6211 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
tigergutt
This topic is for you. Here you can post your refutations to prove your claim:)
trysts
Both sides of the King's Gambit Accepted scares me! If someone plays it at my rating, I think they know tactical stuff which makes me play passively because, I just don't think opening the King-side to attack, so early, without developement, is the best way to play this game
GlennBk
Not refuted just not in fashion at the highest levels because they have found what seem at the moment to be more promising ways of opening the game.
Still an opening very well worth playing at any level below 2000 since it teaches you a lot about attacking and defending chess.
Remember in ten years time we will all be hearing new opening stories and numerous revivals will be proudly demonstated.
You cannot win or lose a game of chess and blame it on any opening it depends on your play. I always play kingside openings because I understand them better.
Efim_Bogoljubov
White's major problems are on the Kieseritzky and after 3...h6, but even more depressing, the traditional 'good lines' for white (like the Schalopp defence) are under a cloud (or even the endgame arising from the Falkbeer)
It's a good opening if u don't like to study a lot of theory and want to develop all of the pieces and want to put pressure using the f-file, but with the Kieseritzky I've a lot of winning and drawing games against the KG
thanks for answers:) but i think some of you didnt read the topic well enough. this thread was for concrete lines. if you say the kings gambit is bad then give a line that it does bad in. 3...h6 in itself is not a refutation. you need to go much deeper than that
thanks for answers:) but i think some of you didnt read the topic well enough. this thread is for concrete lines. if you say the kings gambit is bad then give a line that it does bad in. 3...h6 in itself is not a refutation. you need to go much deeper than that.
If u doesn't know the kieseritzky gambit it's not my problem man.
offtherook
Asking for a "refutation" is unrealistic. Even Damiano's Defense has never been refuted, but everyone agrees that it's a lousy choice of opening. In the King's Gamit, black should get an advantage, or for the less ambitious there are easy paths to equality for black. The King's Gambit perhaps is not losing by force, but it either throws away the advantage white should enjoy, or even starts you off at a disadvantage.
Andersson's opening seems to me to throw away a move for white but then white is a move ahead, and anyway a move at the begining is not sufficient to win.
Nothing in chess is concrete; dogmatism leads to error there are always exceptions too rules. Many positions that arise from the openings are unprovable that is why we play if it was concrete like noughts and crosses we would not play the game.
Because a better player beats me playing any opening does not prove the opening is poor it proves he is better.
i know that line much deeper than what you shared and in the lines i know white cant possible be said to be refuted. thats why i asked for lines:)
Well man I share only the basic position of this gambit and for me this position is a good compensation for black (fritz quotes it -0.11 for Black, not a lot of vantage)
i agree i play 3...g5 myself and like the positions im getting from both sides
those
I didn't say the King's Gambit is refuted.
duskrevival
Anything black plays against the King's Gambit is refuted.
AnthonyCG
ih8sens
As far as I'm concerned, it's up to white to prove compensation for the pawn, not black to prove a forced win. Modern theory suggests that black at least equalizes, and may retain some advantage... that's refuted enough for the vast majority of strong masters. Feel free to research some of black's supposed refutations and provide some concrete analysis from the white side... :)
-matt
Arctor
White's best try in the King's Gambit:
BillyLobster
kings gambit may not be the best at the top professional level against a knowledgable opponent
but I like it because at the amateur level even good players ~viz, better than me~ are prone to mishaps/blunders even though they are paying attention. sort of like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxtP7QxgB5Q&feature=related
hence, although no game is safe in my hands i find there is still a chance of redemption if i have misplayed the opening phase
whatever happened to.....
by mfw019 a few minutes ago
5/25/2012 - Reshevsky-Ivanovic, Skopje 1976
by ForeverForgotten a few minutes ago
Win Material 2
by Joey6978 4 minutes ago
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
by mfw019 5 minutes ago
CPOTM May 2012 cont.
by Joseph-S 11 minutes ago
Fritz 12 and no internet
by DavyWilliams 11 minutes ago
Win a Knight
by mfw019 11 minutes ago
Chess Seminars
by Pawnpusher3 15 minutes ago
Win a Bishop
by chessgeek100 23 minutes ago
My game against GM Michael Adams
by blake78613 28 minutes ago