erigaisi at the World Blitz. I guess Nepo found a way to equalize. He only had two other wins as white, and one was in a Sicilian where he couldn't play the King's Gambit. He also lost as white playing an open Ruy against Sindarov who is rated over 100 points lower. Maybe he should've stuck with the King's Gambit.
Jan 11, 2022
0
#14
@DrJetlag - exactly the point. There are literally thousands of posts that basically say "the computer says it's bad so you shouldn't play it" or "Super GMs don't play it so you shouldn't play it." Are you Stockfish? Are you a GM? I've shown this graphic in other places, but in that other web site's database of non-master games, The King's Gambit wins 52% and loses 45%. The Queen's Gambit wins 52% and loses 43%. The Ruy Lopez wins 51% and loses 44%. For practically everyone reading this post, there is essentially no difference. Play what you like not what Magnus plays.
Jan 11, 2022
0
#15
But the computer evaluates that as +3.7! Clearly all hope is lost for black.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@DrJetlag - exactly the point. There are literally thousands of posts that basically say "the computer says it's bad so you shouldn't play it" or "Super GMs don't play it so you shouldn't play it." Are you Stockfish? Are you a GM? I've shown this graphic in other places, but in that other web site's database of non-master games, The King's Gambit wins 52% and loses 45%. The Queen's Gambit wins 52% and loses 43%. The Ruy Lopez wins 51% and loses 44%. For practically everyone reading this post, there is essentially no difference. Play what you like not what Magnus plays.
Magnus plays it. Maybe you meant Caruana..
https://twitter.com/chesscom/status/1468196135902789636
melvinbluestone wrote:
MirageFree wrote:
The era of romanticism is almost dead. And I hate that!
Well, it's mostly dead in top level play, and maybe even most GM games. But for mediocre woodpushers like me, it's very much alive. Below 2000, it's all about tactics, and I love that. So what if an engine finds a bunch of your moves was 'inaccuracies'? If your 1500-rated opponent doesn't find them, that's what counts. Engines are great and should be used as a guide. But many of the high-level games I see that approach 100% accuracy are just not that interesting. Not to me, anyway, with my minimal chess knowledge.
So for me, romanticism in chess is still alive. It better be, 'cause at my age, that's the only kind of romance I'm getting!
lol, being a romance lover myself. I’d agree with you!
- Alpha zero did demonstrate a combined way of chess, which included positional maneuvers as well as romantic sacrifices. I admired alpha zero games.AlphaZero never fails to amaze me.And I hope, the new hypermodernism era won't kill romantic chess.
It's a blast to play... if you know what you're doing...
melvinbluestone wrote:
MirageFree wrote:
melvinbluestone wrote:
MirageFree wrote:
The era of romanticism is almost dead. And I hate that!
Well, it's mostly dead in top level play, and maybe even most GM games. But for mediocre woodpushers like me, it's very much alive. Below 2000, it's all about tactics, and I love that. So what if an engine finds a bunch of your moves was 'inaccuracies'? If your 1500-rated opponent doesn't find them, that's what counts. Engines are great and should be used as a guide. But many of the high-level games I see that approach 100% accuracy are just not that interesting. Not to me, anyway, with my minimal chess knowledge.
So for me, romanticism in chess is still alive. It better be, 'cause at my age, that's the only kind of romance I'm getting!
lol, being a romance lover myself. I’d agree with you!
- Alpha zero did demonstrate a combined way of chess, which included positional maneuvers as well as romantic sacrifices. I admired alpha zero games.AlphaZero never fails to amaze me.And I hope, the new hypermodernism era won't kill romantic chess.
Yeah, those AlphaZero games are interesting. I remember GM Simon Williams ("GingerGM") commenting on them. For years he's been championing these early pushes with the h-pawns, but most high-level players have stayed away from that strategy. Then AlphaZero comes along and starts clobbering all the other engines with these "wild, premature" h-pawn pushes, and now it's all the rage. It's like Simon was right all along!
"Romantic" chess engines....... what a concept! What's next? Stockfish dating AlphaZero? They'll start hanging out together at clubs. Why not? They won't even have to wear masks!
I like your sense of humour! 
And I wonder what kind of a playing style would future chess engines adopt.
Jan 11, 2022
0
#20
dorthcaar wrote:
You might wanna read this;
A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT
by U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer
International Grandmaster
http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a-bust-to-the-kings-gambit.pdf
The same year Fischer wrote this Spassky beat him using the King's Gambit. Spassky also won a famous game--used in the James Bond film "From Russia with Love"--vs Bronstein that same year, and years later sprung it on Karpov, beating him too.
GMs rarely use it as theory gives it no advantage for white, and most of them prefer quieter openings where white takes less risk. Ironically, the computers say black's best reply is probably the Falkbeer counter-gambit, rarely seen in GM play for the same reasons.
It is a perfectly reasonable opening at lower levels.
Why do people no longer play openings like the King's Gambit? In the old days, the Kings Gambit was a favourite. As recently as Spassky, this opening saw wide use. But modern chess theory somehow managed to overturn the theories of hypermodern chess, declaring the Kings Gambit unfit for use?
Is the Kings Gambit the Vietnam veteran of the chess opening world?