Yes, totally agreed.
Add to that the psychology of playing a rare opening against an opponent who realizes that they are out-booked from move 2, and you have what we in the industry refer to as "the element of surprise".
I've written three books on the King's Gambit:
300 King's Gambit Miniatures (1982)
500 King's Gambit Miniatures (1986)
500 King's Gambit Miniatures, Collection II (1996)
They should be available on ebay, Amazon, or other book sources. Mostly King's Gambit traps, with games less than 20 moves. All this before computer databases.
3. ...Nf6! back at ya.
Now protect the e pawn.
4. Nc3 c6!
Best is to save tempo on the Bishop.
5. Bb3 d5 6. ed cd 7.d4 Bd6 and Black has more than equality.
The Westernin Gambit: 5. d4 Bb4 6. e5 Ne4 7.Ke2 ?! is interesting, but most unsound. Also here 7.Qf3 is played, but has been mostly rebuked.
See the Johanssen book mentioned by Gonnosuke above for (almost!) complete info on these lines.
Great win, but your opponent mixed his systems by trying to play a Cunningham against the Bishops Gambit.
3. ...Nf6 is the move that give White headaches.
3. ...Be7 is ?! and playable (maybe) but is known to give White decent fighting chances. Also, maybe 7. ...Bg3 (Fritz!) gives Black some chances here instead of the ponderous Nh6?
After 3. ...Be7 a nice move for White is 4.Qh5 !? which puts strong pressure on the f7 square as well as prepping the Queen to move to d5~!This may be a bit stronger than the normal 4. Nf3 and is worth looking at if you play this line a lot as there may be an improvement or two for Black if they play the Fritz suggestion of 7. ....Bg3 that keeps them in =/+ territory.
You may also be interested in books on the Vienna Game. Many, if not most, lines of the Vienna end up in a "delayed King's Gambit."
There are three major lines in the Vienna, the difference being what white does on move 3. In all three variations, the first moves are:
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6/Nc6
Then, on move three, you can...
3. Bc4
3. f4 (The Vienna Gambit, basically a King's Gambit delayed one move)
I am currently playing this line...
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3
Then you fianchetto the bishop, castle, placing the rook behind the f pawn, and you are ready to push to f4 at your leisure. Sometimes, you decide that the situation doesn't warrant it, and you still have a solid position to play from, and are not down a pawn.
Anyway, you may give it a try.
There are all sorts of interesting transpositions between the Vienna and the King's Gambit. When the opportunity arises, I aim for a Hampe-Allgaier type of position.
5. ....Ne4 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. 0-0 g5! 8. d4 c5! and White has trouble showing a pawn's worth of compensation. =/+
Also, 5. ...Ng4 is possible and very tricky!
Gumpty, if you want to set up a game/challenge I would be more than happy to try to demonstrate my ideas. The key is always that e3 square. It is terminally weak and nothing can be done to strengthen it once the f pawn cannot guard it proper. Even without the anchoring pawn on f4 to creat an outpost, in the endgame, Black will own that square (even without a bishop) and use it to hurt you (if they are wise).
In my opinion, the tricky part about playing the white side of the Bishops Gambit is avoiding the many possible transpositions into the traditional Modern Defense of the King's Gambit. The Modern positions are fairly tame (i.e. safe) but stylistically it's not the kind of game that a gambiteer wants to play.
If white wants to avoid the mainline 4.d3?! is a possibility (Judit Polgar has played this a couple of times).
Also of interest is this recent game:
Navarra-Gelfand is a good road map for Black as Black was never in any danger at all and reached easy draw position.
4. d3?! is also easily handled by making regular chess moves. White gets an open f-file but Black's pawn structure remains bullet-proof and without the f pawn to lever on the e file, Black can easily hold. So long as Black is not the one overexteneding by paying for the full point, 4. d3 is not much to be feared, or even to be heavily prepped for, actually.
An especially painful waxing has made me gun-shy about playing the Bishop's Gambit. Having said that, I still think it's a useful surprise weapon since it's pretty common for black to try and utilize incorrect strategies that lead headlong into harm's way (like the aforementioned Be7 move where black attempted a pseudo-Cunningham's Defense).
A thorough understanding of how to exploit such errors can lead to very good milage (up to a point).
Gonnosuke, that's the first time I've read a post of yours which tacitally admits, even in the slightest, that the KG is lacking in soundness.
I totally agree with your statement, btw.
I think the argument largely hinges on the definition of "sound". How one distinguishes between "sound" and "unsound" has a lot to do with expectations and how you view the value of different results. If you're inclined to view a draw as a bad result when playing white then I think the King's Gambit is certainly not sound. If a draw is an acceptable result when playing white then the gambit is absolutely sound at all levels of play.
In very practical terms, for attack-minded players rated below 2200 the King's Gambit is better than sound -- it's a lethal weapon.
frankly i dont understand , how can an intended draw be a sound strategy for white at any level ? is it for example when u play with a stronger player? i dont think that playing with stronger player would be good idea to use king gambit
If it's your best opening then do it. Playing against a better player, one has to play one's best openings.
If there were some way of getting an "easy" draw from the black side of the KG, then you just wouldn't want to play it against worse players. For an example, let's say that there was a GM who entered all sorts of open tournaments in the US, and ALWAYS played the King's Gambit. I bet that word would quickly get around on how to get a good (draw) position as black. And the GMs rating would suffer an inordinately large amount.
It's not that the King's Gambit is played with the intent to draw, it just happens to be drawish with strong play. If you know it well, then you're almost guaranteed to know it much better than your opponent -- the same can't be said for the Ruy Lopez. Any time black plays 1...e5 you can safely assume that he/she is ready and willing to play the Ruy Lopez. But the King's Gambit? Not so much. At the amateur level where technique is less precise, familiarity will usually trump subtle theoretical strengths/weaknesses.
The Ruy Lopez is also an extremely drawish opening in that black can equalize with relative ease. If someone can show me how to gain an enduring advantage with white in the Ruy Lopez I'm all ears. Yes, the Ruy Lopez is fashionable and offers complex middlegames full of opportunities for both sides but you can't deny that with strong play the Ruy Lopez is extremely drawish. The nearly 50% draw rate at the GM level says it all.
Is the Berlin variation of the Ruy any less drawish than the King's Gambit? I don't think so. In a 'must win' game, if I had a choice between playing the King's Gambit or playing against the Berlin defense, I'd go with the King's Gambit every time.
I'd rather play against the Caro-Kann than the damn Berlin Defense.
Gonnosuke is right and well reasoned here.
But of course that is easy to say when I agree!
Personally, as Black playing 1. ...e5 I have found the Scotch to be more demanding to play against than either the KG, The Bishops Gambit or The Spanish. Less chances for Black to turn the tide.
All the others, the Vienna, the Italian Game (2 Knights!), no worries. Easy to hold or outplay weaker players with well-known, well tested, time honored methods to gain equality.
So if all those openings suck, what should white play?
Fortunately, the "soundness" of an opening often has little impact on the result of an OTB game. I'm pretty sure Nakamura would agree considering his recent Two Knights adventure.
Yeah. Poor Friedel. lol
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.