"What about the Falkbeer countergambit?
According to chessgames.com it has the following record:"

 

jkor, It would seem on the surface that the Falkbeer has a good record against the KG. I think one has to be careful about winning %'s from a database, particulary one like chessgames.com's where the games are hand-picked. The percentages are precise for the games in the database, but may not reflect games in toto. Many games, such as Morphy's for example, might be instructive, but one-sided. Also, I think at different skill levels certain openings and defenses may have different results. The Muzio (or even the KG in general) might be very effective at mid-level, but less so at higher levels. I, personally, find it harder to play against the Cunningham defense more so than the Falkbeer, so there could be individual differences whereas certain opening variations are more effective against one person, but less so against another person of similar skill.  Mostly, the KG is a fun opening, especially for white. Even without considering all the beautiful tactics, white asserts immediate pressure on the center with it's wing pawn and poses problems for black to solve. White, on the other hand is forced to play sharply, on the edge.

Hi, everyone!    Why bother about the King's Gambit when no one plays it anymore to-day!  It has been busted by Bobby Fisher a long time ago!  It has only its "historical" value left.  It was an Opening frequently used in the romantic era of the pre- Morphy  period with its "swashbuckling", cut and thrust style which would invariaby fail to-day because of the highly defensive technic that modern players possess.  Those who are familiar with the "Kiezeritztsky' variation of the KGA will understand how Fischer busted this opening.  However it has its entertaining value though, it is fun to play over these  "Old - Style"  games.

Etiene, why are you so angy? This matter has nothing to do with you!  Anyway, I will not be bringing it up anymore. The matter is closed.

An old acquaintance of mine, Thomas Johansson, had written an extremely well-received book on the KG in 2005 (I think), called The Fascinatng King's Gambit. While the book covers the whole gamut of the gambit, he pushes the Bishop's Gambit as offering white the best chances.  Thomas' personal, though rarely updated, site; his page summarizing his book. He also wrote a later book on the Réti Gambit.

 

 

A win by Johansson in the 2001 Nordic Championship (ironically,  not playing the Bishop's Gambit)

 

 

 

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 2004 win by Short over Bacrot using the Bishop's Opening:

 

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 1996 win by Fedorov playing a KGD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above positions are misleading, because you forget, black can easily hinder your plans to focus your peices aggresively. A more accurate diagram would show black's diagram.

Hotflow,  I think so too!  maybe the hot  chilliies we take by the tons make us flare up easily. But that's just an excuse. Blame it on old age with accompanying  physical impediment.   This is more true!   I used to be able to run up Braddell Hills where I live. Now I can only crawl up the hills!

KIng Leopold, I agree with you absolutely. But the King's Gambit should be taught to beginners, with the proviso you stipulated : 1)centre-control  2)simple attacking motifs.  It is  not  an Opening for your students to adopt  in competitive play.

Batgirl,    for once I  agree with you!  The King's Bishop's  gambit offers White the best chance.  I  use it now, frequently,  in my blitz games. It  has  many traps to catch the unwary.  But it can only be useful in blitz!

 I believe no one has been able to "debunk"  Fischer's refutation of the King's Gambit  yet, until this very day!  Can anyone provide a counter to his analysis? It would be very interesting to know!

Singa wrote: Hi, everyone!    Why bother about the King's Gambit when no one plays it anymore to-day!  It has been busted by Bobby Fisher a long time ago!  It has only its "historical" value left.  It was an Opening frequently used in the romantic era of the pre- Morphy  period with its "swashbuckling", cut and thrust style which would invariaby fail to-day because of the highly defensive technic that modern players possess.  Those who are familiar with the "Kiezeritztsky' variation of the KGA will understand how Fischer busted this opening.  However it has its entertaining value though, it is fun to play over these  "Old - Style"  games.

---

Since I'm not familiar with the Kieseritsky variation and Fisher's treatment of this gambit as black, could you please post some example?

Kieseritsky Gambit:

Thank you once more Likesforests.

But what about Fisher "having busted this opening"?

KG is generally played by white. It is a dangerous opening and white would not play it until and unless he is an experienced player.

Fischer's "bust" begins: 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf 3. Nf3 d6. The set-up involves black with pawn at h6--so White's knight is denied both e5 and g5 for attacking f7--pawn at g5 so the extra pawn is defended, fianchettoed bishop at g7 so that Black's KR is defended if White tries to open the file with h4. Do not know details of Fischer's variation, but in this formation if Black plays g5 White's knight has nowhere to go forward, he has to go back and impede the development of other pieces. Alternately, sometimes White's KN is pinned by Black's QB. Black's fianchettoed bishop and QN may menace White's pawn at d4, while Black may counterattack against White's KP with Nf6. I play versions of this set-up against the King's Gambit; some I win, some I lose. I would be interested in more details of Fischer's analysis.

Here is the whole article:

 

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/bust.txt

 

This may have been enough for Fischer to have "busted" the King's Gambit, but not for poor mortals (like most of us). The King's Gambit is alive and kicking I am happy to inform the reader!

Thanks, Ray Brooks. I have printed out the whole article from link you provided. I will study it with interest. Maybe it will help me. I keep messing up the move order--Fischer's variation requires very exact play.

jkor wrote:

What the KGA and KGD acronyms are for ?

---

KGA is kings gambit accepted KGD is kings gambit declined

Singa wrote: Hi, everyone!    Why bother about the King's Gambit when no one plays it anymore to-day!  It has been busted by Bobby Fisher a long time ago!  It has only its "historical" value left.  It was an Opening frequently used in the romantic era of the pre- Morphy  period with its "swashbuckling", cut and thrust style which would invariaby fail to-day because of the highly defensive technic that modern players possess.  Those who are familiar with the "Kiezeritztsky' variation of the KGA will understand how Fischer busted this opening.  However it has its entertaining value though, it is fun to play over these  "Old - Style"  games.

---

 busted by bobby fischer?? im a fischer fan but to refute what you were saying, read the book by larry evens " chess catechism". there gm evans explains good details about KG and how bobby fischer dislikes it at first then uses the opening afterwards swallowing what he had spitted.

I have the feeling this is going to be a long, tedious posting and I apologize pre-emptively.

I'd like to say that I respectfully, yet totally, disagree with Singa concerning the King's Gambit. Not only has it never been even close to being refuted, it's as good an opening as any to use in competitive play. There are many reasons it's gone out of style but none of them has to do with its intrinsic value.

Fischer's self-styled "Bust" of the King's Gambit (published in the first issue of Larry Evans' edited Americam Chess Quarterly in 1961) is one of the most famous and most quoted opening analyses in history. As far as it goes, it's considered a fine piece of analysis, but it's title is a gross exaggeration. Even Fischer only tried to demonstrate that after 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3, 3... d6 was the one line that was a forced win for Black.  Viktor Korchnoi (long after Fischer's Bust) went as far as to state that 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 (the line Fischer analyzed) was advantageous for White.  So, it's apparent that Fischer's analysis hadn't been universally accepted as a "Bust" by those who would know.

 

Fischer penned his article as a response to his loss to Spassky in Mar del Plata, 1960. Here's the game:

 

 In the 1963 US Championship Fischer (as White) played a King's Gambit against Larry Evans (who published his Bust article). Fischer played 2. f4 fully realizing that Evans would accept the gambit, since Evans' credo was that all gambits were essentially wrong and should be accepted  Fischer, of course, also knew that Evans knew Fischer's analysis inside-out. Why would Fischer play a line he knew was a bust??  hmmm......

 

Here's the game:

 

Andy Soltis wrote the following in Bobby Fischer Revisited (2003). You can use the above viewer to follow the text:

 

Fischer -Larry Evans
US Championship
New York 1963-64

1 e4  e5
2 f4!
This move created a sensation when it was played on a demonstration board at the playing site, the Henry Hudson Hotel. Fischer had lost a well-known game to Spassky's King's Gambit at Mar del Plata 1960 and later wrote an article "A Bust to the King's Gambit" for American Chess Quarterly, a magazine edited by ... Larry Evans.
2  ...   exf4
3. Bc4  Qh4+
Fischer's choice of the Bishop's Gambit is unusual - but Evans reply is positively bizarre! The queen check hadn't been played at the grandmaster level since Speilmann-Levenfish, Moscow 1925. Modern players prefer 3...Nf6 and/or a quick  ...d5
4. Kf1  d5
5. Nc3  Be6
6. Qe2  c6?!
Black's policy of containment in the center only works if he keeps the house of kingside cards intact. Better was  6...Nc6
7. Nf3  Qe7
After 7 ... Qh5 White can play 8. Nd5! with a serious edge.
8. d4  Bxc4
9. Qxc4  g5
In Fischer's "Bust" he advocated 1. e4  e5  2. f4  exf4  3. Nf3  d6  4. d4  g5  5. Bc4  h6. Gambit fans tried to revive the opening by attacking Black's pawns with 5. h4  g4  6. Ng1 and Nge2.
A similar policy would work here - 10. h4  g4  11. Ne1 Bh6  12. Nd3.
But Fischer has a sharper plan.
10. e5!
In principle, White's develpment should warrant sacking a second pawn. But what specifically does he have after 10 ... dxe5  11. dxe5  Nd7 ?
Black equalizes after 12. Ne4  Nxe5  13. Nxe5  Qxe5  14. Bd2  Qd5! as Fischer pointed out. Similarly, 11. Nxe5  Nd7  12. h4  Nxe5  13. dxe5  Qxe5  14. hxg5  Bd6  and 15 ... 0-0-0.
Most likely, Fischer would have made it a real gambit - 11. Bd2! with the idea of 11... Nd7  12. Re1  Bg7  13. h4 and White has promising play.
10 ... d5
If the center remains closed, Black will be overwhelmed on the kingside. That means ...f6 becomes a must after this.
11. Qd3  Na6
Black can see that h2-h4 will hurt so he hurries to castle and prepare ...f6 and ...Nb4. After 11. ...h6  12. h4  g4  13. Ne1 he is clearly worse, and after 12. ... Bg7?  13. hxg5  hxg5  14. Rxh8+  Bxh8  15. Qh7, he's losing.
12. Ne2  Nb4
13. Qd1  0-0-0?
Again 13. ... h6 is strategically bankrupt (14. c3  Na6  15. h4  Bg7 and now 16. Qd3  g4  17. Bh2  f3  18. Ng3 followed by Nf5 with good play)
But Black passed up 13. ...f6!  14. c3  Na6  15. h4  g4 and ...dxe5. White should play 15. exf6 and then 15. ... Qxf6  16. h4  g4  17. Ne5, e.g. 17. ... f3  18. Ng3  Bd6 with complex play.
14. c3  Na6
15. h4!
Now 15. ... f6  16. exf6 costs a pawn.
15.    ...    g4
16. Nh2   h5?
Since Black's kingside will be open to invasion now, it was time to scorch the earth with 16. ... f3 (17. gxf3  Qxh4  18. Kg1!? gxf3).
17. Nxf4  Qxh4?
Modern players tend to forget how well grounded in positional principles is the King's Gambit. Black's kingside is a mess (17 ... f6? 18. Ng6; 17 ... Qe8?  18. Nxh5  f5  18. Ng3) and this pawn grab smacks of frustration. But 17. ... Qd7 and ... Ne7/... Nc7  offered greater resistance.
18. Kg1!  Nh6?
White threatened 19. Nxg4  Qe7  20. Nxh5. But Black's knight is doomed on this square since it cannot be defended for long after White plays Be3/Qd2.
19. Nf1  Qe7
20. Nxf5
Material is equal but there is nothing Black can do to stop Nfg3, Be3, Qd2, Rf1 and/or Nf6.
20.    ...    Rg8
21. Nfg3  Rg6
22. Nf4  Rg5
Or 22. ... Rg8  23. Nxd5
23. Be3  Nc7
24. Qd2  Rg8
25. Nfe2!
White wins a piece, completing one of the most one-sided strategic routs in a King's Gambit since the 1880's.
25 ...  f6
26. exf6   Qxf6
27. Bxh6  Bd6
Black didn't resign until after: 28. Rf1  Qe6  29. Bf4  Rde8  30. Rh6  Bxf4  31. Qxf4  Qe7  32. Rf6  Ne6  33. Qe5  Ng5  34. Qxe7  Rxe7  35. Rf8+  Rxf8  36. Rxf8+

 

Is the King's Gambit dead professionally? It's true that it's not popular among professionals, but it's also true that it's perfectly playable at all levels.

Besides the Short-Bacrot and the Fedorov-Najer games I placed in an above posting, here are some more modern King Gambits played at the highest levels:

 

Morozevich-Anand, 1-0

 

 Gallagher-Pascal, 1-0

 

 Ivanchuk-Nikolic, 1-0

 

In his chess column (March 21, 1999) Robert Byrne wrote:

"There is no adventure that has got as bad a press as the venerable King's Gambit. One of its greatest protagonists, the Austrian Rudolph Spielmann, a genius of attack, wrote about his disillusionment in the 1920's piece, ''From the Sickbed of the King's Gambit.'' In the 1960's, Bobby Fischer wrote an article entitled, ''A Bust to the King's Gambit.''

But both these views have come to be thought of as, at the very least, gross exaggerations, even by those who won't try the opening themselves. No one agrees with Fischer's refutation, nor with Spielmann's complaint, but almost everyone feels uneasy about taking the white pieces. There are so many diverse defenses to the gambit that to play it with confidence, one has to be an encyclopedia on something that occurs rarely.

Aleksei Fedorov, a 26-year-old grandmaster from Belarus, ran away with the Goodricke International Open Tournament in Calcutta, India, early this month with a 9-2 score, a point and a half ahead of his nearest rivals. Here is a King's Gambit that sped him on his way. His opponent was Narayanan Neelakantan of India.

 

 

Although a vast majority of the world's top players in the 20th century have frowned upon the King's Gambit, daring players in every generation have taken it up. And not just to play for mate: positional geniuses like Richard Reti and Akiba Rubinstein used it enthusiastically to fight for control of the center."

 

I have the feeling this is going to be a long, tedious posting

Tedious, no. Insightful, yes.