Pelikan_Player wrote:
From the article:
"So, is the King's Gambit really busted?"
"No, just if white plays 3) Nf3."
King's Gambit Accepted?
Sort:
Jul 18, 2013
0
#83
Kijiri wrote:
I don't know if this has been posted in which case I apologize for a repost.
According to the strongest computer cluster in the world with 2880 clusters spending more than 4 months calculating, the kings gambit is busted. The only move that draws for white is 3. Be2, everything else loses by force assuming perfect play. Acording to the man behind it the computer has analyzed around 10^100 moves, using an algorithm that classifies a position evaluated as 5.12 advantage as a forced win (acording to the developer the computer has never failed to convert such an advantage).
Moreover interestingly enough, the Knights gambit has indeed been busted and it's now proven that black will always win with perfect play with the move 3.. d6. White has a theoretical forced draw after the move 3.. g5, so Fischers move was indeed more accurate! I highly suspect it was by pure luck though. Fairly interesting read but hardly anything that will matter to the average player of the Kings gambit although they have stated that the findings will be published and possible to acces on the internet.
Here's a link to a news article covering it on chessbase:
It was an aprilfool prank by chessbase!! you are the latest victim :))
rahim_me_123 wrote
It was an aprilfool prank by chessbase!! you are the latest victim :))
Maybe I have bad humor but it was meant as a troll comment to the ridiculos debate about Fischers "busting" of the KG.. I thought my overly serious approach to something everyone can see is a april fools joke was clue enough 
(The idea of a computer calculating 10^100 moves is absolutely stupid, try to write the zeros 
)
???
Jul 18, 2013
0
#86
Kijiri wrote:
rahim_me_123 wrote
It was an aprilfool prank by chessbase!! you are the latest victim :))
Maybe I have bad humor but it was meant as a troll comment to the ridiculos debate about Fischers "busting" of the KG.. I thought my overly serious approach to something everyone can see is a april fools joke was clue enough
(The idea of a computer calculating 10^100 moves is absolutely stupid, try to write the zeros )
Hard to admit that you were taken in, I suppose. If it's any consolation, a number of other players also believed it.
but i dont think any of you would do the kings gambit against fritz
SmyslovFan wrote:
Kijiri wrote:
rahim_me_123 wrote
It was an aprilfool prank by chessbase!! you are the latest victim :))
Maybe I have bad humor but it was meant as a troll comment to the ridiculos debate about Fischers "busting" of the KG.. I thought my overly serious approach to something everyone can see is a april fools joke was clue enough
(The idea of a computer calculating 10^100 moves is absolutely stupid, try to write the zeros )
Hard to admit that you were taken in, I suppose. If it's any consolation, a number of other players also believed it.
I actually first saw it here in a thread a few months ago when a guy made a case for it, but it doesn't matter. I just found it hillarious because the move 3. Be2 is terrible, something which almost noone in the thread at that time commented on. I thought chessbases joke this year was great too (the radical changes to rating that fide allegidly planned for april).
Jul 18, 2013
0
#90
Kijiri wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Kijiri wrote:
rahim_me_123 wrote
It was an aprilfool prank by chessbase!! you are the latest victim :))
Maybe I have bad humor but it was meant as a troll comment to the ridiculos debate about Fischers "busting" of the KG.. I thought my overly serious approach to something everyone can see is a april fools joke was clue enough
(The idea of a computer calculating 10^100 moves is absolutely stupid, try to write the zeros )
Hard to admit that you were taken in, I suppose. If it's any consolation, a number of other players also believed it.
I actually first saw it here in a thread a few months ago when a guy made a case for it, but it doesn't matter. I just found it hillarious because the move 3. Be2 is terrible, something which almost noone in the thread at that time commented on. I thought chessbases joke this year was great too (the radical changes to rating that fide allegidly planned for april).
Be2 is not terrible at all, it is a legit variation. A little passive for the the opening IMO but it is not terrible
The point, it's a well known variation dismissed by theory as inferior to any sort of main line. It is hardly ever played, and most general opening books describe it as rubbish and giving black instant equality. It doesn't lose on the spot but it's a bit like calling the parham a good opening to make a case for it.
Jul 18, 2013
0
#92
Arguing equality in a position that already is not equal is a little redundant. Look I am not saying it is better than Nf3 or Bc4, but it is a viable option. And with all due respect Crabiano since your rating is higher, but one move deep is nothing. I ran it by fritz and Kc6 was much better. I mean if you could explain further what that move does and my variations I would consider it an argument
BMeck wrote:
Arguing equality in a position that already is not equal is a little redundant.
How about a variation like this:
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Be2 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. d4 Be7
Black has a pawn more, is ahead in devlement and ready to castle. Sure white has the better better center but I would argue equality Or slight advantage to black (also white can't castle). The line can likely be improved on but Be2 allows a lot of options. Also to the best of my knowledge f5 is the reason it's considered bad, though I don't fancy the move myself obviously stronger players do.
What's the idea of 3.Be2 anyway? I would be worried about something simple like 3...d5.
Jul 18, 2013
0
#95
Kijiri, in that variation Nf3 gets tempo on the queen. But what I am trying to say is that white gives black that pawn advantage. Reaching equality is more what white wants to strive for in the KGA, either by getting the pawn back or tactically/positionally.... I personally consider them similar since you must have a sound position to attack correctly...... and Crabiano, that does not say anything. What you are proving to me is that you are not even strong enough to see the benefit of the move, in the long term. Be2 might be consider "bad" in grandmaster play, but using that as an argument between players like us is not convincing. Like I said fritz has Nc6 much better
Well I always thought 3.Nc3 was an interesting move.
Jul 18, 2013
0
#97
Blacks center is destroyed as well so it really does not need to compensate. To me it looks like black did what everyone says is wrong with the KG, that white pushed the f pawn..... White takes the f pawn, then what?
in the 3 Nc3 line, i don't see any reason to play 4.. d5, even c6 seems better.
the queen check forcing the king to e2 is not as disruptive as it looks, though i don't really see any compelling reason for white to allow it.
Jul 18, 2013
0
#99
Crabiano wrote:
Thank you. I could see why GMs do not like the move. I thought black was going to get a bigger advantage, although small I think a GM could pull a win from. I guess I will have to check databases to see
I don't know if this has been posted in which case I apologize for a repost.
According to the strongest computer cluster in the world with 2880 clusters spending more than 4 months calculating, the kings gambit is busted. The only move that draws for white is 3. Be2, everything else loses by force assuming perfect play. Acording to the man behind it the computer has analyzed around 10^100 moves, using an algorithm that classifies a position evaluated as 5.12 advantage as a forced win (acording to the developer the computer has never failed to convert such an advantage).
Moreover interestingly enough, the Knights gambit has indeed been busted and it's now proven that black will always win with perfect play with the move 3.. d6. White has a theoretical forced draw after the move 3.. g5, so Fischers move was indeed more accurate! I highly suspect it was by pure luck though. Fairly interesting read but hardly anything that will matter to the average player of the Kings gambit although they have stated that the findings will be published and possible to acces on the internet.
Here's a link to a news article covering it on chessbase:
http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4008047
Did you happen to notice the date of that publication? It's rather an important detail.
Amusingly enough, I've seen some fairly strong correspondence players parrot this information.