Forums

Are there reasons to play King's Gambit over Queen's Gambit?

Marcyful

Objectively speaking, the QG is a lot more solid, follows basic principles, and is overall a better opening. But is there anything the KG has that the QG cannot offer besides being a less popular opening that most players don't come across often? I'm planning to use this opening again after a while now that I have a better understanding of chess and a sharper eye for tactics. If there are some pros in the KG that I can take advantage of, that's great! If not, well I guess its time I stop playing the KG for good. Thoughts?

odradek77

For me, it is all about liking positional(qg) or tactical (kg).

Marcyful

I supposed that has something to do with the KG starting with e4 and the QG starting with d4.

odradek77

Sure! Thus the roads divert from then onhappy.png

NikkiLikeChikki
In the KG you trade a pawn and king safety for a strong center and a quick attack. It’s the chess equivalent of playing with fire, but it’s fast and fun and can lead to very beautiful mates. Your games are also likely to be much shorter in the KG with a higher chance by both sides of getting a middle game mate.

It gets a bad rap because it has fallen out of favor with grandmasters, but the simple fact is that except at the very highest levels, you’re just as likely to win with the KG as the QG. Just because Magnus doesn’t play it doesn’t mean anything to 99.99% of chess players.
ApolL26

This is a bad question. The Queen's Gambit and King's Gambit have nothing in common, apart from the gambit in their name, and even that isn't similar, because you easily win the pawn back in the Queen's Gambit. They are completely different openings. The Queen's Gambit is much better objectively like you said, but your opponents will also know how to respond to that, which might not be the case with the King's Gambit. Remember, if you want to play the King's Gambit, you have to learn something against every response to 1.e4.

But yes, the King's Gambit is a lot sharper than the Queen's Gambit, and you will have to be willing to sacrifice a lot of pieces to play it. You should also know it pretty well if you're going to play it.

Marcyful

Well they are similar in the sense that you try to deflect your opponent's central pawn by gambiting a pawn. Really, the only thing that makes the 2 different is the positioning of the king and queen.

ThrillerFan
Marcyful wrote:

Well they are similar in the sense that you try to deflect your opponent's central pawn by gambiting a pawn. Really, the only thing that makes the 2 different is the positioning of the king and queen.

 

Still they are not similar.

 

The Queen's Gambit is not really a Gambit at all.  If Black takes it, White WILL get the pawn back.

 

In the King's Gambit, Black can often hold the pawn.

 

In the Queen's Gambit, you TEMPORARILY give up a pawn for the center and your King is safe.

 

In the King's Gambit, you give up a pawn PERMANENTLY and you also give up King Safety just to get a big center?  That is like saying I will give you one share of Coca-Cola stock and one share of Pepsi stock if you give me one share of Shasta stock!  NOT WORTH IT!

 

Of course, if I am Black - the one receiving the Coke and Pepsi stock - then yes!  Of course it is worth it and then some!

 

I do not play 1...e5 against 1.e4 because of 2.Nf3, not 2.f4.  If everyone played 2.f4, I'd be a 1...e5 player in a heartbeat!

Marcyful
ThrillerFan wrote:
Marcyful wrote:

Well they are similar in the sense that you try to deflect your opponent's central pawn by gambiting a pawn. Really, the only thing that makes the 2 different is the positioning of the king and queen.

 

Still they are not similar.

 

The Queen's Gambit is not really a Gambit at all.  If Black takes it, White WILL get the pawn back.

 

In the King's Gambit, Black can often hold the pawn.

 

In the Queen's Gambit, you TEMPORARILY give up a pawn for the center and your King is safe.

 

In the King's Gambit, you give up a pawn PERMANENTLY and you also give up King Safety just to get a big center?  That is like saying I will give you one share of Coca-Cola stock and one share of Pepsi stock if you give me one share of Shasta stock!  NOT WORTH IT!

 

Of course, if I am Black - the one receiving the Coke and Pepsi stock - then yes!  Of course it is worth it and then some!

 

I do not play 1...e5 against 1.e4 because of 2.Nf3, not 2.f4.  If everyone played 2.f4, I'd be a 1...e5 player in a heartbeat!

Considering I've never heard about Shasta before despite being an avid soft drink lover, I'm guessing its bad or at the very least not as good isn't it?

ThrillerFan
Marcyful wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
Marcyful wrote:

Well they are similar in the sense that you try to deflect your opponent's central pawn by gambiting a pawn. Really, the only thing that makes the 2 different is the positioning of the king and queen.

 

Still they are not similar.

 

The Queen's Gambit is not really a Gambit at all.  If Black takes it, White WILL get the pawn back.

 

In the King's Gambit, Black can often hold the pawn.

 

In the Queen's Gambit, you TEMPORARILY give up a pawn for the center and your King is safe.

 

In the King's Gambit, you give up a pawn PERMANENTLY and you also give up King Safety just to get a big center?  That is like saying I will give you one share of Coca-Cola stock and one share of Pepsi stock if you give me one share of Shasta stock!  NOT WORTH IT!

 

Of course, if I am Black - the one receiving the Coke and Pepsi stock - then yes!  Of course it is worth it and then some!

 

I do not play 1...e5 against 1.e4 because of 2.Nf3, not 2.f4.  If everyone played 2.f4, I'd be a 1...e5 player in a heartbeat!

Considering I've never heard about Shasta before despite being an avid soft drink lover, I'm guessing its bad or at the very least not as good isn't it?

 

Shasta is the third largest softdrink company in the United States behind Coke and Pepsi.  The drop-off is significant, and most grocery stores do not even sell it, and instead sell just Coke, Pepsi, and local brands (like RC Cola, Cheerwine, and Sun Drop in North Carolina).

 

Shasta is most often seen in hospitals because it is cheaper than Coke or Pepsi.

NikkiLikeChikki

The King's Gambit is not Shasta, it's Pepsi. The data don't lie and there's only a 1% difference in win rate. For all intents and purposes you are just as likely to win with the KG as you are with the QG unless you're rated over 2500, period. You can make all kinds of theoretical arguments about why it's bad, but it offers practical chances and wins at an almost identical rate. Your choice should be based upon what fits your style and not what Magnus plays.

Marcyful

But in the end, QG will always be the Coca-Cola.

NikkiLikeChikki

Unless you happen to not like Coca-Cola.

Jenium

Most has been said. They don't have much in common, except for the name.  The QG is an excellent strategical opening with many different long term plans. In the KG you open the f-file to throw everything at Black's king.  

One reason why you should consider playing the KG (at least for a while), is that it is a good idea to play a gambit at some point of your chess life. The old Russian GMs recommended that every player should follow the historical development of openings... starting with gambits, before using more sophisticated openings.

 

 

Jenium
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

The King's Gambit is not Shasta, it's Pepsi.

Wouldn't that be an argument to stay away from the KG? Empty carbs and tons of sugar for the teeth.

Stil1

Why not play them both?

I play a variety of openings, depending on my mood.

Experience with different openings and structures can lead to greater positional understanding.

You can play the King's Gambit sometimes, and the Queen's Gambit other times.

After a while, you may find yourself gravitating toward one, more than the other. Then you'll have your answer, on which you'd prefer to play.

ThrillerFan
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

The King's Gambit is not Shasta, it's Pepsi. The data don't lie and there's only a 1% difference in win rate. For all intents and purposes you are just as likely to win with the KG as you are with the QG unless you're rated over 2500, period. You can make all kinds of theoretical arguments about why it's bad, but it offers practical chances and wins at an almost identical rate. Your choice should be based upon what fits your style and not what Magnus plays.

 

I am going to wager you are including all games in your stats, including thise in ancient times (1900) when nobody knew theory.

 

Bet you that difference in score is far more substantial is you did 21st century games only (2001 to 2021).

ThrillerFan
Jenium wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

The King's Gambit is not Shasta, it's Pepsi.

Wouldn't that be an argument to stay away from the KG? Empty carbs and tons of sugar for the teeth.

 

Shhhhhh!  I am trying to help the dentists out there make more business!  LOL!

NikkiLikeChikki

The stats are from that other web site’s database. They actually keep track of what players play and let’s you check what moves are played and how winning they are by rating. The site has been around since 2010, has about 32 million games, and most of the games have been played in the last few years. Feel free to go and check for yourself.

melvinbluestone
Jenium wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

The King's Gambit is not Shasta, it's Pepsi.

Wouldn't that be an argument to stay away from the KG? Empty carbs and tons of sugar for the teeth.

    Agreed. Not a very good analogy.

No matter how bad anybody thinks the KG is (personally I love it), it's a lot better than Coke, or Pepsi or any of that fizzy garbage that passes for some kind of beverage fit for human consumption.