Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

King's Gambit Refuted


  • 16 months ago · Quote · #101

    Spotlion

    Seriously, people, just stop posting in this thread. We all know Yereslov's just a troll who's pissed because he can't find a filthy enough bridge to sleep under. So just stop posting here and go on with your lives.

    I shall speak no more.Cool

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #102

    chesshole

    sounds like you guys are trolling yereslov rather than him being the troll.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #103

    crtexxx

    Wow, Chesshole! Please break 10000 for your bullet games! It caps a  lifetime of first instincts and rapid judgements...we know there's no time to think in bullet, but there's time to read here...

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #104

    Yereslov

    crtexxx wrote:

    Wow, Chesshole! Please break 10000 for your bullet games! It caps a  lifetime of first instincts and rapid judgements...we know there's no time to think in bullet, but there's time to read here...

    And you found intelligent and thought provoking responses from the users here?

    If that's the case, maybe you should go out more and quit chess.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #105

    crtexxx

    Yereslov wrote:
    crtexxx wrote:

    Wow, Chesshole! Please break 10000 for your bullet games! It caps a  lifetime of first instincts and rapid judgements...we know there's no time to think in bullet, but there's time to read here...

    And you found intelligent and thought provoking responses from the users here?

    If that's the case, maybe you should go out more and quit chess.

    No, but I found complete and utter nonsense and delusion from you.

    That is why no one is trolling you, as chesshole has suggested. Or we are doing a good thing and trolling the troll.

    Maybe (no, not maybe. 102.9834% recommended by Houdini lol) you should go out more and learn that everyone will treat you like the deluded fool you are unless you learn some common sense.

    And to quiting chess? I already did for 9 months.

    Now I'm back. You, on the other hand, need to (and even high eval lol...104.3456%) quit chess permanently.

    Anyone reading your posts will agree with me..

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #106

    Yereslov

    crtexxx wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    crtexxx wrote:

    Wow, Chesshole! Please break 10000 for your bullet games! It caps a  lifetime of first instincts and rapid judgements...we know there's no time to think in bullet, but there's time to read here...

    And you found intelligent and thought provoking responses from the users here?

    If that's the case, maybe you should go out more and quit chess.

    No, but I found complete and utter nonsense and delusion from you.

    That is why no one is trolling you, as chesshole has suggested. Or we are doing a good thing and trolling the troll.

    Maybe (no, not maybe. 102.9834% recommended by Houdini lol) you should go out more and learn that everyone will treat you like the deluded fool you are unless you learn some common sense.

    And to quiting chess? I already did for 9 months.

    Now I'm back. You, on the other hand, need to (and even high eval lol...104.3456%) quit chess permanently.

    Anyone reading your posts will agree with me..

    If you think that 1.10-1.30+ is a draw in the endgame, then you are a greater idiot than I imagined.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #107

    irra7ional

    I suggest you read a bit up on the King's Gambit lines. Unfortunately the line you have suggested is utter rubbish and while with best AND NOT EASY play Black should achieve a draw, there are NO I repeat NO loosing lines in the King's Gambit that are forced.

    Recent theory suggest 4. Nc3 is the best response and White has more than enough compenstation in all lines for the pawn. I suggest research. Btw, King's Gambit is becoming somewhat more popular at 2400 + level, although hardly ever played nowadays at 2700 +.

  • 12 months ago · Quote · #108

    deepak64

    Good post.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #109

    Jamalov

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #110

    rdecredico

    irra7ional wrote:

    I suggest you read a bit up on the King's Gambit lines. Unfortunately the line you have suggested is utter rubbish and while with best AND NOT EASY play Black should achieve a draw, there are NO I repeat NO loosing lines in the King's Gambit that are forced.

    Recent theory suggest 4. Nc3 is the best response and White has more than enough compenstation in all lines for the pawn. I suggest research. Btw, King's Gambit is becoming somewhat more popular at 2400 + level, although hardly ever played nowadays at 2700 +.

    Problem for White:

    Black plays the Modern Defense and White has zero chances of advantage.

    1. e4 e5
    2. f4 d5
    3. ed ef

    and now none of the swashbuckling King's Gambit ideas come into play as Black sidesteps the entire argument with a better counter proposal.

     

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #112

    Yereslov

    pfren wrote:

    Oh, come on. White does NOT have "more than enough" in the 4.Nc3 Quaade lines, and Black can have equality (if he is not very ambitious) in several dozens of ways, including the highly conservative, yet absolutely solid 2...Nf6 - and the list goes on...

    The king's gambit can be fun only if Black agrees- else it's one of the most harmless openings in the chess literature.

    I wouldn't call it harmless.

    How many players actually bother to study the gambit fully?

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #113

    Till_98

    Please look at my blog post about e4 e5. I also covered the kingsgambit there. I have the same Repertoire as a strong german GM who said that he could never take the kingsgambit so serious. Look at the lines and you will See how harmless it really is...

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #114

    TomHaegin

    pfren hat geschrieben:

    The king's gambit can be fun only if Black agrees- else it's one of the most harmless openings in the chess literature.

    I think Gata Kamsky may have a different opinion as to harmless, just to mention a fairly recent casualty (from the Tromso World Cup I think that was).

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #115

    Hadron

    Anyone would think that chess played itself and humans are not involved. Chess opening's are only has good as the person who deploy them and more importantly against who...and to argue that an opening is either superior or deficent without taking this point into account is idiotic.

    If you are 1700 ELO player drawn to play someone rated 2600 ELO and elect to play the King's Gambit (if you can) chances are, if you lose its not the opening that would've cost you the game. Simply it will be that your opponent is far to strong technique wise. In such case even if ones opponent blunders not to badly, he will more than likely have ability to correct the mistake.

    It is just far to easy to dismiss an opening on the evidence of ones so called titled betters or the meaningless meranderings of a chess engine.

    I am not saying the likes of Till_98 are wrong, the King's Gambit may indeed be harmless at the level he plays but If you are presented with an opening you know little about, technique will only get you so far. Take Kasparovs loss to Swidler in Basman's Be2 Sicilian variation...

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #116

    FerroMaljinn

    Why the flames? Some low-rated being posts a single line in a variation of the KG and claims the entire opening is "refuted" despite numerous IMs and GMs playing it, if not regularly at least frequently in serious games.

    And you expect not to be flamed?

    Someone posted in defence of the OP "Did you see to diagram at the top?" Still not analysis. And computer aid is commonly not considered enough in opening analysis.

    What you should have done is to post analysis of various lines with a clear verdict of either -+ or -/+ on each line and then ask if this is a problem to the KG.

    All else == flames.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #117

    plutonia

    Hadron wrote:

    Anyone would think that chess played itself and humans are not involved. Chess opening's are only has good as the person who deploy them and more importantly against who...and to argue that an opening is either superior or deficent without taking this point into account is idiotic.

    If you are 1700 ELO player drawn to play someone rated 2600 ELO and elect to play the King's Gambit (if you can) chances are, if you lose its not the opening that would've cost you the game. Simply it will be that your opponent is far to strong technique wise. In such case even if ones opponent blunders not to badly, he will more than likely have ability to correct the mistake.

    It is just far to easy to dismiss an opening on the evidence of ones so called titled betters or the meaningless meranderings of a chess engine.

    I am not saying the likes of Till_98 are wrong, the King's Gambit may indeed be harmless at the level he plays but If you are presented with an opening you know little about, technique will only get you so far. Take Kasparovs loss to Swidler in Basman's Be2 Sicilian variation...

     

    Some openings are harder to play (require more theory) than others, so our 1700 would lose much faster against a GM if he chooses dubious or double edged positions.


Back to Top

Post your reply: