I play the danish against someone (unrated game please)
A Challenge to the GambitKing
Sort:
Gambitknight wrote:
Gambitking: if you're still interested in expanding this little tug of war with the "Refuters vs. Gambiteers" challenge, I'd be glad to volunteer my services in defence of gambit systems...
That being said, please don't put me up for the Latvian.
Want a Kings gambit game as white against me?
Gareth_Smith: And the fun begins. King's Gambit, here we go.
DrSpudnik wrote:
I hear a lot of trash talk but see no actual playing...
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=41823133
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=41823621
http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=41825887
I'm playing 3 games against the gambit openings and have challenged onetwentysix to an unrated Danish gambit game where I play black.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#27
Gambitking wrote:
westy1 wrote:
Rubbish. If you believe that 1 game between 2 amateurs can "prove" anything about an opening, you really are quite deluded. The only way it can be close to proven that an opening is sound or not is through top level games and concrete analysis of that opening. If you really believe that the OP was right in saying that he can prove that the Latvian is not worth playing after this game then you'll stop playing it if you lose badly, and somehow I doubt that.
You must have not read my post--I never claimed that such a game would prove anything to YOU... nor do I want it to! You must play with your own style, and come to your own conclusions! However, for me, a 'practical test' can be of great value to 'practical players'... it only makes sense to look at the kinds of things you are actually likely to see in a real game, TO ME--and by the way, when did I say that the Latvian had to be "worth playing" for me to play it? I'm probably already known around here as someone who plays lots of stuff that's not "worth playing"... and that's fine by me, since it's not what I base my decisions on! Thanks for the input, it's actually really insightful and interesting for me to hear other opinions such as yours, westy1! It's also been a while since I've lived in the U. K., so it's nice to hear the word "rubbish" every once in a while!
The Gambit King
No, it should be clear that me and Gareth weren't talking about"personal proof" for any individual (whatever that means). He issued the challenge with the intent of "proving that the Latvian Gambit is not worth playing". Which as I said is not possible based on just 1 game between 2 amateurs. You seem to have misunderstood something from my 1st post. I never mentioned anything about the game being of no value to anyone, just that nothing can be "proved" by it about the opening. Understand now?
People don't say "rubbish" in America?
I said that I would prove it wasn't worth playing to try to make sure I got some games against people who are experienced at playing gambits to see if I could beat them. It was an attempt to goad people into playing it against me, an unnecessary attempt it seems.
Anyways, 1-0 to the refuters.
but that was a kings gambit? i thought this was a thread about the validity of the latvian gambit
I volunteer my services to the refuters. also I would like to request to gambit king that our current game be counted toward the score in this contest(the kings gambit one, not the queen's gambit one)
tigergutt wrote:
but that was a kings gambit? i thought this was a thread about the validity of the latvian gambit
The GambitKing suggested a Refuters vs Gambiteers match of some kind, The GambitKnight doesn't like the Latvian gambit but seems to play the kings gambit so we played that instead. I posted the game up as earlier someone said this thread was all talk no action, or something along those lines.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#32
The Latvian is a little crazy, but the fact that FM Karklins has played it for longer than you've been alive means that it's viable.
Ha ha, what a tool!
calling me a tool has no place here. it was a semi-joke and even if you thought I was completely serious(a legitimate interpretation since there is no way to convey intent through tone of voice) then a simple no would have sufficed.
I'm sorry man, but it just doesn't work like that--you've already practically won that game, and it started quite a bit before any of this junk happened, while I was studying a TON for my pre-med classes... so really, before stuff gets too crazy, give me a chance to catch my breath!
yes and I had to study for AP US History class every day(if I hear correctly then I have classes a little more frequently than you do- 7 a day as opposed to 1 or 2.) would that excuse me hanging my queen?(or in this case knight?) But in that case then I challenge you to another kg game counting toward this competition with you having white
Oct 29, 2010
0
#34
This is how you play kings gambit with black! Who the tell does xe4 when this is an instant win? (Yes I am kidding, Qf6 is an interesting move though)
Oct 29, 2010
0
#35
Gareth_Smith wrote:
I said that I would prove it wasn't worth playing . . .
And yet, even with your win, here it stands still unproven. When you get older perhaps you'll get a chance to take some logic or math classes to learn what's actually involved in proving something.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#36
Wouter_Remmerswaal wrote:
(Yes I am kidding, Qf6 is an interesting move though)
It certainly becomes more interesting when White responds with 3.fxe5 ! 
But who's going to be stupid enough to do that?
Oct 29, 2010
0
#37
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
Wouter_Remmerswaal wrote:
(Yes I am kidding, Qf6 is an interesting move though)
It certainly becomes more interesting when White responds with 3.fxe5 ! But who's going to be stupid enough to do that?
I have had multiple people playing 3.fxe5 in blitz chess.
It happens :p. And it makes an interesting game, however white responds. For me it's a bit too dangerous to play on normal games, but in blitz I like playing it. Throws many players off their game.
Oct 29, 2010
0
#38
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
And yet, even with your win, here it stands still unproven. When you get older perhaps you'll get a chance to take some logic or math classes to learn what's actually involved in proving something.
Did read the rest of his post?
westy1 wrote:
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
And yet, even with your win, here it stands still unproven. When you get older perhaps you'll get a chance to take some logic or math classes to learn what's actually involved in proving something.
Did read the rest of his post?
This.
Oct 30, 2010
0
#40
westy1 wrote:
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
And yet, even with your win, here it stands still unproven. When you get older perhaps you'll get a chance to take some logic or math classes to learn what's actually involved in proving something.
Did read the rest of his post?
Yep. Not impressed.
Gambitking: if you're still interested in expanding this little tug of war with the "Refuters vs. Gambiteers" challenge, I'd be glad to volunteer my services in defence of gambit systems...
That being said, please don't put me up for the Latvian.