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

Sort:
NikkiLikeChikki

So I did a deeper dive into the statistics and started breaking down win/loss percentages by rating.

KG 1600 rated: 53% win for white, 44% win for black.

QG 1600 rated: 53% win for white, 43% win for black.

KG 2000 rated: 49% win for white, 47% win for black.

QG 2000 rated: 51% win for white, 43% win for black.

KG: 2500 rated: 50% win for white, 44% win for black.

QG 2500 rated: 48% win for white, 42% win for black.

KG Master games: 30% win for white, 36% win for black.

QG Master games: 33% win for white, 19% win for black.

So obviously, amongst masters, the QG does significantly better for white. What I found really strange was that 2500 rated players did better with the KG as white than 2000 players. This is completely counterintuitive. The narrative is that better players handle the KG better than lower rated ones, but this is completely not the case. My guess is that if you're 2500 and playing the KG, you *really* know your theory.

Anyway, the entire narrative that QG is better than the KG is based upon the way masters play, and the *unsound* inference that this somehow applies to the way mortals play chess. The only reasonable conclusion, based upon the evidence provided by a large database of games, is that you can play either and will do essentially equally well, assuming equal understanding of the positions that arise.

odradek77
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

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.

May you please suggest the site's name?

llama47

One thing no one has pointed out yet (at least not that I noticed when I skimmed) is they're entirely different repertoires. Not just openings... repertoires. If you want to switch from 1.d4 to 1.e4 you need to learn all sorts of openings. The king's gambit isn't even an option unless black plays 1...e5.

That's one (of a few) reasons this is a weird question.

tygxc

#22
"2500 rated players did better with the KG as white than 2000 players"
There are 2 other explanations for this
1) 2500 players play 2 f4 as a surprise and their opponents are not prepared for it
2) 2500 players play 2 f4 against weaker players to avoid draws

NikkiLikeChikki

@odradek77 I have hinted at the site’s name in a previous post and referred to it as “that other site.” I’ve been told that referring to that other site by name is a no-no since it’s this site’s direct competitor. They maintain a database of about 32 million games, and in their analysis board, every time you play a move it tells you how often it was played and win%. You can also break it down by rating. Everything I’ve posted here is easily verifiable. I would prefer to use chesscom's database, but they don't provide such a feature.

NikkiLikeChikki

@llama47 - True, in the abstract it's a weird question. We humans, however, love to play with the idea of opposites or things that at least superficially seem like natural contrasts. Ideas such as fire and ice, male and female, love and hate are tropes used in literature and poetry all of the time, and the KG and QG are natural opposites.

The KG and QG, aside from the gender differences that make us think of them as opposites, are also philosophical antipodes. As archetypes, the KG represents quick tactical play and is the YOLO of chess openings. The QG represents a safer, more strategic, more measured, and more scientific approach to the game. There are perhaps no two better examples of openings that typify these contrasting philosophies.

Finally, e5 is the most common reply to e4, and d5 is the most common reply to d4 (I double checked). In this way, the KG and QG are both easily reached in a majority of games on move 2.

So maybe it's not so weird a question.

ThrillerFan
Solmyr1234 wrote:

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

Queen's Gambit = mutual bore.

King's Gambit = mutual fun.

---

End of discussion

 

Queen's Gambit = slight advantage for White

King's Gambit = Black is winning

ThrillerFan
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

@llama47 - True, in the abstract it's a weird question. We humans, however, love to play with the idea of opposites or things that at least superficially seem like natural contrasts. Ideas such as fire and ice, male and female, love and hate are tropes used in literature and poetry all of the time, and the KG and QG are natural opposites.

The KG and QG, aside from the gender differences that make us think of them as opposites, are also philosophical antipodes. As archetypes, the KG represents quick tactical play and is the YOLO of chess openings. The QG represents a safer, more strategic, more measured, and more scientific approach to the game. There are perhaps no two better examples of openings that typify these contrasting philosophies.

Finally, e5 is the most common reply to e4, and d5 is the most common reply to d4 (I double checked). In this way, the KG and QG are both easily reached in a majority of games on move 2.

So maybe it's not so weird a question.

 

1...e5 isn't the most popular reply to 1.e4.  You cannot go based on an entire database because trends change.

 

Pre-1900, 99% of games that started 1.e4 were replied with 1...e5, so of course the statistics will be skewed.

 

But if you look at the computer generation - 1990 to 2021, you will see those numbers have changed significantly, and 1...c5 is the most popular reply to 1.e4.

NikkiLikeChikki

@thrillerfan - even if you weren't wrong, which you are, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I was talking about the openings being symbolic of a larger philosophical difference and you quibble with numbers? I just don't get it.

Don

Here's something I searched up in two seconds:

Sack_o_Potatoes
DonRajesh wrote:

Here's something I searched up in two seconds:

 

I don't see how that's true

NikkiLikeChikki

@DonRajesh - that's just one person's opinion that is almost certainly based on the conventional wisdom and no data is presented. The data above clearly shows that it should be fine at mid-tier and even non-master higher tier tournaments.

Listen, I've never argued that the KG is a great opening, just that it's not nearly as bad as all of the forum experts say that it is. They are basing their opinions on what theory books written by masters say and not what the actual data say. Sure, if you're 2800 and playing at Tata Steel, it's a bad opening, but choosing your opening based upon what Magnus plays is like choosing your sneakers based upon what LaBron James wears, and not what fits you best and is most comfortable for you.

Stil1
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

Sure, if you're 2800 and playing at Tata Steel, it's a bad opening, but choosing your opening based upon what Magnus plays is like choosing your sneakers based upon what LaBron James wears, and not what fits you best and is most comfortable for you.

I'm guessing the King's Gambit is fine at the 2800 level, too.

In fact, the higher up the ratings go (2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700 -->), black's winning percentage gets smaller and smaller.

At the highest level (2700+), the King's Gambit is scoring 45% for white, and only 15% for black. Crushing.

Granted, a lot of these games are rapid/blitz.

Objectively, I don't think this means that the KG is a win for white, though. But I do think it's sharp, and can lead to practical difficulties for black that can be difficult to solve, especially in rapid and blitz, where time pressure is a factor.

Probably if two top engines play a series of games, the KG would likely fizzle out to mostly draws ... like most main openings.

Marcyful
Stil1 wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

Sure, if you're 2800 and playing at Tata Steel, it's a bad opening, but choosing your opening based upon what Magnus plays is like choosing your sneakers based upon what LaBron James wears, and not what fits you best and is most comfortable for you.

I'm guessing the King's Gambit is fine at the 2800 level, too.

In fact, the higher up the ratings go (2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700 -->), black's winning percentage gets smaller and smaller.

At the highest level (2700+), the King's Gambit is scoring 45% for white, and only 15% for black. Crushing.

Granted, a lot of these games are rapid/blitz.

Objectively, I don't think this means that the KG is a win for white, though. But I do think it's sharp, and can lead to practical difficulties for black that can be difficult to solve, especially in rapid and blitz, where time pressure is a factor.

Probably if two top engines play a series of games, the KG would likely fizzle out to mostly draws ... like most main openings.

45% for white in the 2700 rating range?! That's nuts

NikkiLikeChikki

@Stil1  - actually, the last time I checked, which was a couple of years ago, they stopped using the King's Gambit in computer chess championships. I asked one of the mods why there were no KG games in the finals between Leela and Stockfish, and he said that the games were always a draw and ended up being uninteresting.

Stil1
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

@Stil1  - actually, the last time I checked, which was a couple of years ago, they stopped using the King's Gambit in computer chess championships. I asked one of the mods why there were no KG games in the finals between Leela and Stockfish, and he said that the games were always a draw and ended up being uninteresting.

Yeah, that sounds about right (about the high amount of draws).

Not sure if I agree with him about the "uninteresting" part, though. tongue.png KG games are often quite exciting. I suppose it depends on taste.

Stil1
Marcyful wrote:

45% for white in the 2700 rating range?! That's nuts

It has been played, on the white side, by players like Carlsen, Kasparov, Ivanchuk, Nakamura ... aggressive, tactical GMs.

Though admittedly, it hasn't been played much. More of a surprise weapon.

ThrillerFan
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

@thrillerfan - even if you weren't wrong, which you are, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I was talking about the openings being symbolic of a larger philosophical difference and you quibble with numbers? I just don't get it.

 

 

Your basis is weak.  Clearly a biased database.  Try using a real database.

Even this one is small, but it's bigger than yours, and the Sicilian outbeats 1...e5 by over 300,000 games:

B00: King's pawn opening - 1. e4 - Chess Opening explorer (365chess.com)

ThrillerFan
ThrillerFan wrote:
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:

@thrillerfan - even if you weren't wrong, which you are, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. I was talking about the openings being symbolic of a larger philosophical difference and you quibble with numbers? I just don't get it.

 

 

Your basis is weak.  Clearly a biased database.  Try using a real database.

Even this one is small, but it's bigger than yours, and the Sicilian outbeats 1...e5 by over 300,000 games:

B00: King's pawn opening - 1. e4 - Chess Opening explorer (365chess.com)

 

And again I said, if you include all games before 1900, then yes, it will show as the most played because it is the most played EVER, not the most played NOW!

 

There were no computers in 1783.

There was no French Defense in 1783 (While 1...e6 was played a time or 2 by Greco, the French Defense gained its popularity in 1834)

 

So again, try eliminating all games before the computer era (pre-1990).

 

Bet if you look at chess today, 1990 to 2021, that 1...c5 would beat 1...e5 by a Landslide, and I don't even play 1...c5 and I know this!

 

SMH!

NikkiLikeChikki
@thrillerfan - Those games are from a web site created in 2010 and are from player games, as I’ve stated previously.

And again, you’re being completely non sequitur. It has no real relevance to the original point I was trying to make, even if you were right… which you’re not.