Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

King's Gambit a good opening?


  • 11 months ago · Quote · #1341

    TitanCG

    maskedbishop wrote:

    > remember Nakamura playing the English of all things when he needed a win against Giri and got a miniature against him.<

    That game was drawn after 39 moves. What miniature?

    Oops... Must've been someone else... Sealed

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #1342

    NightFactory

    Hey long time no see. So it seems that the fischer defense is a good idea but I need an idea in this position.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #1343

    BMeck

    NightFactory wrote:

    Hey long time no see. So it seems that the fischer defense is a good idea but I need an idea in this position.

     

    That isnt Fischer's Defense, not sure if you were saying it was or not. I checked your games and this isnt one in progress so I will tell you Bc4 is the move to play here. You could find that out easily though. You are still in book in this position.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #1344

    GreenCastleBlock

    BMeck wrote:
    NightFactory wrote:

    Hey long time no see. So it seems that the fischer defense is a good idea but I need an idea in this position.

     

    That isnt Fischer's Defense, not sure if you were saying it was or not. I checked your games and this isnt one in progress so I will tell you Bc4 is the move to play here. You could find that out easily though. You are still in book in this position.

    Yes, it is better to put on one's big boy pants and check a database oneself, rather than unearth a 8-month old thread about the King's Gambit in general and ask someone to do it for you.

  • 8 weeks ago · Quote · #1345

    CAL06Chess

    King's Gambit is my favorite opening with white, but I only play it against players of equal strength or lower in serious play, but I play it against superior opponents every chance I get in friendlies (so I play it on here a LOT because who cares about this rating XD), because, as people have said, it leads to a VERY tactical game where normally the person with the strongest tactics wins, which is why there are so many blowouts - on both sides. If white tries it against a superior black opponent, they will get crushed because there is no room for error, but the same is true the other way around.

    Personally, I think the blowouts are why it is unpopular once you get into higher ratings but haven't yet become masters. People who have proven themselves good enough at chess to obtain 1300+ normally have enough pride in their game that getting blown out embarasses them.

    Couple this with the fact that both white and black are in very precarious situations with a lot of hacking and slashing throughout the whole game in an age where we prefer calm development and slowly wresting victory, and the disdain for the opening is assured.

    But disdain doesn't mean the opening is bad. Masters have won and lost good games with it since it was invented and continued to do so today.

    And its disdain and unpopular style of game gives it two meta-advantages (not tangible, but very real nonetheless).  1) Many people haven't played against it since they were very new to the game and have never faced a white opponent who knew what they were doing. If this is the case, the KG is DEADLY. 2) Even if they are familiar with it and hold their own, they rarely get the pace of game and methodical play they prefer, which leads to sometimes 2 or 3 smaller errors they normally wouldn't make that maybe didn't lead to a blowout, but caused them to play below their abilities and give white enough of an advantage to win. If the opening every makes a popular come back, however, those advantages will be lost.

    I'm not a master or unbiased (not just the KG, I love gambits in general, even late gambits (post 5th move). I tend to play Gambits a lot as white to press the opening tempo advantage because they lead to very open games. On the flipside, as black I typically play more closed games in the opening (to neutralize the tempo advantage), though I will occasionally gambit, but never in the first few moves (and only it certain opening variations).

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #1346

    ponz111

    HolyKing wrote:

    Its very good for white. In fact im starting to think that it is a forced win for white if played correctly

    Sorry but your thinking is wrong here.

    Please refer to my exhibition some months ago on chess.co where I took Black against the best Centaur players I could find.

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #1347

    marco_xander

    NightFactory wrote:

    [COMMENT DELETED]

    NightFactory wrote: [COMMENT DELETED]

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #1348

    Hadron

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #1349

    Hadron

    ponz111 wrote:
    HolyKing wrote:

    Its very good for white. In fact im starting to think that it is a forced win for white if played correctly

    Sorry but your thinking is wrong here.

    Please refer to my exhibition some months ago on chess.co where I took Black against the best Centaur players I could find.

    The fact that you played computer-aided chess and apparently won with Black proves what? That he is wrong? If someone tells you that the sky is purple, you don't need a whole lot of computer simulations to work out something that can be ascertained by simply looking up.

    And besides just how do you know he is wrong? His assertion that the King's Gambit is very good for White may well be based on his playing experience. He very well may issue forth the King's gambit over the board and win constantly, does anyone know what strength he plays at over the board and what sort of chess time limits he prefers?

    His definitive statement that the Kings Gambit is a forced win for white if played correctly is about as misinformed and lacking in any real substance as your assertion that he is wrong based upon on you winning computer assisted games. Your try to present evidence that at best, has only a causal link to what he said (ie I played computer assisted chess as Black and won so therefore you are wrong) based on something that is factually incorrect to begin with.

    The computer age has a lot to answer for....

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #1350

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    Hadron wrote:
    ponz111 wrote:
    HolyKing wrote:

    Its very good for white. In fact im starting to think that it is a forced win for white if played correctly

    Sorry but your thinking is wrong here.

    Please refer to my exhibition some months ago on chess.co where I took Black against the best Centaur players I could find.

    The fact that you played computer-aided chess and apparently won with Black proves what? That he is wrong? If someone tells you that the sky is purple, you don't need a whole lot of computer simulations to work out something that can be ascertained by simply looking up.

    And besides just how do you know he is wrong? His assertion that the King's Gambit is very good for White may well be based on his playing experience. He very well may issue forth the King's gambit over the board and win constantly, does anyone know what strength he plays at over the board and what sort of chess time limits he prefers?

    His definitive statement that the Kings Gambit is a forced win for white if played correctly is about as misinformed and lacking in any real substance as your assertion that he is wrong based upon on you winning computer assisted games. Your try to present evidence that at best, has only a causal link to what he said (ie I played computer assisted chess as Black and won so therefore you are wrong) based on something that is factually incorrect to begin with.

    The computer age has a lot to answer for....

    What if a tetrachromat tells us the sky is purple and we trichromats lack the capability to discern the purple? 

    As for computers even as far back as the 90s one defeated Kasparov (albeit by one point, but still!) I think computer consistency won and that match teaches us that lack of consistency (or being less consistent) could make us lose to people we have superior positional and strategic understanding over. 

    Since machines have a limited horizon effect Kasparov could outcalculate (only depth wise, not overall and certainly not as fast) the machine at times.  People are effected by so many different variables whereas a machine simply applies its algorithm with great consistency.


Back to Top

Post your reply: